Ardern Shane: State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited and Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill — In Committee 
Ardern Shane: State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited and Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:640;Page:10056] 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
: 
 I agree with the last comments made by our colleague from the New Zealand First Party Doug Woolerton. I often agree with comments he makes and the last one he made about the important role meat inspectors play and the skill they require is absolutely right. Other than that I disagree—which is a rare thing—with everything he said in his speech. 
I would like to challenge one or two of the proposals put forward by the Minister. One is that because the Crown would be exposed through the redundancy law—or through the potential gaming I guess one would call it of the redundancy law—between one Crown entity and another if they were to merge under the Minister’s proposal we therefore should have a new clause in Supplementary Order Paper 120 that stops that from happening. Yes I guess that for an Associate Minister of Finance who is protecting the Crown’s asset that is a responsible position. But the first question that springs to mind is whether a private industry company finding itself in the same circumstance—where a merger is to take place between two entities providing the same service—would get that kind of protection. What we see under Part 1 is one standard for the Government and another standard for all the rest of the workforce. 
The second point the Minister made which is also one that our colleague from New Zealand First made is that two State-owned enterprises are competing with each other and therefore this concerns some kind of quango or non-competitive environment. Well that does not show a failure in the structure; it shows a failure in leadership from the Minister and from the chief executives who are appointed or employed by the Minister. That is what that shows. 
Here are the facts. After the reforms of the late 1990s that set up the current structure meat inspection costs went down. That is what happened; they went down. There is no guarantee now that those same costs will not go back up once the merger puts the entities back together. What assurance can the Minister give us—and I will be pleased to yield to him so he can give us that assurance—that meat inspection costs will not go up substantially under the new proposed structure that is being put forward here today? Those are the reasons why National is opposing this bill here tonight. 
I say to the Minister in the chair the Hon Trevor Mallard that there are some problems in this current State-owned enterprise structure. We accept that; I do not think anybody denies it. Some problems occur when the situation arises of two State-owned enterprises taking each other to court. There is no doubt that that is not a well-organised way to run a business. But what is the root cause of that? Is it the fact that there are two entities or the fact that there is a total lack of leadership? So I ask the Minister whether meat inspection prices will go back up or will— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Can I just say that the question was that Part 1 would stand part. It covers the interpretation section and the fact that it is hoped the Act will bind the Crown. I think we are drifting a lot. We could at the outset have had one debate for the whole lot but we did not. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: I was really responding to the proposal put forward by the Minister. It was clearly— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: You don’t want to do it in one debate so we can then have a broad debate? No? OK it’s the member’s call. It’s just easier. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: Part 1 clearly states that it covers the interpretation and that the Act binds the Crown. In my earlier comments I was talking about the structure and the fact that the Crown is bound by that structure in its employment obligations. I really am at a bit of a loss to know where I strayed off course as far as you have suggested I have Mr Chairman. That having been said I am happy to come back to the points that are absolutely stated in Part 1 of this State-owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited and Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill and talk about the Minster’s Supplementary Order Paper that amends what the bill proposes. 
I ask the Minister why we have a Supplementary Order Paper to debate tonight on this section of the bill that is almost as large as the bill itself. We have to ask whether the bill went to a select committee that had no expertise in this topic. Did the Minister himself have any idea of what the hell was being proposed by his officials? Or did the officials go out and consult the industry after the bill had been drafted only to be told that if they did what the bill proposed there would be some pretty substantial consequences and that they had better go back to their Minister quick smart and get a major change to their proposals? These are all questions the Committee would be interested to know the answers of in the debate tonight. So far we have not had any answers to those questions.