Carter David: Meat Board Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Carter David: Meat Board Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:633;Page:4657] 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call on the second reading of the Meat Board Amendment Bill. I start by making sure that there is no question about any conflict of interest in terms of my involvement in this legislation. I am of course a farmer. I am also a shareholder in two organisations—PPCS and Alliance Meats—that made submissions to the Primary Production Committee. I assure this House that in no circumstances did my very minor shareholding in either of those companies play any part at all as I considered the legislation. In fact as we conclude the debate on this bill it will be seen that the wishes of those two major exporters according to their submissions have certainly not been satisfied by the select committee. 
I agree wholeheartedly with the Hon Dover Samuels that the meat industry is absolutely critical to the New Zealand economy. It is an industry that has enjoyed relatively buoyant times over recent years but it is also an industry under increasing pressure because of the cost structure under which it operates and because of the ever-increasing ability of previously under-developed nations to develop their agriculture and then compete in every market to which we send our product. We can continue to claim the uniqueness of the New Zealand meat product because of our clean and green environment but at the end of the day I think a customer going into Sainsbury’s or a supermarket in Tokyo is likely to be more persuaded by the cost of the item on the supermarket shelf than any claims we make as to the pure untainted manner in which we as farmers here in New Zealand produce our product. Therefore I think it is incumbent on all politicians of this Parliament to keep seriously a very close watch on the costs that are being imposed on the industry—some of those certainly imposed by central government. 
From my point of view this legislation came out of left field. I was involved through the select committee process in the original Meat Board Act 2004 and therefore was as surprised as I think most players within the industry that an amendment had been put before Parliament with a special request from the Minister in charge of the legislation—the Minister of Agriculture Jim Anderton—to progress it through the select committee process as quickly as possible. I take the opportunity of thanking my colleagues on the select committee who were from Labour and National—there was no involvement from the smaller political parties. I thank my fellow committee members for the way they helped me to shepherd this legislation through the select committee process. 
Having acknowledged that the legislation came out of left field I do accept that there was some dissatisfaction on the part of some players around the allocation of quota to the valuable markets referred to by Dover Samuels. Let me say that there will always be some dissatisfaction in the industry. The industry is by its very nature very competitive. It is vital that the industry remains competitive so that we as a nation have the opportunity to maximise value for “New Zealand Incorporated”. There will always be tension around the way the Meat Board allocates the quota. Clearly—and as demonstrated by the submissions to the select committee—there is a very healthy tension between the big players within the industry and the smaller emerging players who of course always want to get bigger. I do not think that should be underestimated. I think it is healthy but I would not want to see any dispute progress further than a healthy debate before the Meat Board via any question of ambiguity in the original Act of 2004. The select committee took no part in considering whether there was ambiguity. That was not our role and frankly I do not have the legal expertise to consider that. Suffice it to say the Government saw that there was possibly an area of ambiguity and moved promptly to close any argument that there could be ambiguity and I support that move completely. 
The next major point that needs to be made is that this legislation is not about Parliament or politicians determining how the quota should be allocated to the various players within the meat industry. Parliament made the decision to allocate that responsibility to the Meat Board with the 2004 Act and that was not for debate in this legislation. I am not sure that all submitters actually saw that point; one or two took the opportunity to relitigate the issue of whether that was the appropriate process. But Parliament without from memory any opposing vote by any political party saw fit to pass that role from the House of Representatives to the Meat Board which I think has done a very creditable job with the allocation process. It is acknowledged as I said earlier that there will always be some arguments around the fringes as to whether particular parties get enough of the access to those quota markets. 
The fundamental issue within the industry is how to maximise the value of that access to good markets for the benefit of certainly the whole of New Zealand but of more particularly the meat industry. The select committee accepted without question that the meat industry is a combination of course of farmers processors and exporters. So the question that was perhaps for discussion by submitters and select committee members was of the position of processors who went to the effort of ensuring that their meat was produced to a standard that made it suitable for export to those markets and then for some reason made a decision not to export it but to sell it on the domestic market. I think that having the ability to maximise the flexibility under which companies operate so that they can determine the latter stages of the process—their decision as to how they sell a product—is the very best way they can maximise their returns and the very best way they can be in a position to pay the best possible price to producers and therefore to farmers. 
Having said that I say that although the legislation must be flexible we cannot afford for it to have any ambiguity at all. Its flexibility is valuable because it allows new players to come into the market to establish niche markets overseas and then to progress the finalisation of their products so that they are in a position to maximise their returns. I would hope that at this stage all submitters will accept the word of Parliament that the issues of further allocation will be something to which all parties have every right to communicate with the Meat Board about and to place their case. The legislation allows regular reviews communication and discussion between the players but I hope that the fundamental arguments and the fundamental acceptance of Meat Board decisions will be put to bed with the passing of the legislation. At the end of the day those markets are valuable to New Zealand. They are valuable of course to the farmers who produce the meat that ultimately goes to those markets but also from a “New Zealand Incorporated” point of view they have been hard earned and are of substantial value to us.