Mallard Trevor: State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited andAsure New Zealand Limited) Bill — In Committee 
Mallard Trevor: State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited andAsure New Zealand Limited) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:639;Page:9718] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for State Owned Enterprises) 
: 
 It is important that we focus just for a short time on Part 1 because I think members will want to know that the interpretation clause is very standard around animal material and animal products as with the Animal Products Act 1999. The board is not the board of Asure but that of AgriQuality Ltd and the official assurances are again those as given in the Animal Products Act. 
The shareholding Ministers will be the shareholding Ministers of AgriQuality Ltd as opposed to those of Asure although in the current circumstances they are the same Ministers—the Minister of Finance and the Minister of the Crown who is from time to time responsible for AgriQuality Ltd. It has been the practice of previous Governments to have the Minister for State Owned Enterprises as the responsible Minister though I think it is fair to say that on occasions there have been debates around whether it is appropriate to have as with the Animal Health Board or with Learning Media different responsible Ministers and whether that Minister should be the Minister of Agriculture. The previous Government and this Government have taken decisions that having the State-owned enterprises as far as is practicable put together for these purposes is the right approach. 
Clause 4 provides that the Act will bind the Crown—it is the clause that causes the Act to bind the Crown. Clearly that is an important provision for this bill. There are important Crown powers and Crown responsibilities within this Act of Parliament and it is therefore important for the Act to bind the Crown. 
Without getting on to too much of the substance of the bill I say that the bill has been pretty fiercely contested and I am absolutely certain that the National Party will vote against even the interpretation clause—with not much point in doing so. But I think that section has gone through a thorough but intensive— 
Nathan Guy 
: Quick. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Yes but— 
Nathan Guy 
: It was a bit quick though Trevor. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well I was going to say there is nothing wrong with being a bit quick. In this circumstance working pretty hard getting some work done doing a little bit of overtime getting up before half past 8 in the morning hearing some submissions balancing them out and coming out with an opinion on Part 1 is something that does not harm select committees. For select committees to work a little bit more than maybe some National Party members are used to doing—working in the mornings as well as in the afternoons—is something that I know is foreign to Mr Guy and some of his colleagues especially some of his colleagues who have been involved in this select committee. But that is something they have to— 
Nathan Guy 
: That’s a bit unfair. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No I think it is true. Mr Brownlee is hardly a bundle of energy in the morning is he? However I did notice—and excuse the diversion Mr Chairperson—that he seemed to be enjoying his work in the Commerce Committee a little bit more recently than he has done in the past. 
Darren Hughes 
: With the Major Events Management Bill. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: With the Major Events Management Bill. I do not think I have ever seen a photo of a chair of a select committee in the  
Dominion Post  
with his tongue hung further out than Mr Brownlee’s was— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Except at breakfast. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well I think Bellamy’s and the  
Dominion Post  
are kind; they do not entertain us with photos of Mr Brownlee eating but they did entertain us with a photo of Mr Brownlee as chair of the Commerce Committee drooling. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Come back to the bill. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: In moving back to the bill I say that I do not think anyone could possibly drool over the interpretation section of this bill. It is a relatively standard run-of-the-mill animal products - type interpretation. Again I would find it hard if the National Party chose to vote against the fact that the bill binds the Crown.