Ryall Tony: New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Ryall Tony: New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6310] 
Hon TONY RYALL (NZ National—Bay of Plenty) 
: I am very pleased to be able to take part in this debate on Part 3 “Miscellaneous provisions” which is headed “Dissolution of former agencies”. As a result of the passing of this legislation there will no longer be an organisation called Industry New Zealand. What this part provides for is that those employees from Industry New Zealand who are becoming amalgamated with Trade New Zealand do not qualify for redundancy. But there is one exception and it is our responsibility as members of Parliament and guardians of the taxpayers’ purse to ask this question of the Government: how much does Neil McKay get as a payout for termination of his contract? How much I ask the Minister Lianne Dalziel will the chief executive get because this Government has curtailed his contract? There is a two-word term for what happens when one gives a chief executive a cheque and a wave. It is called a golden handshake and this Minister— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Is the member describing a technical redundancy? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: What I am doing is asking why this clause does not cover the chief executive of Industry New Zealand. That means that he will have to be paid out of his contract. How much has the Government agreed to give him in a golden handshake for the closure of Industry New Zealand? That is the Minister who stood on platforms 4 years ago and said she would be part of a team that would stop those golden handshakes and she has not. 
Clause 76 “Transfer of employees” clause 77 “Terms and conditions of employment for transferred employee” and clause 78 “Continuity of employment” do not appear to address the issue of the chief executive. Where is the money? How much is the money? We want to know. If this Government were honouring its commitment to no golden handshakes surely clause 79 “No compensation for technical redundancy” and clause 76 would cover the chief executive but they do not. The reason we want to know is that there may be proceedings against Industry New Zealand. Is Mr McKay taking any legal action against Industry New Zealand? If he is I draw members’ attention to clause 82 “Proceedings of former agency”. The new agency set up by this bill will inherit any Employment Court action taken by any officer of Industry New Zealand. Will the Minister take a call— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: No she won’t. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Mr Peters says she will not take a call. Will Margaret Wilson take a call? Will any of the Ministers who promised that there would be no more golden handshakes get up tell us how much cash the chief executive of Industry New Zealand is getting as he walks away as a result of this bill? Are there any Employment Court proceedings pending or expected or under way that will be caught by clause 82 of this bill? This Parliament and the public have a right to know because this Government set the benchmark. It said there would be no more golden handshakes. 
We also want to know whether a job is being offered in the Prime Minister’s office or any other Minister’s office to give that former chief executive some sort of de facto golden handshake. When we look at the provision for proceedings in clause 82 and the fact that no employee of Industry New Zealand or Trade New Zealand can claim technical redundancy and the fact that every employee has a right of transfer— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. During the last two speeches but particularly during the speech being made by Mr Ryall you have been at pains to point out by sign language that he should come within greater constraints in the debate. I understand that to mean that you think that maybe he has dealt at sufficient length with the issue he has raised. My real point is that there is a requirement for a Minister to be in the chair. In this case the Minister has had her head around the Speaker’s podium for most of the time that Mr Ryall has been on his feet. 
The second thing is that if a Minister refuses to address the questions being asked by members of Parliament—questions that go to the core of one significant part of this bill—then maybe you should allow a wider and longer extension of the debate. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank the member for that. It is entirely up to the member or the Minister as to whether they wish to take a call. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I am much obliged to the member for Tauranga for his intervention. I think it is worth pointing out that this clause is all about the transfer of staff to the new organisation. It is perfectly legitimate for Parliament to ask how much the chief executive is getting as his payout because he is not being transferred. How much cash has this Government given him?