Connell Brian: New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill — Third Reading 
Connell Brian: New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6411] 
BRIAN CONNELL (NZ National—Rakaia) 
: 
 I want to take a relatively short call to canvass three or four issues. I start by saying that National does support this legislation. Conceptually we think it is right. We believe strongly in the concept of a one-stop shop that brings these types of business structures together which makes it easy for businesses to interact. The difficulty though that I foreshadow is that there are 32 different funding agencies out there and it would have been nice if the legislation had cast its net wide enough to incorporate these organisations into the new structure. 
I foreshadow another concern—that the two entities really have not been merged; they have been lumped together. A true merger which is fairly technical and sophisticated looks for synergies from the two different entities and tries to put those together so that there is more focus on one’s business with less bureaucracy and of course less compliance cost and a sharper structure. I simply argue that if one puts two small bureaucratic entities together one ends up with one bigger bureaucratic entity and it will not have sufficient focus. 
One has to ask oneself why that is being done. That question has been posed simply because I cannot find an answer—and I know that the select committee could not get an answer—to the question of whether a cost-benefit analysis had been done to support the decision-making process that underpinned the merger. There is no doubt that the select committee was not alone in that concern because business after business around the country was approached. Their position was that they were not consulted and they were not aware of any cost-benefit analysis that has helped the Government make that decision. I foreshadow those issues as concerns. 
I now turn to the bill itself and in particular to clause 9(b). If members will bear with me I shall read some of that clause: “provide a conduit for input and advice from industry trade unions local government and relevant community groups regions education and research organisations potential investors and individual enterprises ...” and so forth. I have to say to members that I am not sure what that means. If I were an investor and if this were a private entity I do not think that would make me reach for my cheque book. I do not think that that would spin the wheels. [ 
Interruption 
] If Mr Peck wants me to take longer I will be happy to. He can just keep going. If that is the way the Government wants it I will. 
Another area of concern is the unnecessary detail that has been written into the bill. In particular I refer to schedule 2 which deals with membership of the board. There is a saying in business that there is no point in having a dog and barking too. Why not simply appoint a board and let it manage according to normal commercial practice? I believe that schedule 2 and its 18 clauses could have been reduced to one clause with wording such as: “The board will act in accordance with standard commercial practice being cognisant at all times of its fiducial responsibilities.” That would be the end of the story. It would have covered the whole shooting match. Instead we have not gone down that track. 
I said that I would take a short call and because of the hour I will conclude on that point. I thank the House for its indulgence.