Blumsky Mark: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Blumsky Mark: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:4184] 
MARK BLUMSKY (National) 
: 
 It is nice to have this opportunity to speak to the appropriation for Vote Economic Industry and Regional Development. First up it is a very good opportunity for me to give some plaudits to those who work in that area. The Ministry of Economic Development may sometimes wonder given the number of questions we ask of it whether we are rather anti. That is not the case. Many things being done through organisations like New Zealand Trade and Enterprise are making a difference. 
When we read about the programmes the vote is focused on we have to say that some good things are happening like the programme to lift the capacity of firms to innovate. I have been personally involved in setting up a number of incubators funded through that programme. They have made a fantastic difference to high-growth start-ups and I applaud those initiatives. Building the connection of firms with international markets—the Beachheads programme—is a wonderful initiative which introduces New Zealand companies to international markets by helping them set up bases offshore. 
In lifting the skills and talents of the work force many training programmes are making a contribution and a difference to the economic development of New Zealand. So much within this appropriation of $286 million is making a good difference to New Zealand and some very good people inside organisations like New Zealand Trade and Enterprise are working hard with companies to help them grow. 
But it is interesting to look at what the overview for this appropriation says about evaluation. It states that if economic development is to work for New Zealand it has to be implemented effectively and that complex judgments determine which interventions may make a difference and which may not be beneficial. I feel it is very relevant to raise the issue of effective implementation as in the overview document because Minister Mallard like us noticed very early in the piece—when Katherine Rich Chris Tremain and I started to look at programmes in December and January—that many programmes had many problems. We started to raise those concerns with the appropriate parties—and what did the Minister do in about February or March? He said he thought we had better have a review of those programmes because he like the National Party members had noticed that some were not working and that it was necessary to make sure they were being implemented appropriately. 
One programme that has not worked very well—I say this because our job is to hold the Government accountable when it spends significant amounts of taxpayers’ money—is the attempt by New Zealand Trade and Enterprise to invest in retail. I will focus particularly on why on earth the Government has wanted to invest in setting up a retail operation in Hong Kong. I have no issue with the Government looking to help companies enter markets like Asia but it was interesting to see reports over the weekend of a discussion now taking place within New Zealand Trade and Enterprise that says we should not look at entering China via Beijing Shanghai or Hong Kong. We will not succeed in those markets because they are too busy. Those markets—Beijing Shanghai Hong Kong—are too big and too busy. If New Zealand is to make a successful entry into China it should look at regional China. It should look at cities like Xiamen in the Fujian Province because it is there in those smaller cities that it will be able to make a difference. It is fascinating then that the New Zealand Government is investing $1.4 million and has an annualised spend of $1.3 million in a retail store in Hong Kong. 
I have been told that the location of the retail store is very poor. It makes sense that that location is poor because the Government does not understand or get itself involved in retail. It has no expertise in retail so it makes a heck of a lot of sense that when the Government wants to open up a retail store and does it on its own recognisance it will open it up in a poor location. The Minister in answer to a question said recently that the location is satisfactory. It was most interesting that in answer to a personal question to me earlier he had said that the New Zealand focus in Hong Kong served as a “high-profile site”. Yet after we started asking questions in the House he changed his mind and in a different answer said: “I am advised the location is satisfactory.” The fascination about that is that I have met a number of people who have visited Hong Kong and who have asked me “Where in the hell is this store? We can’t find it.” I suppose I am talking about this because the overview paper for Vote Economic Industry and Regional Development says that if economic development is to work effectively for New Zealand it has to be implemented effectively. The New Zealand Government opening up retail stores on its own in Hong Kong at a huge cost to the taxpayer is not what I would call successful implementation. 
The Minister has just done a review of the growth services programme as part of his review and as part of the Budget. I put the Minister on notice that although we have mentioned that many good things are coming out of the programme one of the things we will watch with great interest is the growth services range. There is a series of programmes adding up to a cost of $57 million and the Minister’s own people are saying they are not sure whether results are coming out at the other end. They are investing money in the programmes but they are not sure about them. There is $57 million worth of “unsure if they are working” programmes because we do not know how to measure them very well at all. The Minister has recognised that in a review and we on this side of the Chamber have also recognised a weakness with those programmes. The Minister’s officials have identified the weakness and we will be watching with interest to see how he manages to make changes to ensure much better “effective implementation”.