Gallagher Martin: New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill — Third Reading 
Gallagher Martin: New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6407] 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (NZ Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I rise to support this bill and pay a compliment to the wonderful chairmanship of Mark Peck and his team. I have just one message for the Opposition. I heard the Hon Tony Ryall wax lyrical or try to but I would rather be the Minister for Economic Development the Hon Jim Anderton for just 1 minute than be the Leader of the Opposition on 24 percent in terms of tonight’s TV3 poll for 3 years. What was it 7 percent? 
Government members 
: Yes 7 percent. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER 
: At that rating he will not even win Balclutha. That is the difference between him and this Government. Mark Peck would win Balclutha. Bill English cannot. This is a good bill good work by the Commerce Committee and excellent work by the Minister for Economic Development. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 That was actually a very sad speech by Mr Gallagher from Hamilton. He had nothing to say about the substance of the bill and gave a short couple of sentences that made some pathetic attempts at political point-scoring. I think it is appalling when legislation like this is treated with such disdain by Government members. ACT opposes this legislation. Like other Opposition parties we have spoken strongly against it. I have listened to other Opposition parties and substantially agreed with their arguments. But ACT not only speaks against this bill we will be voting against it. In fact I believe that only ACT and the Greens will be voting against this legislation. 
Rod Donald 
: For opposite reasons. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: The co-leader of the Greens Mr Donald says it is for opposite reasons and I would like to make that point very clear to the House—they are quite different reasons. The Greens hate trade. They go around the world campaigning against free trade. They hate trade but love bureaucracy so they are voting against this bill; whereas ACT hates bureaucracy but loves trade and we are voting against this bill. I think that is a fair enough assessment of it. 
But the problem with this bill from ACT’s perspective is that we have two conflicting cultures. The bill attempts to meld the Trade Development Board which has been in existence in various forms since 1988 with a very recent organisation Industry New Zealand. It is questionable whether it is a legitimate role of Government to be an active commercial participant in trade promotion. It is clear that the role of Government is to create the climate to facilitate trade. It is certainly a legitimate role of Government to do those things that only Governments can do and that is to negotiate with other Governments to break down the barriers to trade. 
When I look at our record as a country I see we have really left undone most things that we ought to have done and done those things that we ought not to have done. 
David Benson-Pope 
: Throw everything out! 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: Oh the member recognises it does he? The point is that trade negotiations—gaining access—are the legitimate role of Government but when we compare ourselves with Australia we see that Australia has 140 full-time trade negotiators working on World Trade Organization issues and access to various markets around the world like free-trade agreements with the United States. New Zealand has a mere 15. Think about it! Australia is four times the size of New Zealand on a per capita basis yet it has eight times more dedicated professional trade negotiators working on access. Is it any wonder Australia is cleaning us out in market after market? That is where Government should be working and that is where Government is not working. 
We have a few people like Mike Moore whom we appoint as sort of honorary legends for life and send them off. That is not good enough. We need professional middle-management people doing the hard yards and we have not had that. Instead Government gets involved in all the sorts of things that it should not be involved in like going off to trade fairs and trying to be the generic promoter of product. That is not the role of Government. Private sector business will do that best and always has done it best. Government deludes itself by establishing bureaucracies to try to do the business of trade. It should be doing business with other Governments to set a framework and a climate wherein trade can flourish. That is where the effort should go—not into trying to do the commercial business of trade. Philosophically that would be my criticism of Trade New Zealand although I have to say that it has also done some great work. Peter Shirtcliffe did some brilliant work in the early days of the Trade Development Board. 
But Industry New Zealand is a politicised farce. It is the dreamchild of Jim Anderton. Obviously the Labour Government was prepared to buy him off fob him off and throw just a few more taxpayers’ millions into his little pet project. The philosophy of Industry New Zealand was: “Hey I’ve got this big fat chequebook and I’m going to bribe you with your own money.” So the Government employs all these middle-management characters who fly around the country stay in the top hotels and go up to business and say: “Boy I’m going to give you some money.” In other words: “I’m going to give you some of your own money back. We’re going to tax you more so that we’ve got this big bucket of money and Government can go around the country giving out largesse.” That is why one ends up with crazy things like Sovereign Yachts which was not a commercial project but a politicised project. Jim Anderton goes out has his photograph taken and says: “I’ve got 400 new jobs here.” 
Ron Mark 
: That is a housing project. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: Well it has turned out to be a housing project. That is the other problem—the Government fast tracks the Resource Management Act and all those other obstacles that the battling industries of New Zealand struggle against picks a winner and says: “I’m going to bribe you with your own money and clear the track for you because I Jim Anderton and the Labour Government have decided that you’re on a winner.” Politicians should not try to act commercially because they never do it well and never have. That is the lesson that this Labour Government clearly has not learnt from history and it is destined to relive it and so we end up with fiascos like Sovereign Yachts. We do not have the 400 jobs. We do not have the yacht-building industry we were promised and we have already spent the money. It was an absolute rort. 
While I am on that subject why did Jim Anderton’s little team of Industry New Zealand people go up to the Warehouse and say: “Here’s $100000 of taxpayers’ money. You need it.”? 
Ron Mark 
: They needed it. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: “Everyone gets a bargain!” Did Stephen Tindall make a donation to the Labour Party election campaign? Is that the payback? What else could it possibly be? EDS (New Zealand) is a multinational corporate as big as the New Zealand economy. Have a guess how much Industry New Zealand thought it would give EDS (New Zealand)? How much? 
Dail Jones 
: $1 million. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: EDS (New Zealand)—a multinational corporate—was handed $1.5 million of taxpayers’ money by Industry New Zealand. I love multinational corporates; I think they are great but let me assure members that they are big enough and ugly enough to look after themselves. They do not need socialist Governments taking money off hard-working battling New Zealanders to dish out to them. They will take the money and put up a wonderful story about why they need it but let me assure members that they do not. They should not be receiving taxpayers’ money. 
ACT New Zealand has spoken against this bill and we will be voting against it. What we have here is the very bad culture of Industry New Zealand being melded to Trade New Zealand. Trade New Zealand has done some very good work but it is very questionable that that is a legitimate role of Government. The role that Government should be playing is putting more effort into breaking down trade barriers removing the compliance costs on industry and business and creating a climate where the private sector can flourish. This business that “I’m in partnership with you I’m from the Government I’m here to help you.” is a nonsense. Wherever it has been tried around the world it has failed.