Carter David: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and  State Enterprises — In Committee 
Carter David: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and  State Enterprises — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8812] 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 It is with pleasure that I rise to make some comments on the financial review of AgriQuality Ltd for this particular financial year. I will start by commenting on the proposed merger that the Hon Mr Mallard suddenly announced towards the end of the last parliamentary sitting concerning AgriQuality and Asure. That issue has been ongoing for a number of years. The possibility of merging AgriQuality and Asure has been raised at the Primary Production Committee for about the last 3 years and has been noted in its annual reports. What I find incredible about Mr Mallard’s announcement—and I look forward to his elaborating on this—is that the legislation does not enforce the merger of the two entities. The legislation that Mr Mallard is proposing will allow the merger to occur if subsequent to passing the legislation a cost-benefit analysis suggests that a merger is a good idea. It just seems to me to be a very strange thing particularly given the history associated with the proposed merger that any Government would rush through legislation under a very very tight time frame that does not ensure the merger but allows one to happen and then the Minister proceeds to do the cost-benefit analysis.  
I sat in on the Commerce Committee last week when it was hearing submissions on this issue and it became clear that consultation has been occurring with the unions over a long period of time about this proposed merger but that the meat industry itself has not been consulted. What is more concerning to me when I look at the financial review— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. The member is referring to a matter that is currently before the select committee and has not been reported on. It is not the subject of this debate. I request that you ask him to come back to the review and also that he not breach privilege by reporting matters to the Committee before the appropriate time. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: The Minister may not realise it but this is a debate on the 2005-06 financial review of AgriQuality and on page 4 of that review is a heading “Merger of AgriQuality and Asure”. I think it would be a very strange situation if the Minister were to suggest that we are not allowed to refer to what the Primary Production Committee specifically commented on in the financial review. We need that to be clarified I agree. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member may do that. But the Minister was clear—and I certainly thought I heard this too—that you were speaking to the bill that is currently before the select committee.  
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: No. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member did not do that? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: No. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: OK. Please continue.  
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: What I am talking about with permission is the financial review for 2005-06. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Yes but you did not refer to the review. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I have been talking to the financial review and the select committee report. The Primary Production Committee made specific mention of this issue in its report. It is now before Parliament and I have every right to discuss it. The issue may be embarrassing to the Minister but that does not stop me talking about it. It does not stop the fact that the select committee made special reference to it in its report.  
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Keep going! 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Thank you very much for the opportunity to talk to the financial review. As I was saying in the select committee over the past 2 or 3 years we have expressed concern about this merger. We went so far in this select committee report— 
Hon Annette King 
: How could you do that? It wasn’t on the agenda. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: If we go back and look at the two previous financial reports we see it is interesting that the committee as a whole was concerned about the proposed merger. This time I do agree that we modified the report and used the words “Some of us are concerned”. In other words there has been a road to Damascus experience for Dr Choudhary who in previous years had been concerned about the proposal but who has been beaten about by Mr Mallard and suddenly had to change his position and appear less concerned than he had been in the past.  
The reason I raise this issue is that we have examined over a long period of time AgriQuality and its attitude towards the select committee and its cooperation with the committee is something that has taken a long time to develop. Asure however is an organisation that delivers with total efficiency. It has cooperated with the select committee process every year that we have examined it. I would hate to see the rushed merger proposed by the Hon Mr Mallard mean that suddenly we have a change in attitude by the newly merged entity towards the process before the select committee.  
We have a very important role at the select committee to examine the financial performance of these entities and when we examine the financial performance of AgriQuality particularly in the last financial year we find it has not lived up to expectations. Its revenue is down considerably in this particular year and I do wonder whether one of the reasons why Mr Mallard has rushed the idea of a merger into Parliament is that he is not prepared to see the financial performance of AgriQuality come under the scrutiny that it has.  
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Oh dear! 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Mr Mallard says: “Oh dear!”. He may be doing the merger for one other reason: to satisfy the Public Service Association (PSA)—his union mates. It is interesting that in the very week that he rushed the bill off to a select committee the Government suddenly fronted up with $850000 to pay back the money it had ripped off the taxpayer. So Mr Mallard may well say: “Oh dear!” and now do a bit of frowning when there is a connection made between this move to satisfy the PSA and the sudden appearance of $850000 to pay back the ripped-off taxpayer. 
Report noted.