Carter David: State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited and Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill — Second Reading 
Carter David: State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited and Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:639;Page:9218] 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 National will oppose the State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited and Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill for the following reasons. This has to be one of the strangest pieces of legislation that Mr Mallard has ever advanced before Parliament. I guess that is not surprising when one considers his track record on any matter concerning finance. This legislation promotes the merger of two State-owned enterprises Asure New Zealand Ltd and AgriQuality Ltd but it does so on very very spurious grounds. What Mr Mallard is suggesting to Parliament today through his junior Minister Clayton Cosgrove is that this legislation will allow the merger of these two enterprises but that before they decide to merge these enterprises Mr Mallard will rush away and do a financial analysis to see whether there really is any benefit. 
I suggest that that is a real case of putting the cart before the horse. Surely any Minister in touch with his or her portfolio would do the economic analysis first then if there were merit in merging the two enterprises come forward with the enabling legislation. But that is not the way the Government has worked. For those who sat through the select committee process what has become painfully obvious to all of us is that it has nothing to do with economic benefit to the New Zealand taxpayer by enhancing shareholder value in these two enterprises. It is totally about delivering to the wishes of the Public Service Association (PSA) which is New Zealand’s largest trade union. 
 At this stage I want to thank Gordon Copeland for the constructive role he played in the Commerce Committee hearings. I am not normally a member of that particular select committee but I sat through the very hastily arranged submission process and Gordon Copeland asked some very good questions. In fact I initially gathered from his questioning that he would be on the side of the angels would see that there was no merit in this legislation at all and would support the National Party in voting against it. However I do understand the closeness between United Future and the current Labour Government and Mr Copeland has apparently come up with a number of amendments that certainly soften the thrust of this legislation. I was hopeful of seeing those amendments today but Mr Copeland has just informed me that he has not seen the amendments either so obviously they have been written by the Government not by Mr Copeland. 
Suffice to say though what was really interesting was that the Meat Industry Association received absolutely no consultation at all from the Government on this legislation. The association was told that that would happen by none other than a visitor from the trade union the PSA back in the middle of last year. I will quote something that Mr Bill Falconer Chairman of the Meat Industry Association and a well-regarded international figure within our meat industry said to the select committee: “I have to say that in the 47 years I have been in and around Government I have never seen a major trade organisation”—the Meat Industry Association—“be treated so shabbily”. I say to all on that side of the House that it is a shame that that is the way they treat this major export market. 
So why does the argument occur that these two State-owned enterprises should be merged? Opposition to the move goes right back to the PSA representing all of the meat inspectors. I say that if this legislation finally proceeds to allow the merger we will see our meat industry again being held to ransom. 
I will refer specifically to clause 10 and signal today in the House that I will be moving an amendment in the Committee stage to delete clause 10 in its entirety. I take the opportunity to explain this to the House today. The Animal Health Board is charged by the New Zealand Government with ensuring that we succeed in obtaining TB-free status by the year 2013. I think the board is doing a very credible job in that area. That therefore requires that it is involved with setting up a TB testing regime for all cattle in New Zealand. Quite recently the Animal Health Board has been able to competitively tender its TB rounds between both Asure and AgriQuality thereby achieving significant savings of costs. 
Because the board was concerned that the PSA would finally win the day within the Labour Government when it signed contracts with AgriQuality and Asure it specifically said that it would reserve the right in the event of a merger taking place to immediately cancel those contracts and seek more competitive tendering. Clause 10 cancels the Animal Health Board’s ability to do that. Clause 10 states that any contractmust then be maintained because Mr Mallard and the Labour Government have overridden the sanctity of the contract that the Animal Health Board quite independently negotiated some time ago. 
That means we have removed the ability for competitive tendering for TB testing. It means we are now back to having a significant monopoly in the short term in administering TB testing. That then means that the costs will go up and those costs will be borne by the New Zealand farmer. So I will be moving an amendment in the Committee stage. I understand that Gordon Copeland is aware of this issue. I certainly hope he will support my amendment and I certainly hope that other smaller parties—cognisant of the value of New Zealand agriculture to the economy cognisant of the value of achieving TB-free status by 2013 and cognisant of the fact that at the end of the day beef and dairy farmers in New Zealand are paying for this service—will also take the opportunity of making sure that we at least within this legislation ensure the ability of the Animal Health Board to contract as it likes to the providers of these TB testing services. 
As we went through the submissions we found that they were fulsome and there were very very few submissions in favour of the legislation—one of which was quite a substantial one from the PSA but given the fact that it had announced this move to the Meat Industry Association last year I suppose that it is not surprising that the industry submissions were totally opposed to the bill. The Meat Industry Association was very disappointed upon hearing rumours of this legislative change being proposed by the Labour Government and taking the opportunity of writing to the Minister of Agriculture and asking whether it could have a meeting to discuss the issue that Jim Anderton refused even to meet with the industry. This is something we are seeing happen quite often with Mr Anderton in his other portfolios. He was not prepared to meet with the industry association and try to explain the rationale for rushing the legislation through the House with indecent haste. So I say to Mr Anderton that if he is genuine about working with the industry then he has to be prepared to front up to it and justify a move such as this. 
So overall National has wholehearted opposition to this bill before Parliament today. National will oppose the legislation. We will certainly support the good work of Gordon Copeland through his amendments but we stand to vote against the legislation at the end of the day. I will take the opportunity of seeking again the support of particularly Doug Woolerton’s party in making sure that we at least get rid of clause 10 which defies the ability of the Animal Health Board to stick to the sanctity of the contract based on good faith with both these providers.