Heatley Phil: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Heatley Phil: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:617;Page:13239] 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the National Party to voice its displeasure in respect of Industry New Zealand. Members of Parliament will know that Industry New Zealand is the Government agency that businesses said they did not want and did not need but that Jim Anderton’s photographers said they must have. The Committee will know that for some years now Jim Anderton has been touring the country with his little elves like Clayton Cosgrove throwing around $100 here a $1000 there and $10000 elsewhere. We as taxpayers know that it would have been cheaper to take out an advertisement to show Jim Anderton’s smiley face but no Industry New Zealand Jim Anderton’s promotional group has done that work for him in the last few years. 
I found it interesting when members of the Commerce Committee asked for the historical background—review if one likes—on some of the cash Jim Anderton has been throwing around the country in the last few years. We asked what the criteria were for the assistance provided. In other words when he threw taxpayer cash at those businesses what criteria did he look for and I have to say that officials struggled to give us that information. We asked what form the assistance took. Apparently it did not take the form just of cash; it also took the form of assisting in the facilitation of relationships with local agencies. I can only assume that that was Jim Anderton taking people out to dinner on the numerous credit cards that the staff of Industry New Zealand have and that he facilitated the relationship with local agencies. That is the form of assistance it took as well as the cheques Jim Anderton willingly wrote out on behalf of the taxpayer. 
We asked the agency what the projected outcomes were. The answer was that it did not have any. The committee asked whether each scheme met the projected outcomes. Of course because Industry New Zealand did not have any projected outcomes in many cases it did not meet them. We asked simple questions. We heard that Industry New Zealand was being touted as “Jim’s jobs machine” so we asked how many jobs were created; also what the projected outcomes were and why they were not achieved. The number of jobs created ranged in many cases between 10 and 100. When we asked at the select committee what those jobs were specifically we were told they were very hard to identify. It was difficult to say whether the jobs created would have been created anyway; whether a company would have shifted to New Zealand anyway; and whether—regardless of whether Jim Anderton and his corporate welfare had given out $10000 cheques—the jobs would have come anyway. 
Industry New Zealand the Government agency that businesses said they did not want but Jim Anderton’s photographers said they must have could not at all justify or calculate the number of jobs it created. We asked what the overall value of those schemes to New Zealand was but we could not get an answer. Were any lessons learnt? The only lesson we got was on The Warehouse fiasco. Members will recall that in May 2002 which falls within this financial review The Warehouse got $70000 from young Jim Anderton and it was grateful for that. The Business Growth Service gave that money on behalf of Jim Anderton and the taxpayer to The Warehouse and some lessons were learnt from that. Members will recall that the Audit Office reported back on the inquiry into why Jim Anderton was giving $75000 to the struggling Warehouse—and it is certainly struggling in Whangarei. It does not have enough room. Although it is the biggest red barn in the country it still cannot fit the people in. 
Hon David Carter 
: The share price is struggling. 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: Yes the share price is struggling. 
Report noted.