Eckhoff Gerrard: Meat Board Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Eckhoff Gerrard: Meat Board Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:618;Page:14088] 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
: 
 I would like to make this observation in the third reading of the Meat Board Restructuring Bill. The reason why we are having such a high degree of unanimity in the House why this bill is going through the House virtually without dissent and why there is very little acrimony is that we are seeing ACT policy in action. 
Larry Baldock 
: Ha ha! 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: Larry Baldock laughs! He is the man of high-handed regulation and control. But we do not see in the meat industry or indeed in the primary industries Government handouts or subsidies. In other words those industries run themselves. That has to be a prime reason why we are not having arguments over who will get what and how much more taxation has to go into the primary production sector. I ask Mr Baldock how much the meat industry gets from the Government. It gets nothing! How much does the forestry industry get? It gets nothing! The Government stole from the forestry industry just recently. That is exactly what the ACT party says. We say that if people take the Government out of their lives they will find that things just happen because people will get on with it. The Government likes to think that we have to have more control more regulation and more acrimony. I do not agree with that. 
That is also the reason why by and large the Primary Production Committee gets on extremely well. I have not perhaps thankfully sat on very many other select committees but we do have a reputation on the Primary Production Committee for being very sensible and being able to achieve things that are in the best interests of this country. Why is that? Yet again it is because the issues that we deal with are—as indeed in the case of this bill—about easing the path and making things easier for those industries to get on with the job of wealth creation in this country for the benefit of the shareholders and owners of those industries rather than the industries relying on Government handouts time and time again. That is why the meat industry is so good. 
That is very obvious to all those in the primary industries of course but it is quite remarkable that with the huge reduction in stock numbers especially in sheep numbers in this country production is up. Why is that? It is because the farming community has invested its own money. The Minister has been promoting a “fart tax” just recently so he can hit us again but the farming industry stood up and said there should be no more taxes. We said we did not need that tax because we were achieving the aims in terms of the global warming problems that are perceived by some. We are contributing enormously to a greener planet through our farming processes. We turn water to grass and then to protein hugely efficiently. There is no other industry in the world that can compete with us although of course we are blessed in New Zealand with a microclimate that enables us to do that. But we do that with great efficiency. I can only emphasise the point that stock numbers are down yet production is up. That is hugely reflective of the capability of our pastoral farmers. 
But the Government as has been pointed out in previous speeches seems hell-bent on closing down much of the industry. I ask Mr Clayton Cosgrove in his third reading speech to tell me how the meat industry will benefit from the number of stock units in the South Island high country being reduced by 600000. He will have some responsibility for that. Why should that occur when we have such a successful industry that contributes so much to the wealth of this nation of ours? We are very successful yet the Government now wants to shut down parts of the industry because the Prime Minister wants to go tramping. 
I think it is time for the Labour Government to show some real leadership and for Mr Sutton and the Prime Minister to stand in this House and thank the primary production industry. I have never in my 5 years in this House seen the Prime Minister come to the Chamber to make a speech on a bill like this and say to the productive sector of this country that she thanks it for what it has done to enable the Government to spend money on other aspects of the country. That has never happened to my certain knowledge and that is a matter of some considerable regret. It is time that this Government and indeed the country understood that wealth creation is not something we should ever apologise for. It has given us a standard of living in this country that enables us to look after the less well off and a lot of that has come off the backs of sheep cows or cattle—whatever animal it may be. Our wealth has come from primary industry and it has come from the fact that that industry is deregulated and farmers do not rely on Government largesse to help them out when they need it from time to time. That just does not happen any more and we should be eternally grateful for that. 
The Minister Mr Sutton alluded to the fact that the Government needs to continue to manage and have influence over the quota. I ask this question and perhaps my colleagues in the National Party may know the answer: does the Government need to have a couple of directors on the board of Fonterra to manage the cheese or the butter quota? Why is it then that we need that in the meat industry? What is the difference between a meat quota and a quota for cheese or butter that comes from say Japan? Why is that not being managed by two appointees of the Government on the board of Fonterra appointed so they can manage that? It is an absolute nonsense; it is not needed. We argued against it but the Minister insisted that he have some influence. Well with any sort of luck it is only a matter of time before that influence disappears or certainly dissipates. 
I want to make one final reference in my closing moments in this debate. The farming community does not want accountability from its meat and wool board or the new pastoral board. Instead it wants performance. Any fool can account for his or her hundred dollars of expenditure or whatever amount it is. It is not accountability but performance that is wanted. As I alluded to earlier I went to Whangarei to the first annual meeting. I did not see any Government members there. It was like walking back in time and going back into the 1960s or the 1970s in terms of what happened there. There were remits and it was just old hat stuff. The board has to revitalise itself. It has to show the real leadership that farmers are looking for because in a few years’ time when the farming community again debates this issue to determine whether it should be levied to keep the board going unless there is performance I suspect the days of even the Meat Board will be numbered. We have to see performance from the board. We have to be able to benchmark that performance and the board has to show relevance—more than just being there going through the motions and supporting the political party of the day whichever it may be. That is totally wrong. 
The meat industry knows where it has come from and where it is going. As long as politicians keep out of the industry other than meeting the vital need I talked about earlier of ensuring that free trade operates throughout the world then we will progress mightily if we get the opportunity. If we get constraint cost control and cost structures being placed on us by this Government we will not progress. So the choice really belongs to the people of this country. Do they want a Labour Government that will perpetuate cost and control or do they want a free enterprise centre-right Government? That is the issue; that is what it comes down to. I can see no finer example of success in industry than our current meat industry.