Ardern Shane: State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited and Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill — First Reading 
Ardern Shane: State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited and Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:638;Page:8559] 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the National Party in opposition to the proposals laid out in the bill by the Minister for a number of reasons. The first and most important is that the reason the two companies were set up in the first place was to provide a source of competition within the two structures one doing meat inspection and other doing food safety—completely different roles. It is interesting to hear the opposition from the two Ministers. Let me read what the Hon Paul Swain one of their former ministerial colleagues said at the time: “It is the second time that member has criticised the Opposition for doing its job. The point of the legislation going to the committee”—then presumably further on—“is so that the Opposition can ask the hard questions.” Well here the Opposition is doing its job and the Ministers’ colleague who criticised the Opposition last time for doing exactly what I am doing is over there chirping back; so nothing changes just the people on either side of the House. 
The reason why National is opposed to this bill is that we are seeing another intervening socialist ministerial directive telling these guys how they should do their job. At the end of the day there is no evidence to say that the competition that has been provided by having the two separate entities has any less merit now than it had then. As the Minister leaves the Chamber I just want to point out to him that the Animal Health Board chairman and chief executive have raised very serious concerns about the proposal because they have some major doubt as to whether the tuberculosis and possum eradication process can continue under the proposed merger in the way the Minister is proposing. 
I wonder whether the Minister has had a submission from this organisation; if not I suggest that it gets its submission in quickly to the Commerce Committee because I understand that that is the committee hearing submissions on this bill. The Chief Executive of the Animal Health Board Mr William McCook told farmers that TB levy payers had enjoyed real benefits from competition between TB testing contractors. I know as a farmer that that is correct. I know prior to the set-up of the two entities we used to be dictated to as to who would come to the farm when they would come to the farm and what they would do when they were on the farm and it was just tough if we did not like that. If we could not comply with that then we were penalised. Since there has been competition in regard to that we have had a far more conciliatory and far more organised approach to that with a much more cost-effective provision of service. So I tell the Minister that he needs to listen carefully to the Animal Health Board and its members because they have done a fine job in getting TB in this country under control. 
Further I understand that one of the concerns the Minister has is the issue of meat inspection. I invite members to go back to have a look prior to the division of AgriQuality and Asure from the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry structure they came out of and what used to happen in our meatworks in regard to meat inspection. A cartel held farmers and the meatworks to ransom. It used to demand exorbitant fees to provide that service. Its service was often found to be wanting. As an effect of that we had the highest killing charges in our meatworks of any of the OECD countries. Here we are a competing nation exporting our products to the world and what we have is a Government structure piling thousands of dollars of costs into that structure for no net gain to anybody—not in terms of quality not in terms of what the meat inspectors are there for in the first place and not in terms of market access. There is no gain. 
So I invite members to go back and look at that and ask the question whether having the ability of another suitable organisation that would be recognised internationally and having the ability of that organisation to say “I will” or “we might” compete in this area has brought huge benefits. I have no understanding of what it is that has brought the Minister to his conclusion that these two organisations should be merged and then come under the jurisdiction of the Minister himself. 
The two State-owned enterprises were created as the Minister said in November 1998 out of the corporatisation of the MAF Quality Management business units. AgriQuality’s core business is the provision of food safety and biosecurity services. I agree with the Minister that we need to do whatever it takes to ensure that we have solid biosecurity structures in place; on that I have no disagreement with the Minister. But what I do disagree with the Minister over is that merging and thereby reducing the number of organisations that can have input or provide technical advice or respond in the case of a biosecurity incursion is not the way to make sure we achieve that outcome. 
I remind the Minister of what happened on Waiheke Island at the time of the foot-and-mouth hoax. We had the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry scurrying around trying to round up enough people to get out there and find out whether this was a real foot-and-mouth incursion or a hoax. Media people were travelling to farms and travelling back and furnishing their reports in Auckland and other such places before the ministry could get there. That says a lot about the resourcing but how will merging these two organisations together thereby presumably reducing the amount of expertise that exists help in that matter? For the life of me I have not heard anybody submit to me that this would somehow or other have assisted on that particular occasion. The Minister has a lot more questions to answer than he has given answers to and I am sure we might hear some of those answers during the course of this debate but I doubt whether they will come from that Minister. 
So I suggest that the Government makes sure that all the relevant bodies are able to submit to the select committee and that it does stand back and not just take advice from those within various departments that have vested interests. It should stand back and listen to the stakeholders themselves—the farmers the meat companies the biosecurity agencies and all those who feed into the various aspects of this bill—to justify where the improved efficiency the Minister speaks of can come from when one turns what is now a competitive environment into a monopoly service provider and justify also to the select committee how it is that it will increase the resourcing into certain areas such as biosecurity when one actually reduces the efficiency of the service provided. I would like answers to those questions and I am sure they may be forthcoming in that select committee. 
The aim of the bill as the Minister put it is to merge AgriQuality and Asure New Zealand and to give the Minister himself powers to direct those agencies where and when they should or should not poke their beaks as it were. It defies logic how Ministers of the Crown will ever be in a position to have that kind of micromanagement advice or expertise to ensure we get the right outcome. I just say to the Minister that wherever this has happened before the outcome the Minister was seeking has always been the opposite of that set out by those groups who have advised the Minister on it. I suggest that the Minister should also take a look at some of the articles being written by some within the agricultural sector who are overwhelmingly opposed to what is being proposed. He should take the time to go through the detail of some of their argument so that he can have a clearer view of what he is trying to achieve and whether this will achieve it. 
I think that this is a backwards step. I think it is a mistake. I hope that during the select committee process the Government will come to realise that and drop the idea altogether although its track record suggests that that would be unlikely. If the Government does go ahead with this I can see further amendments not too far down the track to what is being proposed.