Guy Nathan: State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited and Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill — In Committee 
Guy Nathan: State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited and Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:640;Page:10068] 
NATHAN GUY (National) 
: 
 I take a call on Part 2 which is really the meat of this nonsense bill. 
Colin King 
: The meat! 
NATHAN GUY 
: It is—it is I say to Mr King. This is the meat of it. When we cast our minds back just a few months we see that this bill has been a rush job from the start. It had a very tight time frame when it went to the Commerce Committee. About nine submissions were received I think mostly opposing it. When we think back we realise that only last year the Minister for State Owned Enterprises was writing to all of the State-owned enterprises to suggest that they should diversify—that they should move away from their core business and try to return even more money and get into even more trouble. 
Now we see in front of us in the Committee stage this evening Mr Mallard the Minister for State Owned Enterprises suggesting that competition is a bad thing. We have heard from Maryan Street this evening that competition is all about cutting corners. What an absolutely ridiculous statement! I cannot believe that Maryan Street would even think that competition would mean cutting corners when the reality is that competition as we all know means that the price comes down. That is the thing in a fair market. 
There has also been talk about the quality of the product. The quality of our New Zealand red meat product is fantastic. It is fantastic that we have two State-owned enterprises producing a reliable high-quality red meat product that meets world standards. I have listened tonight to the debate from the other side and it was really interesting I thought that when the Hon David Carter was challenged by Maryan Street about the involvement of the Public Service Association (PSA) Mr Carter was able to produce documents showing that this bill was a fait accompli in July 2006. The deal was done by the biggest union to ensure that this was going to happen. I think that it is terrible—I really do—that the deal was done last year in 2006. The Minister jibed at me tonight when he was in the chair and said that if this bill did not go ahead it would cost farmers $10 million in redundancies. Well if he had bothered to have a look at the Asure books he would have seen that the $10 million is sitting there in the contingency fund. It has been collected and it is sitting in the bank in case this actually happens. So I think that that is actually a whole lot of hogwash from the Minister. 
During the submission process it was interesting that Bill Falconer—who has been around Government departments for about 47 years; he has been chair of the Meat Industry Association—said that he has never seen a major trade organisation treated so shabbily by a Government in his 40 years of involvement. We saw that the Minister of Agriculture Jim Anderton did not even bother to meet the Meat Industry Association. I think once again that that is a terrible indictment from our Minister of Agriculture on what is a serious issue in rural communities. 
I have some real concerns about this bill this evening. There is not even a business case model for the bill and the economic analysis has not been done on it—not at all. I turn to the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 120 and in particular to new clauses 12(1) and 14(1) and 14(2). Clause 14(1) states: “if there has been a merger of AgriQuality and Asure … the new company formed as a result of the merger must pay to the Crown the levy prescribed …”. But where will that levy come from? It will come from those people producing the product—that is the people at the farm gate. 
In front of us this evening we have some very good amendments. We have a very good amendment in the name of the Hon David Carter and I found out this evening in talking to the Animal Health Board that if this amendment goes through—and I challenge the Government to support it—it will reduce costs to farmers by $1 million to $2 million. That is the estimation by the Animal Health Board. 
Hon David Carter 
: Increase! Increase! 
NATHAN GUY 
: That is right. 
Darren Hughes 
: What is it? Up or down? 
NATHAN GUY 
: If Labour votes against the amendment then the cost will go up between $1 million to $2 million. If the member actually got out on some farms and talked to some people in rural communities he would know that if this bill goes ahead—and no doubt those members on the other side will support it—it will be an indictment on those in the rural industry. I think the important thing to realise is that the Animal Health Board is able to get a competitive price because of the tendering process between these two State-owned enterprises. Fundamentally tuberculosis needs to be reduced by 2013. That is the Government’s target and I urge the Government to support the very good amendment by David Carter. 
The other amendment which Colin King has talked about is from Eric Roy and is to do with proposed clause 12(3)(a) in Subpart 3. In essence it adds “Meat and Wool NZ” in order to allow farmers to have a greater voice when costs are reviewed. There is also an amendment there that we are supporting from Gordon Copeland who was offered a deal by the Government then had the deal withdrawn. So that is interesting in today’s politics is it not? That amendment will mean there will be a review within 3 years of prices charged. 
To sum up for the Committee I say that this legislation is a rush job that we believe will add a lot of cost to those at the farm-gate level. It is interesting that Labour did the deal with the PSA the biggest trade union right back in July 2006 and that fact has been brought into the House tonight and become apparent. That deal is of huge concern to National and it is one of the many reasons why we are going to be voting against this.