Shirley Ken: Industry New Zealand and Trade New Zealand Integration Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Shirley Ken: Industry New Zealand and Trade New Zealand Integration Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 10 June 2003. Volume:609;Page:6088. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 ACT New Zealand will not be supporting this bill which proposes the melding together of Industry New Zealand and Trade New Zealand. I would like to just run through with the House our reasoning behind that position. To start with if we read the commentary from the Commerce Committee right up the front under the heading “Introduction” it makes the point that: “The purpose of the bill and the new agency is to support the development of internationally competitive New Zealand business.” 
At first glance that sounds wonderful a sort of motherhood and apple pie but it is one of the three great lies. We know what that one is. The big one is: “I’m from the Government; I’m here to help you.” When has that ever been true? That has never been true but it just oozes out of this bill. It is nanny State saying “Here I am.” 
Hon Dover Samuels 
: I forgot you used to be a member of the Labour Party. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: Oh indeed and for the benefit of the member who is interjecting on me I was deeply involved with the formation of the Trade Development Board. In fact I will share something with the member. We had a caucus retreat up in the Waitakeres. Mike Moore was there and so were Jim Sutton myself Ralph Maxwell and Clive Matthewson and that is where the concept of the Trade Development Board came from. That came right through into legislation. Peter Shirtcliffe of course was the first leading light of that body. I would have to say that Peter Shirtcliffe is a remarkable New Zealander a passionate committed New Zealander and he did a sterling job in the early days of the Trade Development Board. I have nothing but praise for the performance of Peter Shirtcliffe. 
Then we had the long tenure with Rick Christie and more recently Fran Wilde. I think philosophically it is debatable whether we actually need a Tradenz. There is something very patronising in saying that our commercial enterprises are not big enough strong enough or powerful enough to foot it out there and the State has to go and hold their hand intercede in the marketplace and oil the path for them. There certainly is a role for Government in combating Government-to-Government issues like tariff barriers and the like. That is a core responsibility of Government but to say that Government has to develop trade is I think a very questionable function for a Government. But I could accept Trade New Zealand. I had questions about it but I could accept it. 
But then what happened under this Government? It developed this new monster Industry New Zealand and the very fact that it now apparently is embarrassed by it and wants to tuck it under something else says it all. Industry New Zealand as we know was Jim Anderton’s little pet baby and he was going to go out there and cultivate industry nationwide combine it with regional development and do marvellous wonderful things around the country. Do members remember all those speeches we used to hear about how he was single-handedly turning round the Southland economy? Industry New Zealand and Jim Anderton were turning round the Southland economy—and we know that was absolute rubbish. It had nothing whatsoever to do with the Government. It was all those big dairy conversions and all that investment into Southland and those great commodity prices coupled with good climatic conditions that generated that wealth into provincial New Zealand. 
Of course that is all changing now and provincial New Zealand is starting to hurt. We are not hearing so much now about these wondrous things that Industry New Zealand is capable of. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Like Sovereign Yachts. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: Indeed and I will come on to Sovereign Yachts. I was going to call it his flagship. His flagship was Sovereign Yachts and Mr Jones of New Zealand First marvelled at that too. There were all those wonderful speeches about what Sovereign Yachts was going to do and about the 400 jobs. It is a very sad story. But it is even sadder when we realise that it was spending taxpayers’ money to do that and virtually just throwing it away. My fear and ACT’s fear is that Trade New Zealand may arguably have a function—I think it is questionable—but Industry New Zealand clearly does not have a function and to say that we will now pollute the function of Trade New Zealand with this opposed culture of Industry New Zealand is very worrying indeed. 
When we go through the bill there are some extraordinary things. We are now going to call the entity New Zealand Trade and Enterprise. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: That will fix it. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: Oh yes that will fix it with the stroke of a pen. Again in the commentary there are some other revealing things that clearly reflect the mentality the thinking the psyche and the rhetoric of this Labour Government. Right up front there now is the inclusion of trade unions representatives and relevant stakeholders. It does not mention the commercial trade and enterprise of New Zealand who are wealth creators. Right up front is the inclusion of trade unions representatives and other relevant stakeholders. Does that not speak volumes on what this bill is all about? The observation in the commentary that: “The current wording of the bill clause 9(1) does not mention trade unions in the listed organisations that New Zealand Trade and Enterprise will foster …” so therefore we have decided to insert into clause 9(1)(a)(?) and (b) the words “trade unions”. What on earth does that contribute to the trading nation of New Zealand? This is absolute Labour Party à la 1950 rhetoric nothing more and nothing less. 
ACT is deeply concerned about these conflicting cultures that will be melded together and my fear is that the good work that the New Zealand Trade Development Board has done will be polluted and destroyed by this conflicting culture that we have with Industry New Zealand. In its very short time—and it has been in existence a very short time—it has been nothing but a handout organisation. It has rushed around the country with chequebooks offering countless hundreds of thousands of dollars to anybody who could spend it. There are a lot of disgraceful stories still to come out from that and the flagship as we all know was Sovereign Yachts. 
There are some other rather interesting things in the bill. I would like someone on the Government benches to explain this: if we turn to clause 31 we see the personnel policy for this body and what do we have there? We have the “good employer”. People must be good employers. There are some laudable things here: “good and safe working conditions” which is fair enough and “an equal employment opportunities programme” which yes is fair enough. But then we come on to “recognition of the aims and aspirations and the cultural differences of ethnic and minority groups”. That is possibly fair enough in a general sense but let me come on to this dual law stuff again: the recognition of the aims and aspirations of Maori the employment requirements of Maori and the need for involvement of Maori as employees. What patronising pap. I reckon that Maoridom in New Zealand must cringe when it sees that sort of stuff legislated here today. It is virtually implying that Maori are not ordinary members of society and cannot find jobs on their own achievement—and I know they can. 
To be putting that sort of pap into legislation is patronising and offensive and here we see this Labour Party again running those sorts of lies.