State-Owned Enterprises

(AgriQuality Limited and Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill

21 June 2007 Hone Harawira; Maori Party

It’s interesting to hear what other parties think about this Bill.

Some have called it pandering to the PSA, hush money for supporting political power, a reward for union help in paying for Labour’s overspending; and others say all it will do is destroy competition.

All of which seems worlds away from the reality of meat inspection; from the working lives of the 12, 000 Maori in the farming sector; and from major iwi interests in many successful sheep and cattle farming enterprises.

And that’s what the Maori Party would like the House to focus on:

- the impact this Bill will have on the Maori farming sector if AgriQuality can’t provide those services because of likely competition with Asure NZ;

- the implications for the Maori farming industry of a possible merger of AgriQuality and Asure NZ;

- and whether opening up the competition will actually enhance the quality of inspection services.

We know that only people employed by the Crown [ie AgriQuality and Asure NZ] can be meat inspectors, and the question we have to ask is – so what’s wrong with that? Does it really matter if there’s no competition for meat inspection services?

Because there’s been an amendment to open up tenders for inspection services to the private sector, and I gotta ask why that is, when nearly all of our trading partners insist, for obvious reason, on our government approving our meat inspection services.

We’re happy about the Commerce Commission reviewing the cost of inspection services, and that the Commission will be reporting on whether or not those prices are in line with the Commerce Act.

But we’d signal a note of caution, because last week we saw an excellent example about what happens when independent bodies report back to government, on things the government may not want to hear.

I’m talking here of the Waitangi Tribunal of course, who tabled two reports critical of government’s flawed processes, incompetent officials, and divisive tactics, to which the Minister responded with typical ministerial non-enthusiasm, by saying:

Like the Tribunal's recent Tamaki Makau Rau report, The Impact of the Crown's Treaty Settlement Policy on Te Arawa Waka makes broad suggestions in respect of the Crown's policy for dealing with overlapping claimant groups. As part of my consideration of both of these reports, I will be looking at the Crown's policies and practices in this area.

Hardly the pro-active response the Tribunal was looking for, so we’re not holding out too much hope that the reaction will be any different here.

That’s not to take anything away from the quality of the work done by the Commerce Commission, chaired by the excellent Paula Rebstock – the New Zealand Herald’s 2006 New Zealander of the year.

Ms Rebstock is unlikely to shirk the challenge of reviewing the cost of meat inspection services, but just like with the Waitangi Tribunal, it’s not about how good the report is, or how sound the recommendations are, or how substantial are the findings – it’s about whether the Government wants to hear the message or not.

We also noted a submission from Bill Falconer, chairman of the Meat Industry Association, which said: “We were stunned that the Government could take such a profound decision without consultation…and that the PSA should have been given or assumed the task of briefing the industry” so we’re happy to see that the Meat Industry Association will have a say as to whether the investigation and review procedures will take place.

This is an important Bill, and this is an important industry, marketing more than 5 billion dollars of meat exports each year – 17% of all New Zealand exports.

Maori are key players in this industry, and we believe it is in their interests and the best interest of the nation, that key quality controls, and assurance processes and standards are adhered to in meat inspection services, and on these grounds, the Maori Party will support this Bill.

ENDS

© Scoop Media