Wong Pansy: State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited andAsure New Zealand Limited) Bill — In Committee 
Wong Pansy: State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited andAsure New Zealand Limited) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:639;Page:9720] 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 It is very strange to hear the Minister in the chair the Hon Trevor Mallard filibustering on Part 1 of the State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited and Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill which is entitled “Preliminary provisions”. I was looking forward to his passionately explaining to us the significance of the definition “ ‘animal material’ has the same meaning as in section 4(1) of the Animal products Act 1999.” Was there some secret agenda to change that definition in the legislation? 
I think the definitions in the interpretation clause are very important. I particularly want to talk about the definition of “Board”. The bill states in clause 3 that “ ‘Board’ means the board of directors of AgriQuality Limited”. Speaking as one from a commercial background I know that usually when a board of directors is set up the shareholders give the board a lot of discretion to administer the affairs of the company. In an AGM situation shareholders indicate whether they are happy with the board emailing a range of strategic directions and a forecast. Usually shareholders expect a dividend rate and if they are not happy it is quite obvious and they sell their shares. 
But when the Government owns a company the authority of the board takes on a slightly different shape. Usually when a competent Government sets up a company it will give quite clear directions and expectations about what it wants the board to achieve. Then the directors will be left to chart their own course as long as they can deliver those directions and expectations which generally are set right out before the beginning of each year. 
That is what I think is really important. I am not too sure how the directors of the board of AgriQuality Ltd will feel after the passage of this legislation because Part 2 which we will be voting on shortly consists of many clauses that state what the shareholding Ministers can dictate to the directors. They can write to them and give them instructions. In effect when we get to the crux of it—and National members cannot wait to get to Part 2—it seems that the task of these directors will indeed be very difficult. The directions from the shareholding Ministers may sometimes put the directors almost in a position beyond where their standards of professional conduct might want to take them. Therefore I have a lot of sympathy for the position that existing and potential directors of AgriQuality Ltd may find themselves in. They will realise that their independence and professional expertise may be compromised by the passage of this legislation because Part 2 provides for the shareholding Ministers to have a lot of power to give directions to them. 
I was told by my caucus colleagues who are familiar with the rural sector like our very hard-working excellent junior whip Nathan Guy—the future member for Otakiand one of our very good members—that the existing directors of AgriQuality Ltd and Asure New Zealand Ltd are doing a good job. Mr Guy told me that they are doing a great job. They are competing with each other. They have broad directions given to them from the shareholding Ministers and they have the independence to do their best to serve these companies. Why are we doing this to them?