Ardern Shane: Meat Board Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Ardern Shane: Meat Board Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:633;Page:4715] 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
: 
 I also rise to speak in favour of the Meat Board Amendment Bill and I thank the officials for the work they have done. Clearly it has been quite a difficult task for them to arrive at the position they have arrived at. I also acknowledge the work done by the very good Primary Production Committee chaired by the spokesperson on agriculture for National the Hon David Carter—a farmer—who was aided and abetted by very very good members of this House Nathan Guy and Colin King. They are both National members who are farmers which is something that the party on the other side of the Chamber has no ability to claim any more—or parties anywhere else in the House for that matter as far as their members of Parliament go. 
I also bring to the attention of the Committee that this Meat Board Amendment Bill was referred to the select committee on 30 March 2006 and the closing date for submissions was 3 May 2006. The committee received 15 submissions from organisations and individuals and it heard five of those submissions orally. I know that during that process—because I have spoken to my farmer colleagues—arguments were put forward on both sides of this debate but I need to remind the Committee of how the 2004 Meat Board Act came into being. 
We heard earlier today during question time some of the ironies of what goes on in this Parliament. Well the irony here is that the moves to deregulate the industries that brought about the 2004 Act were brought forward by the National Government first of all under Lockwood Smith then later on under John Luxton as agriculture Ministers. I acknowledge today the work that they did because at that time that leadership was politically very difficult. I remind the Committee that despite the fact that all of those members on the other side were against the deregulation process including the Hon Jim Sutton who spoke vigorously against it campaigned up and down the country and got a lot of farmers onside it was Labour Ministers who introduced that legislation and had it passed through this House. Because of that political climate a lot of this stuff was rushed through so that it did not get too much exposure as the political backlash would have been enormous. That is why we are here now making some amendments around quotas. 
John Luxton was once described to me by a member of this Parliament as being the person whom most members disagreed with but also the person whom most members liked. That was quite an achievement on his part. It means that he was at the time showing leadership that was ahead of where the rest of Parliament was in terms of its thinking and that is what led us to that deregulation. 
I also say to the National members of the Primary Production Committee that these issues have always been enormously difficult. On one side of the fence we have those who argue that they should have total control over quota because of its value and the lucrative markets it brings; then on the other side of the argument we have those who say that it should be thrown to the wind that it should be up for tender and that whoever wants it should have a big chunk of the pie. It is an almost impossible road to steer down the middle of and I think members have done a fine job in arriving where they have. 
I remind the Committee of what the Minister of Agriculture said when the bill was going through its first reading. He said that in relation to the practice of allocating quota to producers of export-quality meat who are registered meat exporters regardless of whether they currently export meat products the bill will clarify the fee collection powers of the board. Once again this is to remove a potential ambiguity that came out of the 2004 legislation. I hope that has been achieved. We will not know of course until some clever lawyer from somewhere or other for some interest group somewhere tests it but I suspect that the officials and the Parliamentary Counsel Office have gone through this with fine-tooth comb treatment and that they have got it about right. 
It is also true to say at this point in time that the whole debate is a sinking-lid debate in the sense that quotas have a limited time if we look to the future.