Wong Pansy: New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Wong Pansy: New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6313] 
PANSY WONG (NZ National) 
: Our suspicion has been confirmed in Part 3. When I was debating the title in Part 1 we were speculating as to why the Labour Government wanted to do away with Industry New Zealand and Trade New Zealand in this bill—even though the National Party supports that. We believe in cutting down bureaucracy so we support that. However I think that Industry New Zealand was causing a lot of embarrassment for the Minister the Hon Jim Anderton. So this is a big ploy. Instead of cutting down bureaucracy I believe that the Government restructured the whole department to get rid of a chief executive. When I look at clause 78 “Continuity of Employment” it looks like everybody else in Industry New Zealand and Trade New Zealand got employment apart from one Neil McKay. He did not get continuity of employment. 
If we look at last year’s financial report of Industry New Zealand we see that the top-paid employee in Industry New Zealand was getting $200000 to $210000 a year. That was Neil McKay. For Mr McKay to accept that he no longer had continuity of employment under clause 78 one would have to speculate how much—and I ask Maurice Williamson how much he thinks he would have been paid out. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: $120000. 
PANSY WONG 
: The Hon Maurice Williamson is getting modest. I reckon that an employee who was earning $200000 a year— 
John Carter 
: How much do you reckon? 
PANSY WONG 
: I reckon he would probably get 2 years’ severance pay. We are talking about in the vicinity of $400000. We want the Minister to take a call to put our minds at ease that this amount has not been paid out. How much did Mr McKay get for agreeing not to compete for the chief executive position in this new enterprise called New Zealand Trade and Enterprise? It is very unsatisfactory for the Minister Lianne Dalziel to sit there and not answer a very serious question that has been raised by members on this side of the Chamber. We want to know whether a massive restructuring exercise was carried out because the chief executive Mr McKay previously of Industry New Zealand had been giving away those grants that were embarrassing to the Hon Jim Anderton—to Sovereign Yachts the Warehouse etc. 
Opposition Member 
: EDS. 
PANSY WONG 
: EDS an international company $1.5 million! Guess how many heart operations that could have funded! It could have helped people on the waiting lists and helped the poor woman from Nelson who could not get cancer treatment. We want to know how much a former employee Mr McKay who under clause 78 of this bill could not enjoy continuity of employment was paid out. We speculate that it was 2 years’ annual salary which is around $400000 and I think the Minister should take a call to confirm or deny that statement. 
Part 3 raises more questions. They said that nobody was going to suffer and there would be no compensation for technical redundancies yet we did not get any comfort because nobody would tell us what happened to the chief executive of Industry New Zealand.