Roy Eric: State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited and Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill — In Committee 
Roy Eric: State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited and Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:640;Page:10052] 
ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) 
: 
 I am keen to get some answers in relation to some questions that I raised in the first reading of the State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited and Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill. You see there are a number of things I do not understand and there are things that I need to get my head around in terms of some quite significant issues that concern not only the meat industry but the way in which we conduct an assurance programme because that is what these two companies AgriQuality and Asure are responsible for. There is also an issue in respect of contract work with the Animal Health Board and my colleague the Hon David Carter has tabled a Supplementary Order Paper on that which I am sure we will be talking to later. 
In the first reading of this particular bill I asked the Minister to outline why these two companies needed to be merged and why we were debating this legislation. National intends to oppose the legislation unless good reasons are given as to why this is the best way forward. I say to the Minister Trevor Mallard that the two elements that we need to have identified— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: The member intends to oppose it anyway. 
ERIC ROY 
: The Minister should just listen to the question. He needs to explain why this is happening then assure us that a merger is the best way of resolving that problem. Those are the first two points that we would like some answers on. Let us be quite clear that New Zealand is totally reliant on a robust system that gives assurance that we comply with the Codex Alimentarius code of practice and that the products that we export are safe wholesome and as I say meet all of the requirements of Codex Alimentarius. I do not think there is any doubt in regard to that. 
The second thing is that we need to be assured that removing competition will improve the service or bring about some cost savings. I say to the Minister that this is where I am totally confused because if I read the explanatory note of the bill as it was introduced I see that at the end of the second paragraph it states: “The Government wishes to prevent this competition from occurring as it considers that it would result in a net cost to the Crown as the owner of both AgriQuality and Asure.” I ask the Minister to explain—and I look forward to his response—because this is where I see the contradiction. The Minister himself has introduced a Supplementary Order Paper and it is almost as big as the bill itself which I have some real difficulty with. So it seems to me that the legislation was not thought through before it was presented as a bill—that is the only conclusion I can draw from that. 
The explanatory note of the bill states that the Crown does not want competition—and I am looking forward to the explanation on that—but the explanatory note at the end of Supplementary Order Paper 120 in the Minister’s name contradicts that position. The explanatory note which is on page 3 states: “ 
New subpart 4 
 provides for the Crown to continue to negotiate with its international trading partners in order to allow animal material and animal products examination services to be provided by agencies other than the Crown.” But the explanatory note of the bill itself says that the Government does not want competition— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Are you for or against it Eric? 
ERIC ROY 
: I am absolutely unequivocally for competition as a model that drives both good outcomes and cost compliance is cheaper brings about innovation and reduces significant costs. That is what I am for. I am not for a contradiction that occurs between the bill as tabled which we debated in the first reading and the Supplementary Order Paper. 
So I say to the Minister that I need to know just why on the one hand he is saying that competition will bring costs to the Crown—I want to get my head around that and understand that—and on the other hand in new Subpart 4 he is contradicting that position. Is this just some kind of tease or enticement for us to accept the bill an enticement that the Minister will never enact? I ask the Minister to please respond.