Woolerton R Doug: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Woolerton R Doug: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:617;Page:13265] 
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
: 
 I wish to speak about two State-owned enterprises. One is a shining example in my view and the other needs to learn—I say that advisedly—how democracy works and who it is accountable to. The first is Landcorp. In previous years Landcorp lived under a very very— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I just say to the member that this debate is about Animal Control Products Ltd. 
R DOUG WOOLERTON 
: Mr Chairman I thought we were taking a basket of things: State-owned enterprises— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I understand that that has been agreed to. Thank you. 
Jill Pettis 
: It’s a broad-ranging debate. 
R DOUG WOOLERTON 
: I will stick pretty closely to the topic and not go off on to other things but I want to mention these two different entities. 
Under previous administrations Landcorp could not flourish as it should. It could not develop properties that were previously undeveloped under its care. It did not even know whether it could hold on to land that was in its care because of something called the land bank which was set aside for treaty settlements. So I am pleased to say that Land Corporation has certainty now. It has been told by the current administration that it is not for sale and New Zealand First—which is against asset sales especially sale of land to foreigners—can do nothing else but applaud that decision. We are worried that any change of administration may put Landcorp in danger again. 
It is amazing what has happened to that organisation once certainty of ownership or tenure was established. Landcorp has flourished and is a huge success showing the Government returns the likes of which I understand even Telecom could not match in its wildest dreams and it is showing what in fact agriculture can do in this country. Not only is it doing that and returning money to the shareholder the owner—which is the Government and the taxpayer of New Zealand—but it is also providing what I would call a Ruakura-like example of how farming can be in sometimes marginal situations. So to a degree it is acting like a research station. It is showing the way in many areas. Just for the benefit of my Green colleagues on my left I point out that Landcorp is showing the way not only in areas of advancement but also in developing what should be developed and putting aside what should not. That is the key to good farming. Landcorp is a prime example of what a good State-owned enterprise should be doing and is doing for the taxpayer once it is given certainty of tenure. 
The other thing I want to talk about is not so good and that is AgriQuality New Zealand Ltd. We in New Zealand especially in the farming sector need good robust organisations that service the farming sector and through the farming sector the overseas markets we sell to. AgriQuality has a prime part to play in that and I want to read to members—and it cannot be more eloquently put—from the report from the Primary Production Committee of which I am a member. 
I read from the report a couple of statements to show what we are talking about. The select committee stated: “We sought further information on how TB testing technical specifications or requirements have changed and a rationale for the restructuring but were frustrated by the inferior quality of the written responses to our questions. It was only through subsequent questioning that we were able to find out that qualitatively the Animal Health Board specifications have not changed dramatically”. I read now from the end of the report: “The company states ‘While commercial activity may be an issue in some cases these are in practice likely to be rare and such sensitivity would have to be very clearly demonstrated.’ ” That relates to the hedging that these people undertook when they were before the select committee. 
This is an organisation that put out a glossy brochure—I call it a brochure but it is actually technically an annual report—full of pretty pictures of the executives etc. etc.