Flavell Te Ururoa: State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited and Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill — Second Reading 
Flavell Te Ururoa: State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited and Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:639;Page:9227] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Speaker. Kia ora tatou katoa. In preparation for this bill the State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited and Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill 
our caucus had a deep and meaningful discussion with all the members wanting to make this speech. We usually farm out our speeches but in this case 
everyone except Mrs Turia came at it like a bull at a gate. When I asked Dr Sharples why he wanted to make the speech he admitted that they had not 
 “ 
herd” 
much 
about the topic. Hone Harawira said that he needed to take some stock and decided that he was a fence-sitter and would leave it. Mrs Turia suggested that I am a cow because I get to deliver all the good speeches. So here I am to ram home some specific points. In the end my declaring that I would make 
the speech myself was really putting the lambs to the slaughter. All I can say to my colleagues is “grass-ias”. Actually I made no race of it.  
The Maori Party is interested in considering the implications of a possible merger between AgriQuality Ltd and Asure New Zealand Ltd.Last week in our lead-up to Budget week we released our Treaty settlement package which included the proposal to consider joint ventures with State-owned enterprises along with innovative approaches to other forms of development. “Shearing” resources is a good idea. The Maori Party is interested in “moooving” to investigate the full range of approaches to respond to settlement priorities and a joint venture with a State-owned enterprise is an idea that many of our iwi are interested in. It is not about pulling the wool over your eyes—not at all Mr Assistant Speaker. What we are interested in is the best interest of the nation.  
“Ewe” know Mr Assistant Speaker that what we see in the case of AgriQuality and Asure New Zealand is their commitment to succeed as commercial trading enterprises. Clearly they are committed to making hay while the sun shines.They are required under the State-owned enterprise model to operate as successful businesses and although they return a dividend to the Crown as a shareholder they nevertheless operate on a commercial basis. 
In the case of AgriQuality and Asure New Zealand we indeed see ample evidence of commercial success and it would be “udderly” silly not to support this.The New Zealand meat industry is by anyone’s estimations more than an essential part of our economy. The industry has beefed itself up over time.Anyone who would deny the reliance of our economy on the $5 billion in export revenue earned by the New Zealand meat industry or the $1.22 billion earned from domestic meat sales over the last year would have to be more than a lamb sausage short in the great “bah-bah-que” of life. 
Of course Maori feature as the master chefs the producers the marketers the exporters the meat processors and of course the consumers. There would not be a marae or a Maori home in which the classic cuisine the all-time favourite boil up has not appeared on the menu. Surely most have “Hereford” of it before! We know that the annual contribution of Maori primary sector producers to the GDP is now very significant “paddickularly” when Maori agribusinesses are demonstrating considerable commercial success. There is also significant involvement of Maori working in the plants. Some would estimate it at about 80 percent of the workforce. 
We come to this bill then aware of the undeniable profits that accrue to the economy from the meat supply chain. The sheer volume—some 24 million lambs 4.4 million sheep and 4.2 million cattle and calves are processed and slaughtered every year—is phenomenal. Since the first sheep landed in Aotearoa in 1773 courtesy of Captain Cook and settlers flocked to this land we have developed a reputation as a land of milk and honey primarily due to the export meat industry. 
When we spoke during the first reading debate on this bill a mere month ago we spoke in favour of the possibilities of achieving economies of scale. There was “farm” more here than “meats” the eye! We considered the possibilities that a merger could yield—benefits such as lower operational costs and higher profits. As the Commerce Committee report noted bringing the two key entities of the meat industry together under one stand shepherds in the distinct possibility of a strengthened link between meat inspection services and other components of the meat supply chain. Now this is really cutting to the chase. 
The Maori Party anticipates that with such a high level of expertise and cooperation we should expect to see improved information flow innovations and use of resources; better coordination of skills experience technology and infrastructure across the food and agriculture markets; scale-related efficiencies from having a single national service provider; and additional revenue opportunities from offering integrated quality assurance services to the wider food industry amongst other factors. We supported the first reading knowing that AgriQuality and Asure New Zealand are currently the only entities that are able to in practical terms provide export red meat inspection services. Competitors get slaughtered or left cast. 
It would seem from all probabilities that a merger could maximise the commercial and non-commercial ownership benefits of both. With the market success of these two State-owned enterprises then how major will be the impact of this bill in preventing the State-owned enterprise AgriQuality from providing export red meat inspection services? What provisions might be needed to ensure that AgriQuality will not be in competition with Asure prior to any merger or are we just flogging a dead horse? What precisely will be the ramifications of the net cost incurred to the Crown as the owner of both AgriQuality and Asure if some competition were to occur? Would we be milking the system or creaming off the profits? 
Those are the sorts of questions we have fielded. Although it would appear to be very good business sense for the business case of AgriQuality to not be in competition with Asure New Zealand we know that there are some concerns associated with the ante and post-mortem meat inspection services the downstream impacts for the global food safety regulatory environment the implications of virtually creating a Government-sanctioned monopoly on the provision of meat inspection services the risk of rising costs for purchasing such services and wider precedents attached to the management of State-owned enterprises. 
We also note with frustration the all-too-familiar concern about what the Meat Industry Association described as the “extraordinary haste” of the process of receiving and hearing submissions and reporting back to the House and the lack of involvement in a process spanning some 4 years. Well welcome to our world. We note that such concerns have led United Future to submit additional clauses to guarantee by way of review that the prices charged will conform with the general principles of the Commerce Act. We are also aware that a number of the submissions received described concerns that the bill did not contain either a business compliance cost statement or a regulatory impact statement. The submitters views were that they had not been given sufficient information on the impact of the bill. 
We in the Maori Party are among the list of groups who were not offered the opportunity for consultation on this bill—a process that began in 2003 yet raced through the House in a timetable of a month. We bring to this bill a prevailing interest in a genuine progress index which weighs up the costs measures the benefits against the deficits and leads us to consider other questions. Although we recognise that primary beef and sheep production are key features of our wealth we also know that that wealth is dependent on the exploitation of our natural capital—our soil our water and our air. We will continue to support this bill at its second reading but we intend to carry out our own consultation within the sector in order to consider our final position and to shed some light on the concerns before this bill comes back to the House. Kia ora tatou.