Shirley Ken: New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Shirley Ken: New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6311] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I would like to pursue the issue that has been under debate and for which we have not had answers. As I address Part 3 I refer the Committee in particular to clause 79 “No compensation for technical redundancy”. That clause states: “A transferred employee is not entitled to receive any payment or any other benefit solely on the ground that—(a) the position held by the person in a former agency”—that is in either Trade New Zealand or Industry New Zealand—“has ceased to exist; or (b) the person has ceased (as a result of the transfer to NZTE) to be an employee of a former agency.” What is widely understood is that one of the key reasons that the Government is doing this great merger is that it was totally exasperated by Neil McKay’s running of Industry New Zealand. 
ACT opposed the establishment of Industry New Zealand. Its role is not the role of Governments. It is philosophically wrong. It was the dreamchild of Jim Anderton. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Who? 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: Jim Anderton. He rushed around the country with a chequebook saying: “I’m from the Government. Boy have I got a deal for you!” 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: What party? 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: The “JAPCO” party—the “Jim Anderton Progressive Coalition”. That is the name of the party as I understand it. He rushed around the country promising all sorts of benevolence from the Government to industry and all we got were things like Sovereign Yachts. 
My point is this: Mr McKay as I understood it actually left in March. This bill has been on the Order Paper for some time so the Government did a little deal with Mr McKay. To get round it it had to restructure and take his job out of existence. That is what it did way back when and what we have before the Committee tonight is just the aftermath of that. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: How much? 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: That is the very question we should all be asking: how much was that golden handshake? The figure of $160000 has been mentioned. I think the New Zealand public has a right to know. This Government campaigned on the principle that there would be no more golden handshakes. 
 It went up and down the country saying: “No more golden handshakes.” That lot is very sneaky. I doubt whether the Minister in the chair would know but I would like to ask her why the Warehouse got $100000. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: They’re broke. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: The battlers of New Zealand—those poor taxpayers—had to pay extra tax so that Jim Anderton and Industry New Zealand could roll up to the Warehouse and say: “Would you like a cheque for $100000?”. We know that “everyone gets a bargain” but it did not believe the bargain it was getting. 
John Carter 
: Except the taxpayers. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: The member is right; the taxpayer missed out. 
Who else got the big fat cheque? EDS (New Zealand) Ltd did—a multinational corporate probably as big as the New Zealand economy. Jim Anderton and Industry New Zealand flew all around the country pulled out the chequebook and wrote a cheque for $1.5 million of taxpayers’ money. The battlers of New Zealand—small businesses being overtaxed—pay tax— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: It would be helpful if the member could explain how what he is saying is relevant to Part 3. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: Indeed I am still on clause 79. I would like to have an opportunity later in this debate to address clause 82. However clause 79 goes to the root of this issue. The bill deals with all the rest of the staff and the key issue is what happened to Neil McKay. He is not covered by clause 79. He went prior to this legislation being passed. What was the little deal made in secret on the eighth or ninth floor of the Beehive? What did they sign up to? Was it $160000? That is what is being rumoured around town and I have heard it in the debating chamber tonight. It is alleged that Neil McKay was paid $160000 essentially to go quietly. Under clause 79 of this bill he would not have been entitled to that because his position had been totally restructured but it is alleged that prior to that the Government wanted a tidy wee number. It said that there would not be a job for him because it was putting the two organisations together asked him to go and paid $160000 to buy him off.