King Colin: State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited and Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill — In Committee 
King Colin: State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited and Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:640;Page:10067] 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 Part 2 of the State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited and Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill refers to State-owned enterprises. I can attest to what my colleague David Carter has said. From my own point of view the first time I heard about this bill was when the Meat Industry Association came to me with huge concerns about the bill’s intent. When I spoke on Part 1 I asked why the Minister did not direct this bill to where it should have rightfully gone—the Primary Production Committee—and he came back with the glib answer that he had absolute confidence in Gerry Brownlee and I do too but I am now not too sure about Maryan Street when she comes out with comments that clearly indicate that a lot of stuff is happening well and truly above the heads of backbench Labour MPs. 
This bill is of huge concern. When we look at the whole structure the bill has been to a select committee and come back; we now have the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper which quite frankly endeavours to rewrite the whole process. It is a last-minute introduction that does nothing to give confidence to farmers and the wider meat industry that a deal was not done via the Public Service Association (PSA). From the diatribe before us at the moment it appears that the Government is trying to run a dollar each way. My honourable colleague David Carter alluded to the possible reason for this: to repay the debt that Labour incurred through its overspending by $857000 at the last election. 
Quite honestly it is very hard to understand given the logic of what has made New Zealand what it is why we should be considering this bill. The only sense I see coming out of it all is in some of the amendments being proposed. One amendment that I strongly endorse is Eric Roy’s amendment that as far as having the Commerce Commission and the Meat Industry Association decide whether prices in meat inspections services have gone up that a third party Meat and Wool New Zealand should be included. That would certainly bring in farmer input because it is meat and wool farmers who pay the levy be it beef dairy lamb or whatever. There is a principle that guards all levy payers—that is no tax without representation. I make that point very clearly. I hope that through this whole debacle—it has turned out to be a farce in relation to the amalgamation of Asure and AgriQuality for whatever reasons; I leave those who are listening to the parliamentary debate to draw their conclusions—we at least factor in the significance and the input of whoever pays the bill and at the end of the day that is the farmer. 
It is with a great deal of sadness that I look at Part 2 where it talks about the Government requiring 66.6 percent of the total New Zealand post-mortem red meat exports when it comes to a decision on where to allow competition to occur. When we consider the whole process as it goes through to see Subpart 4 “Ongoing negotiations and obligations concerning examination services” tacked on in a Supplementary Order Paper gives me the impression that this bill treats rather lightly the importance of the integrity that has been built up over 125 years since the first shipment of frozen meat left Port Chalmers. To see it turned into a political football involving the PSA as it is at the moment is something that I cannot understand. 
It is sad that the Minister who is handling this bill is not in the chair because he was quite forthcoming earlier—before he shot away—in giving answers. I would be very very interested to know how all this balances out. When we consider that in the last financial review we did of Asure we found that it was carrying the redundancy responsibility on its books to roll that out as a reason why the Crown wanted to stop that from happening is quite misleading because the contingency liability sat there all the time and was accrued and rolled over. 
It gives me a huge amount of concern having been largely on the outside of this debate from the select committee point of view but having heard this diatribe here tonight and standing here as a farmer representing my constituents the farmers of North Canterbury—where my learned colleague David Carter was today at the Tamania bull sale enjoying the company of the farmers—that we are doing this for reasons that do not represent the best interests of the meat industry going forward. In actual fact this legislation is a sham.