Jones Dail: New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill — Third Reading 
Jones Dail: New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6404] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First has supported this bill from the first reading and will continue to support it in the third reading. We have pointed out from time to time however that this bill epitomises the failure of Labour Party policy. It epitomises it by the fact that it repeals the Industry New Zealand Act of 2000—an Act that will have cost this country many thousands if not hundreds of thousands of dollars. It came into effect and at the time New Zealand First supported the concept. We thought it was a good idea. At the time though we pointed out that we thought this Government would not be able to give full support to the officials and the department in so far as the Industry New Zealand Act was concerned and we have been proved correct; because here we are in 2003 repealing the Act brought in by Jim Anderton with such a big hurrah at the time saying that he was going to cure all our ills and that the Industry New Zealand Act was to be the answer. But he has failed and it does not matter what he says about how well the regions are doing as a result of good weather good trading conditions and the reliance upon the immigrants’ dollar. The fact is that Government policy in this area has failed and this Act which repeals the Industry New Zealand Act is a clear example of it. 
However we still retain the hope that this minority Labour Government—I see it is falling in the polls—will be able to this time perhaps take the advice of New Zealand First and give more support to officials and perhaps even consider giving the job to someone with more energy and a greater spark so that this time the legislation will be a success rather than the obvious failure it has been. 
Even with this bill this minority Labour Government could not even get the name right. It is a simple enough thing when one is introducing legislation to at least get the name right. If one cannot get the name right it suggests that maybe one is having difficulty with the rest of it. This bill came in as the Industry New Zealand and Trade New Zealand Integration Bill and during the course of submissions it was decided that that was not right and it would be renamed the New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill. Well New Zealand First has gone ahead and supported that change. After all one might say: “What’s in a name?”. But it does suggest that little thought has gone into the legislation. 
During the course of the Commerce Committee hearings the committee decided to include trade unions as being a group that should have been involved in the legislation and New Zealand First has supported that amendment. During the Committee stage the National Party put forward an amendment to remove trade unions from the legislation and New Zealand First opposed that amendment. We were consistent in our support for the fact that in a body like this we need the various groups referred to in the bill and I refer to clause 9(1)(a)(i)—it is a complicated bill to find one’s way around—which refers to “fostering collaborative networks and partnerships between central government local government industry trade unions”—having been inserted—“regions education and research organisations potential investors and individual enterprises;”. 
It is important in any partnership of trading and enterprise that one should have not only employers but employees and their representatives from both those groups involved in any development. New Zealand First was delighted to support the insertion of “trade unions” and to oppose the National Party amendment to delete it. 
During the Committee stage we were fairly broad in our support of and opposition to various matters. Sometimes we supported the Government sometimes we supported other Opposition parties in amendments to the legislation. One of the amendments where we supported other Opposition parties related to clause 31 “Personnel policy” in subclause (2) where this minority Labour Government consistent with its patronising approach to Maori people has been able to have inserted “(d) recognition of—(i) “the aims and aspirations of Maori; and (ii) the employment requirements of Maori; and (iii) the need for involvement of Maori as employees of NZTE;” etc. 
What a patronising clause! We have consistently said that Maoris can stand up for themselves. They do not need special treatment and they do not want special treatment. We in New Zealand First have proportionally more Maori members of Parliament than has the Labour Party. Our members express the view of the modern Maori and this type of patronising clause is not required. However the Labour Party with its majority supported by United Future insisted on that clause staying in the bill. We opposed it unsuccessfully during the Committee stage. 
We are also disappointed that no reference has been made in this legislation to tourism. Tourism plays a very big part in our economy and one of the results of people coming here through tourism and the industry surrounding tourism is that there are industries working to help the industry of tourism and we would have thought that in a New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill some recognition would be given to the tourism sector. But there is nothing in the bill to that effect despite our minority report from the select committee. 
One of the things that pleased me most about this legislation and why I was generally delighted to support it was the fact that in the functions clause—clause 9(1) to which I have just referred—there is this provision for collaborative networks and suchlike and in paragraph (b) the functions include to “provide a conduit for input and advice from industry trade unions local government regions education and research organisations potential investors and individual enterprises on programmes to implement the Government’s policies for economic industry and regional development:”. 
I say that especially in regard to the region that I have in mind which is the Whenuapai area in Waitakere City. As will be well known to many members of Parliament there is a suggestion that the RNZAF base in Auckland will close and the Labour Government has a programme to close it. In the event that that does happen and steps are taken in that direction on a final basis then it seems clear to me that this type of legislation is very very appropriate for the development of that area. We are talking about an area that currently is estimated to contribute $60 million per year to the Waitakere – North Shore economies. It is the Waitakere City Council’s single biggest employer with 14020 fulltime-equivalent employees. There are 453000 people currently living within 6 kilometres of Whenuapai; 27 percent of the families within 10 kilometres of Whenuapai have an annual income over $70000. This is a very important area for Waitakere City for North Shore City for Rodney District. If one looks at the growth of Auckland in the future in that north and north-west direction one sees that something needs to be done on a programme basis. 
This type of legislation I believe can play an important role in working with the local government people of Waitakere City Rodney District and North Shore City in much the same way as way back in 1975 when I was elected as member of Parliament for Waitemata. We had those many hundreds of acres of land around Albany that we developed and had meetings and programmes over many years which the Hon Don McKinnon continued. Now we have a wonderful development in the Albany basin area of industry and also residential areas. They are the perfect mix so one can ensure growth in a proper way with good clean industries and a good quality of development. 
If we had had a Labour Government in 1975 that area would have been State houses because that was the Labour Party plan. Imagine what that Albany area would be like if it were full of State houses in much the same way as Otara which is the way the Labour Party looked upon it then. If we look at west Auckland now Waitakere City now and Whenuapai and Hobsonville we see that is what the Labour Party plans—another Otara-type development there. I dread to think of it. I believe that the type of development we have in Albany is something that this trade enterprise committee should be looking at. 
We have had a promise from Ministers that they have established and are jointly leading the establishment of a working-group that will recommend a process by which decisions will eventually be made with regard to the Whenuapai area. This is a public message of 12 March 2003 from the Hon Mark Burton: “This group will consult with a range of Government local government and community interests.” Is that not like the situation we have in this legislation? It seems to me to be totally in keeping with it. 
Finally in this note from which I wish to read as they say it states: “Initial reports are expected from this group by the middle of this year.” Well that is this year—2003. We have not heard anything yet. The people of Whenuapai Waitakere City and surrounding areas can be sure that I will be chasing along the Ministers to make sure we do get a report. I have been pleased to support this bill for New Zealand First because I can see it playing a very very important role in the future development of Waitakere City and surrounding areas and I look forward to the way in which it will be implemented.