Patterson MarkHon MARK PATTERSON (NZ First): Madam Speaker thank you for the chance to speak on behalf of New Zealand First on this long-term risks and opportunities debate. I do agree with the previous speakers; I think this is a worthwhile exercise. We can be a bit tactical at times in this place. Things happen very fast but we do need to be able to step back and look at the long-term drivers the risks the opportunities things like the demographics things like what our long-term fiscal position will be so that we can make sound decisions as we go. Certainly as we go into the Budget process next week you will see us taking very much that responsibility very likely.We had the Reserve Bank Governor in at the Finance and Expenditure Committee this morning. He could not have been more strong in the sense that productivity and the lack of productivity in this economy is costing us majorly. But it's not all about what the Government does. The Government sets the framework but it is also about what the private sector does—what we are doing in this place that enables the private sector and particularly in my experience the primary sector. We've got 80 percent of our merchandise exports coming from the primary sector. It's an extraordinary extraordinary number. Madam Speaker you would have been around in the days when David Lange called us a sunset industry" back in the 1980s. But here we are today at 80 percent of our total merchandise exports. As I said in question time today it has been my pleasure in the regional development space to look at the gaming industry; looking at a billion-dollar industry—things like gaming—that we wouldn't have even thought of back then. That's fantastic.But one thing I would like to bring the House's attention to is probably the most significant corporate announcement in recent New Zealand history made earlier this week: Fonterra is looking at divesting their brands business. This will be a multibillion dollar asset going on the block. It will be up to Fonterra's 10000 dairy farming shareholders who hold the voting rights. They hold this decision—this impactful long-term decision—in their hands. Do they take the money now or do they look to the long term and maybe some of the risks and threats that are out there and decide to hang on to that brands business? It sits with them; it should sit with them as it sits.But why should this Parliament care? Obviously the outcome of that will be pivotal for us one way or the other. But the reason it matters is because Fonterra is a creature of statute. It was created by this House in 2001. We gave them extraordinary powers to amalgamate what was then two major cooperatives New Zealand Dairy Group and Kiwi Dairies and merge them with the Dairy Board which was the exporter—the single exporter—at the time as that was being disestablished. That was a major long-term decision that that Parliament made but it granted the single company extraordinary powers. The consequences of this could be vital.We've got a situation we've got a technology coming along called precision fermentation—which is essentially artificially creating the ingredients—that Fonterra have decided is their future. Now this technology exists—Fonterra are trying to crack this code themselves; that's how seriously they take it. But overseas everyone is out there trying to do this. Do not believe that the Nestlés of the world would not drop us like a stone if they thought they could get the equivalent protein for cheaper. Because this is an ingredient. It's not like meat where you're having the raw product; this is easier to replicate. Who knows what's in your chocolate bar?So this is a major decision and I am going to be writing to the Finance and Expenditure Committee and asking Fonterra to attend and explain to this Parliament why they are using these extraordinary powers—are they making a wise decision on behalf of not just those 10000 shareholders but the people of New Zealand? Thank you."