Worth Richard: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Worth Richard: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:637;Page:7300] 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 We have just listened to a speech of personal denigration from a Labour member who earlier eschewed that as an appropriate approach. I deplore it. We have an opportunity in this part of the parliamentary process to make a reasoned contribution to issues of concern to the country. I would also like to join with others in welcoming Katrina Shanks to this Parliament. I am certain that by her unstinting loyalty her diligence and her contribution this Parliament will be enormously enriched. 
Last year the Government told us about “economic transformation”. It is a great phrase and at first blush the rhetoric is compelling. But the objective has been hollowed out by the abject failure of the Government to develop the strategies to implement the objective. It remains one of the Government’s three key priority areas identified by Cabinet for the next decade. But economic transformation has now gone it seems from the Government’s agenda to be replaced by “sustainability”. 
As the media have commented and others have drawn attention to the fact the word “sustainability” was used apparently 33 times in the Prime Minister’s speech today and sometimes in a meaningless way. The Prime Minister said this at one point in her speech which I think is well illustrative of what I am saying: “In the future business overall will need to be sustainable to make money …”. What does that mean? That is a nonsense. Clearly to continue in business one needs to make a profit but now we are confusing a concept instead of focusing on what sustainability is truly about. In fact the phrase “economic transformation” is used only once in her speech in its scripted form as a heading to a section that includes that particular comment. It is to the topic of that comment that I wish to devote the balance of my speaking time. 
Under the heading “Economic Transformation” the Prime Minister said: “Export Year 2007 is under way with extra funding for market development grants more targeted trade missions and business-Government collaboration around export focused events and forums.” Of course we are in Export Year this year. Collectively our export endeavours trail dismally behind those of other OECD countries including smaller players such as Finland or Ireland. A discussion paper has recently been produced by the New Zealand Institute entitled  
The Flight of the Kiwi: Going global from the end of the world 
. It is noted that our exports to GDP ratio are now 28 percent compared with a small OECD country average of 54 percent. The level of our foreign direct investment is equally unimpressive. It is sitting at about 10 percent of GDP ratio compared with a developed country average of 27 percent. These are bad statistics. Although the rest of the world has been engaged more vigorously in increasingly globalised markets New Zealand seems very dangerously stuck in a commodity rut. 
A later paper by the New Zealand Institute—this follow-up report is called  
Competing to Win: An external strategy for a changed world 
—found that there has been little change in New Zealand’s export composition. Unlike countries such as Finland which has shifted its export mix from trees to telephony—electronics—we have not developed any substantial new strengths over the past couple of decades. The report states: Bluntly put New Zealand is not participating in the globalisation process to the same extent as most other developed countries.” 
If we are to be a world-class economy and if we are to enjoy First World status we have to earn it internationally. A relatively small number of New Zealand companies are heavily engaged in international trade. The latest tallies show that just 151 firms are responsible for 78 percent of our exports and just one company Fonterra accounts for about a fifth of our export total. Only 590 firms export more than $5 million per annum and in the past financial year just 17 percent of New Zealand businesses had export sales. So the focus in Export Year has to be one that has as its genesis a long-term commitment. It is about Government and private industry representatives working together to find lasting solutions so that we can build a sustainable way to feed the export drive because we need to catch up. I believe that the balance within the New Zealand Trade and Enterprise group is flawed. We should be looking at extending market help for exporters. 
It is a sadness that on 30 November 2006 Export Year the Government announced its initiatives and 18 identified initiatives were announced on that day. If we look at those specific initiatives we see that mentoring was one but no details have been provided as yet; exporter education—no details as yet; the tertiary export diploma plan—no details as yet; the exporters documentation online portal—no details yet; a bigger presence for New Zealand Trade and Enterprise in Asia—no details yet; the path to the market Australia—no details yet; international education—no details yet; and then trade strategy post-Doha World Trade Organization talks—no details yet. And this is the much heralded and much trumpeted Export Year 2007! 
I believe we have gone seriously astray in an initiative that could have been so successful. We need to ask New Zealand Trade and Enterprise some hard questions. The sorts of questions I believe we need to ask are: has the dollar value of New Zealand manufactured exports grown? Is it right that the Manufacturing Plus vision has been dumped? How many clients does New Zealand Trade and Enterprise have? Has the client base grown? How many New Zealand residents have asked for help from New Zealand Trade and Enterprise’s offshore offices? Has the number grown? What have the outcomes been? 
Dianne Yates 
: It’s in the annual report. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH 
: To correct what Dianne Yates has just said it is not in the annual report. These are looming gaps that have been identified by the chief executive of New Zealand Trade and Enterprise. 
But there are other questions. How many international companies have asked New Zealand Trade and Enterprise for help? How many have visited New Zealand Trade and Enterprise’s website? How many have been converted to clients? Another question is whether New Zealand Trade and Enterprise has undertaken customer satisfaction surveys. What are the results say in 2005 versus a future date? None of these questions is in the public domain yet we must be certain that New Zealand Trade and Enterprise—in respect of which substantial sums of money have been pumped—is doing what it should be doing for the good of New Zealand. 
I express huge disappointment on behalf of the National Party for the grand plan of economic transformation which has clearly gone awry. That is well illustrated by where Export Year currently is. I hope the word “sustainability” will actually be a call to action not—as it seems to be—an oft-repeated slogan word without any true meaning at all.