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:14080] 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
: 
 I note that this is a wide-ranging debate but one of the particular aspects of this bill that concerns me and I think many of the farming community—and hopefully there will be a few listening in to the debate this morning—is the question of inappropriate behaviour by the meat industry. The industry has just gone through a rather tumultuous period where one company PPCS was vying to take over another very important meat company in the North Island by the name of Richmond. Hopefully in the interests of the wider industry that issue will be settled. But my concern is the huge influence that major companies will now have throughout the meat industry. For example PPCS will be the biggest meat company in New Zealand and probably one of the biggest companies in New Zealand by half. It will be twice the size of any other company. 
When I look at the offences penalties and proceedings provided for in clauses 66 to 69 I really cannot see anywhere that a significant penalty can be imposed on companies that choose to behave in an inappropriate way. I note that the bill provides for penalties of up to $200000 for an individual committing an export-related offence and can suspend for a year that individual’s ability to export meat products. But really the issue is this: if the company is a cooperative who is hurt? Is it the board? It is certainly not the Meat Board nor is it the board of that particular company. It is the farmers who own that company who pay the price for the inappropriate behaviour of a director. We have seen comments made by a judge of the High Court when talking about gross commercial misconduct about who actually has the ability to sanction directors. I made mention at the Primary Production Committee that I felt that the meat industry and the Meat Board should have some powers to bring those companies into line if because of their size their influence and inappropriate behaviour become pervasive. That is something that is not in the bill—and maybe that is right and maybe that is wrong—but I just want to flag that point. I think it is inappropriate that given the history of the last 5 years and what I repeat has been described as gross commercial misconduct we seem not to be addressing that particular issue either through this bill or perhaps through one other bill that might appropriately go to the Commerce Committee in the future. That may happen and I want to flag that. 
Another issue that I think is rather important is the use of the very substantial reserves—over $100 million as I understand it. I think it is entirely appropriate that the reserves should be for a specified use. There is little doubt that in this world of ours today bioterrorism is a huge threat especially to our agricultural industry. We must have some form of reserves and probably very substantial reserves to meet that threat should it ever arise. God forbid that it ever should arise but if it does there needs to be reserves to meet that threat. But those reserves should not be frittered away to settle court cases that the board may have to front up to in the future. The money should remain for a specified use and nothing else. I am quite sure that the meat farmers of this country want those reserves left for a specified purpose. If the board makes inappropriate or illegal decisions as determined by a court in the future then the board members should be responsible and should have some sort of insurance policy if possible to cover those costs. But they should not come from the reserves that have been built up over the years. 
We all know that with the increasing numbers of tourists coming to this country—and indeed we are encouraging tourism—the likelihood of organisms such as foot-and-mouth disease coming to this country increases. Indeed the back-up and the financial reserves are an integral and hugely important part of our ensuring that should something of that nature arise in this country we have the capacity and financial resource to fight that threat.