Woolerton R Doug: Wool Industry Restructuring Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Woolerton R Doug: Wool Industry Restructuring Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:7109] 
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First supports the abolition of the Wool Board which is really what this bill is about as the leader of the National Party has just said. However we will introduce amendments in the Committee stage to provide that the abolition of the Wool Board should be just that and that the process set out in the bill should not continue thereafter without the oversight of a statutory manager to investigate it. The Wool Board is being disestablished—or got rid of as one says—but in the view of New Zealand First and I am sure of some of the members of the Primary Production Committee farmers are unsure of what is to come after that. Farmers voted to get rid of the Wool Board; of that there is no doubt. Whether they voted to put the same old faces in different places for the future is a matter of some doubt. 
I make no apology whatsoever for saying that New Zealand First’s amendments are based on the submission of Mr Phil Verry of the International Wool Corporation who has said that farmers do not know what is coming after the disestablishment of the Wool Board and that we need to take a far closer look at that. A lot of companies are being set up. One needs to understand what they are all about and more important to have the farmers understand what they are all about. The question that should be asked at that stage is whether that is what farmers want. Do they want to have the Wool Board continue in many different guises with basically the same people running things or do they want to stop the board there and do their own thing and indeed to sell off or not to continue with some of the companies that are proposed? The companies are all being set up; many have been set up as we speak and prior to this legislation going through the House. 
It is true to say that people whom we respect have advised the select committee well and diligently. I understand that they had no option but to advise us in the way that they did—that is to preach caution and to say to us that this bill is the result of a farmer referendum. I understand that the Minister of Agriculture said that if farmers agreed to bring a restructuring plan to him the Government would implement it. The officials subsequently had no option but to carry on down that line of advice. 
However questions arise in relation to the setting up of the companies—Ovita Covita Merino Grower Investments Wool Equities Canesis Venture Capital and Canesis Network which we only learnt about as the select committee was winding down its deliberations on this bill and one suspects that there are more companies to come. New Zealand First says that if there is any doubt it should be dispelled that it is best dispelled by an independent person and that it is best dispelled by this House preaching caution in these matters. If there is no suspicion and if nothing is untoward and everything is as it should be then of course the plan should go ahead. 
I cannot help but mention the fact that the $100 million that is commonly talked about that the Wool Board has in reserves was built up during World War II—if one believes that—and has been carried forward since then. Many submitters have said they have paid the levies the Wool Board is being wound up and they want what is left over of those levies to be paid back to them. But that is not to be the case. That money was put aside in the heyday of the wool industry and it is a sad story that its heyday was back in World War II and that it has since been seriously depleted. 
Hon Member 
: It’s wool not hay! 
R DOUG WOOLERTON 
: My colleague tells me that it is wool and not hay and he is absolutely right. 
 We are told that the average farmer—bearing in mind that people with fewer than 250 sheep are as from 30 June I think disbarred from participating in an allocation of cash or redeemable shares and that we are talking about quite substantial farmers having ruled those smaller ones out—will receive individually in the vicinity of only $1500 to $2000. That is an average and averages are dangerous. So the pot of gold that farmers thought at the beginning of this process would be there for them has been seriously depleted and I think the mood amongst farmers is very much one of not caring what happens. They just want the Wool Board to go. They are not expecting a whole lot of payout from it but say there is a curse on its house. 
That being the case I think it is absolutely appropriate that we have the amendments in my name that are before the House to— 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: Who wrote them? 
R DOUG WOOLERTON 
: The member is being facetious; he knows I am not a lawyer. I should have been one but I am not. Writing amendments is not my cup of tea and I freely admit that. Nevertheless the amendments are in my name and they are a precaution. Even though I am not sure whether all the parties of my fellow members on the select committee will vote for my amendments I am sure they address a concern that all the members on the select committee had to a degree—it is just a matter of the degree to which the matter concerned them. 
I sum up by saying that New Zealand First supports the abolition of the Wool Board. It has doubts about the companies that are to be set up with the same old faces appearing in different places. However we will address that by introducing our amendments at the Committee stage.