Suspicion of hands-on approach starts to die

By COLIN JAMES

One thing Bill English would not junk: Jim Anderton's industry "engagements". He would "refocus" them, of course, but the "partnership" mechanism introduced by Anderton is accepted.

This is a significant ingredient in English's repositioning of the National Party. Some hands-on is now okay in the party that used to scoff that the Government cannot pick winners.

Then, a dry-as-dust Commerce Ministry argued that Governments should set rules and not much else.

Now, English would keep the Ministry of Economic Development (MED), into which the Commerce Ministry has mutated, though he also promises it will be "smart and active".

The wood processing steering group set up early last year produced a strategy this month and now goes into a new phase.

Several other groupings of varying sorts have been established. It is becoming all the rage.

The reason: the industry verdict on the wood processing group is positive. Initial scepticism has given way to a sense that talking to bureaucrats can produce some results, even if not all the results the industry wants.

Forest Industries Council chairman Devon McLean, of Carter Holt Harvey, calls it "the end of the beginning".

The idea was simple. Put top industry executives in the same room as senior bureaucrats in the 11 agencies that affect forestry, sift out the most important issues for the industry and prioritise action by the bureaucrats.

Stir in the relevant ministers to ensure there is co-ordinated pressure from the top. Set up working groups, each co-chaired by a bureaucrat and an executive, to focus activity. Add a buzz phrase - "whole-of-Government" - and try to give that some meaning.

But when Anderton, on the suggestion of then MED chief executive Paul Carpinter, put up the idea in late 2000, it was warily received by industry executives.

That wariness has subsided, judging by executives' comments at the final meeting of the group in its initial guise on July 10. In the report presented to that meeting, the conclusions, supported by the industry, stated that "the Government and the industry have been able to work together to develop strategies that add value and enhance the development of the forestry sector".

"Without Government support to address deficiencies in regional New Zealand for infrastructure such as roads, labour force preparedness and environmental planning, there would be few opportunities to attract investment to the forestry industry," the report says.

Moreover, it adds, "ministerial input and involvement have been vital. Without ministerial involvement the successes could not have been achieved and it is reassuring to the industry that there is a leader ensuring that officials are required to meet clearly defined objectives within agreed guidelines."

There were, the report says, "tangible results", particularly in the working groups on transport and labour and skills. For example:

* About $30 million a year for the next three years is going to develop transport infrastructure, particularly roads, in Northland and on the East Coast, where huge forestry resources are coming on-stream.

* A wood processing education and training centre of excellence is under development.

* There is greater industry participation in the Ministry of Agriculture's forestry biosecurity policy and operations.

* An industry code of practice has been developed (for release in November) for the Resource Management Act to standardise consent applications to meet all council requirements and stop each council reinventing the wheel each time an application comes in. This is to mesh with best-practice guidelines being (slowly) developed by Local Government New Zealand.

In short, the report says, the group "has overall been successful in accomplishing its objectives", as measured against "metrics" approved by the Cabinet last year.

Of course, the metrics fall short of what the industry would like. And the council already had some initiatives underway, notably to get international accreditation for sustainable forestry management.

Much remains to be done, especially in trade access, trade enhancement, investment promotion and health and safety.

And on the fraught issue of climate change, the report frankly states: "The relationship between industry and Government officials was at times strained."



The forestry group is not a template readily applicable to all industries. Forestry is relatively clearly defined, has an effective industry council and large companies that can provide weight. So other groups are having to develop their own models.

The others, some of them set up as recently as May, are:

* A textiles, clothing and footwear and carpets steering group, similar to the forestry model.

* A design taskforce.

* A screen taskforce.

* An information and communications technology taskforce, which includes interactive software.

* A biotechnology taskforce.

* An "engagement" with niche manufacturers, including the marine industry and superyachts.

* The beginnings of an "engagement" with casting manufacturing.

* An "engagement" with the value-added food sector, including the organics industry.

* An "engagement" with the music industry.

* Email Colin James

Full news coverage:
nzherald.co.nz/election

Election links:
The parties, policies, voting information, and more

Ask a politician:
Send us a question, on any topic, addressed to any party leader. We'll choose the best questions to put to the leaders, and publish the answers in our election coverage.