Tisch Lindsay: State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited and Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill — Second Reading 
Tisch Lindsay: State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited and Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:639;Page:9231] 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 National’s position is well known. We will be voting against the State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited and Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill as previous speakers have said. However we will be supporting Gordon Copeland’s amendments. We think they are a desirable move and we will be supporting them during the Committee stage. 
The bill provides a mechanism to prevent two State-owned enterprises—AgriQuality Ltd and Asure New Zealand Ltd—from competing against one another in the provision of red meat inspection services. It is interesting that in June last year the Minister for State Owned Enterprises talked of flexibility and of how there needs to be competition. Yet AgriQuality Ltd did exactly what the Minister said last year should happen—it signalled its intention to move into the field of meat inspection—and now this bill comes along to prevent that from happening. 
The Government is also considering in the bill the possibility of merging AgriQuality and Asure to maximise both their commercial and their non-commercial ownership benefits. The business case for a merger still has to be established. The economic benefits from a merger are expected to come from the establishment of a single integrated provider of services related to primary sector food safety and biosecurity. That provision of the bill expires 2 years after the date of assent. 
National opposes the bill. We believe in competition. We oppose the bill but will support as I mentioned Gordon Copeland’s amendments on behalf of United Future. I mentioned earlier that last year the Minister for State Owned Enterprises wanted to move away from Asure’s monopoly on red meat inspection and said that there should be the flexibility for State-owned enterprises to be able to compete. Already in the energy sector we have State-owned enterprises that compete. In the North Island we have Genesis Energy and Mighty River Power on the Waikato River and in the South Island we have Meridian Energy. These three State-owned enterprises are State generators that compete in the energy market. So why can we not have competition within the meat inspection area? It is about providing meat inspection services to the meat industry which is a $5 billion a year export market and is very important to New Zealand’s economy. 
AgriQuality took up that challenge last year to move into the market of meat inspection. Unfortunately this bill will stifle that initiative and not allow it to happen. Clearly the Minister thinks that competition is duplication. That is not something we subscribe to. National considers that the loss of competition is not in the primary sector’s best interests—that it could lead to lack of innovation and an increase in the costs of red meat inspection— 
Dianne Yates 
: You don’t have innovative meat inspection. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: We do. Technology and science are innovative around the world and we have to keep up with those sorts of technologies. That is why we are leaders in the field. Fancy saying that! So we could have a lack of innovation and a fall in the quality of services. We need competition to keep them on their toes—to keep the costs down. Of course the submitters who came forward—there were only nine of them because of the short time frame during which submitters were allowed input into this bill—all talked about the importance of competition the importance of keeping costs down and the importance of accountability which they believe this bill does not cater for. In fact— 
Dianne Yates 
: Oh rubbish! 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: Well that member says “rubbish” but a person who probably knows more about meat and meat inspection is the Chairman of the Meat Industry Association Bill Falconer who comes from the Waikato. He said that the competition between AgriQuality and Asure was a key driver in improving cost efficiency within the industry without which costs would inevitably rise. He is a person who understands what this is all about. He is a person who is recognised in the commercial sector and in the industry as a very prominent director and as somebody who knows what makes the world go round. He made the statement which I think is significant that in 47 years of being in and around Government he had never seen a major trade organisation treated so shabbily. That is what he said. The Government should be absolutely ashamed of what it is trying to do here. 
Dianne Yates 
: Oh stop it. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: What would the member know about meat inspection services? This is a very important industry to New Zealand’s economy. Here is the chairman of the Meat Industry Association telling it how it should be. He goes on to say that the possibility of competition is an important check against the abuse of market power and he cannot believe that the Government is indifferent to that reality and wants to take away that check without putting something equally effective in its place. That is what he said and I would put his word and his understanding of the meat industry well ahead of what any member on the Government side would have to say about this. He goes on to say how ironic it is that this is the year designated as Export Year yet the Government is trying to stifle initiative and stifle innovation. 
Jill Pettis 
: Oh don’t be ridiculous. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: This is the reason why you are languishing in the polls. It is because you have lost touch with the reality of what is happening in the marketplace. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: I am sorry for bringing you into it Mr Assistant Speaker but you know where I am coming from. 
An important point as I mentioned before is that within the short time frame this bill was before the Commerce Committee there were only nine submitters and another thing that was brought up was that no cost-benefit analysis had been done and that there was no regulatory impact statement. One would have thought that if the bill was so important we would be able to look at what the compliance cost regime would be but that is not there. It is absolutely not there and that is an indictment on this Government. It is trying to push through legislation that has absolutely no merit at all. One of the important things about scrutinising legislation is that there is a compliance cost statement and a regulatory impact statement so that we can assess and look at the compliance costs and what they actually mean. But no because this legislation is being rushed through and there has not been a chance for other submitters to have input we find that that has been done away with. 
Jill Pettis 
: You can tell how enthusiastic the National Party is because there are only two of you in the House. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: Well it is about quality. We have had a number of speakers who actually understand these issues. It is about getting through the important message that this Government is trying to rush through legislation that does not have the support of the industry at all. The Government allowed only a month for submissions. It does not want competition in the marketplace. National wants competition and we are asking this Government where the regulatory impact statement is and where the accountability is for an industry that is bringing in $5 billion a year. The Government does not want competition; it thinks that competition is wrong. I say to the Government members opposite that we believe in accountability. We believe in a very robust transparent system and the only way we can have that is to have competition in the marketplace. 
I say again that National is not prepared to support this legislation. We will support the amendments in the name of Gordon Copeland. I take solace from the fact that Bill Falconer who is from the Waikato and is the Chairman of the Meat Industry Association has said that this is absolutely shabby. This is important legislation; we cannot let it go through as it is because it impacts on New Zealand’s standing internationally. Our reputation is at stake here. Competition is important. It is not a monopoly position. We want competition and having AgriQuality and Asure providing red meat inspection is important for the scrutiny transparency and robustness of a very important export industry. That is why National opposes this legislation.