Connell Brian: Meat Board Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Connell Brian: Meat Board Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:618;Page:14081] 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 Can I start by congratulating my friend Edwin Perry on the quality of his speech. Notwithstanding the fact that I think he got it wrong regarding the Government’s patsy appointments to the Meat Board it is good to hear a member get up and speak with passion about his rural constituents and I commend him for that. 
A lot of talk has taken place in this debate regarding Mr Ardern not being on the Primary Production Committee. The simple answer to that is that National has so much depth in terms of its rural portfolios and rural—what is the word— 
Hon Member 
: Team. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: —I thank the member—team— 
Shane Ardern 
: The farmers. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: —the farmers—that we were lining up to come down here and take a call. For that same reason Mr Carter is not here today; we just muscled him out of the way and said: “David it’s not necessary because we want to go down and take a call.” There are real farmers on this side of the Chamber and on this team. In fact we have many farmers—[ 
Interruption 
] I am not certain what one has to be to be a real farmer according to the Government’s definition but I know that we have Mr Ardern Mr Carter Lockwood Smith and myself. I own 700 acres of prime Canterbury real estate. What does one have to do to be a farmer in this place? I do not know but I can tell members that we have plenty of them and we all were keen to come down and take a call. Madam Chair you could have knocked me down with a purple tea cosy when Mr Parker came down here and took a call. 
Government Member 
: It was a great call. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: It was good that he did and I commend him for it but he suggested that he represents rural constituents in Otago. When I go to Otago and ask who the local member of Parliament is the answer is: “Who? Who? Oh you mean the ‘Parker Pimpernel’! We search for him here we search for him there and we can’t find him anywhere. He is never here so I suppose he is in Wellington.” 
I draw my attention back to this bill to look at clause 3 “Purpose”. There are a couple of things that do disturb me notwithstanding the fact that I think generally the thrust of this legislation is right. The component under the “Introduction” heading in the commentary that I want to dwell on disturbs me a little bit. It states: “The bill requires that the Board manage reserves for: action in relation to a major industry crisis preserving the integrity of quota management systems funding specific industry-good activities.” I pose this question to members: do we really want to legislate for this type of thing? Surely that is a board function. Any worthwhile board would do that as a matter of course. I believe that is a worrying trend. We tend to legislate for anything. It is not just this Government; there has been a propensity over the last 20 years to put in place legislation if anything goes wrong. Someone does something silly somewhere so we legislate. I hope members will be cognisant of that point. 
The other issue that concerns me is under the heading “Definition of ‘reserves’—clause 4” in the commentary: “We note that Federated Farmers of New Zealand opposes the prioritising of reserves as a back up to the quota system or the use of reserves to settle liabilities arising from any litigation relating to quota allocation.” I have to say I share their concern. I simply say that surely no board can operate with a slush fund. A board must manage in an accountable fashion and in accord with its fiduciary accountabilities. Having deep pockets and pockets that do not belong to it will send the wrong messages about board responsibility. I take heed of Federated Farmers’ concerns and I believe that this is something the select committee should have looked at in more detail. 
The one area I want to take some time to talk about is the composition of the board. Certainly we need a board that is skilled that has the right people on it and that has the right expertise. I do not have an argument with that. But surely having selected a board with the right skills we do not then need to have two patsy members—Government appointments—put on that board. Their fingerprints will be all over that board and will constrain its ability to manage according to its charter. That I believe is something we should look at in some detail.