Carter David: State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited and Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill — In Committee 
Carter David: State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited and Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:640;Page:10062] 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 It is with delight that I rise to speak to Part 2 of the State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited and Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill. I start by acknowledging the work that Gordon Copeland did with regard to trying to correct this legislation and make it at least partly acceptable to the red meat producers of New Zealand. I would suggest after listening to Mr Copeland as he recounted the history of his involvement with Mr Trevor Mallard that Mr Copeland has had lesson 101 in politics. He trusted the Minister and he has been let down completely. 
I had the opportunity of sitting on the Commerce Committee when the submitters and the objectors to this legislation were heard. Mr Copeland sat just alongside me at that select committee. I have absolutely no doubt that if Mr Copeland had not accepted the word of Mr Mallard that a reasonable and effective amendment would be allowed in Mr Copeland’s name and would be supported by the Government then Mr Copeland would not have supported this legislation in the select committee. Now what we have is a Supplementary Order Paper which has been tabled by the Minister today. I have had a brief opportunity to read Supplementary Order Paper 120 as I rushed in from Wellington Airport and it is correctly called a sop. It is absolutely meaningless in terms of delivering any opportunity of competition to meat inspection services. 
Let me start discussing Part 2 by acknowledging the real reason for this legislation being before the House. It is because of the demand made by the New Zealand Public Service Association Inc. (PSA) a demand by the largest union in New Zealand. It is very interesting that the legislation appeared in the House in the same week that the Labour Party was finally able to raise the money to pay back to the taxpayer $850000 that it had stolen during the last election campaign. The timing is worth noting. Suddenly the Labour Party known to be short of funds comes up with $850000 in the very week it delivers the legislation that the PSA has been asking for since the original two State-owned enterprises were set up. 
I listened to a number of contributions on the way in from the airport just now. The first one I would like to comment on is that of New Zealand First member Doug Woolerton. What became clear with Doug Woolerton’s contribution is that he has absolutely no idea of the effect of this legislation. He has been led like a little puppy dog to Winston Peters’ desk and Winston Peters told him he is supporting the legislation. That is the sum total of the work that Doug Woolerton has put into this legislation. 
The second contribution I heard was from Maryan Street and that is worth commenting on. What she said if I recall her comments correctly is that no one came before the select committee and argued against the exorbitant rates that are now charged for meat services at our meat processing plants throughout New Zealand. That is true. No one came and complained because despite the fact that only Asure now provides those services there is the potential for competition. Maryan Street then went on to say that by removing the potential for competition fees would not increase. That is the sort of argument we would expect from a person who is a born socialist a person who has never been in business. Members should mark my words: the PSA would not have demanded this legislation and Labour would not have delivered it unless the PSA saw an opportunity to march the fees up via unreasonable wage demands. That is what this legislation will deliver. 
George Hawkins laughs about this. I have just been in North Canterbury amongst rural constituents. They know the effect of this legislation. I guess it will not be a huge issue in George Hawkins’ electorate—if Helen Clark even lets him contest an electorate at the next election—but this will be a big issue amongst rural New Zealanders. Our red meat producers are actually not enjoying the buoyancy they have had in the past 3 years. They are under extreme pressure at the moment and the last thing they want is another level of cost put on them because the PSA sees an opportunity to deliver a real blow to wage negotiations—a real blow that is then passed on to the industry. That is what this bill is all about. 
I congratulate Gordon Copeland on the amendment that I see in his name. It is a step in the right direction. It is about noting what is happening in the international community around the acceptance of non-State entities delivering certification. I want to continue my call because I want to take the opportunity to talk about a Supplementary Order Paper in my name. But with regard to the Gordon Copeland amendment I will finish by stating that if the Committee saw fit to pass that amendment it would make a considerable difference to the acceptance of this legislation amongst our red meat producers. 
I will move on to discuss an amendment I have placed before the Committee. It was put forward quite some time ago so it had the opportunity of being widely circulated amongst members. The basis of this amendment is to change clause 10 and the reason it is before the Committee today is that at the moment the Animal Health Board effectively delivers TB services to cattle farmers throughout New Zealand. It is doing a very good job. One of the reasons it has been able to do this job and to hold costs for the farmers is that it has been able to competitively price TB testing amongst these two State-owned enterprises. It was aware of the strength of the PSA as it signed contracts which are running as we speak to the two organisations providing TB testing services to various parts of New Zealand. 
Therefore the Animal Health Board specifically said that if this merger took place it would reserve the right to cancel those contracts and immediately look elsewhere. This is about sanctity of contract. But Mr Mallard because he saw that this could further lessen competition between these enterprises has specifically said that any contracts in place regardless of clauses that are subsequently written in by the Animal Health Board as the purchaser are null and void and that under no circumstances can those contracts be cancelled simply because this merger takes place. That is completely unfair to the beef farmers throughout New Zealand. 
Brian Donnelly is surprised to hear of this but I know that discussion has been occurring between agricultural representatives and Mr Doug Woolerton and I would have hoped Mr Doug Woolerton had taken the opportunity of informing the New Zealand First caucus so it would at least be aware of the issue. But the puzzled look I am getting from the Hon Brian Donnelly suggests that that is the respect with which this amendment is being treated by the New Zealand First Party. 
So I certainly hope the amendment gains support here tonight. It is an important amendment. Why should the Animal Health Board not be able to cancel its contracts if this merger takes place? Why should it not be allowed to go out there—in what is a competitive market with the private vet practices throughout New Zealand—and gather the best most efficient and price-effective means of delivering TB testing in this country? I say that Mr Mallard is doing a great disservice to our beef industry by not agreeing to support my amendment. 
I go back to my first point. The legislation before the House is about a demand from the PSA the largest union in New Zealand. This legislation will cause a complete rift between the employees involved in meat inspection services at our meat plants throughout New Zealand. It will inevitably lead to a rise in costs which again will be passed on to the farming community in New Zealand. That is the last thing this industry needs when it is under so much pressure at the moment to maintain profitability against a rampant exchange rate caused by Dr Cullen’s reckless spending of taxpayers’ money and against sheep meat prices that are under extreme pressure particularly in our premium markets of the European Union and the United Kingdom. 
This is an important piece of legislation on which the Government has clearly conned Mr Gordon Copeland completely. The Minister gave his word. We know how much Mr Mallard’s word is worth tonight—he gave his word to Gordon Copeland that he would support a sensible amendment placed before the Committee tonight. But when he finds he can muster the numbers without Mr Gordon Copeland he will ram this legislation through insensitive to the damage it will do. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: People connected with an excellent Supplementary Order Paper have been busy over the dinner break. This Supplementary Order Paper which is about to be moved by my colleague Eric Roy is to include Meat and Wool New Zealand as part of the consultation process with the Commerce Commission and the Meat Industry Association. The Meat Industry Association would be very comfortable with this and in fact it thinks this would be a worthy addition to the consultation process. Meat and Wool New Zealand also thinks it would like to be involved. So that Supplementary Order Paper will be moved by Eric Roy and will certainly be supported by the Opposition side of the House. We are hoping that Mr Mallard will see fit to instruct his caucus accordingly.