Meat Board Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Meat Board Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:618;Page:14078] 
Meat Board Bill 
Instruction to Committee 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Minister of Youth Affairs) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Meat Board Bill that it take the bill part by part. 
Motion agreed to. 
In Committee 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I have not had the chance to discuss this with any other of the parties but given that everybody supports this legislation I wonder whether the House would be inclined to grant leave for one wide-ranging debate over the Committee stage. I seek leave so to do. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is not. 
Clauses 1 to 89 and schedules 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) 
: 
 As I rise to speak for my second contribution to the bill restructuring the Meat Board I want to start off by saying “Thank you” from all parties to the Primary Production Committee members who did a fine job on this legislation. The bill had cross-party support and I acknowledge the work put in by my colleagues Doug Woolerton and Clayton Cosgrove—who I know has been a long-time member of that committee—and the work done by the officials and other members of that committee. 
I notice with some interest that only the Green Party hung out to the bitter end on the issue of Maori and women being included as of right when the select committee recommended that they should not be. That says it all does it not? I wonder—and perhaps some of the Maori members on the other side of the Chamber will know this figure—what percentage of the meat and wool industry Maori and Maori incorporations now actually make up. I suggest that it would be substantial and potentially as much as a third of the industry. I know that there is a high capability amongst the leadership there and if those leaders want to be on the board they will be on the board. I suggest they put their names forward to make sure that they are represented. 
As has already been stated the bill sets up structures and regimes principally to manage the quota which is very very important to this industry. We cannot get access to a large percentage of the international markets we export to without a proper robust and well-negotiated quota. I see that the Minister has come back to the chair and I acknowledge the work he does on behalf of farmers in that regard. That said I have to say that that is where the philosophical difference lies between us and them—that is the Labour minority Government with its new partner the Green Party—for the forthcoming election. That is clearly a recipe for disaster for them. The Green Party does not believe in free trade at all and it certainly does not believe in trading meat products in countries like the US which is the largest market and in a number of other markets where we do that business. 
So in the campaign that is coming around the corner I look forward to the Minister justifying to New Zealand not only how he is going to win against the 19 other Cabinet Ministers he is carrying on his back—perhaps 25 or so with all the hangers-on outside Cabinet—but also having to carry Ian Ewen-Street Nandor Tanczos and one or two others. There is Keith Locke that champion of free trade around the world! The Minister will have to carry him on his back as well. It just cannot be done. He might as well give up while he is ahead because it is not going to happen. The public of New Zealand know it is not going to happen and they will not vote for it to happen. They will vote for a National Government and that will be the end of that. 
National supports the agricultural industry. It always has and it always will—110 percent. We are not fair-weather friends like those on the other side of the Chamber. We do not come in and out like them riding in on a high tide and going out when the tide goes out. We are 110 percent committed and would never make a comment like that of a former Labour Prime Minister who said that this industry was “a sunset industry” and the sooner all the land in the South Island became a national park the better. That is of course the approach of this current Government. Something like 40 percent of the South Island land mass is currently in some kind of conservation estate—40 percent! This Government now has a proposal on the books to take 600000 stock units—that is something like 100 productive meat and wool farms—out of production over the next few years. 
What do members make of that? Here we are today debating a restructuring bill that will allow those industries the backbone of New Zealand to get on and produce the very high returns that this Government and the Minister of Finance are benefiting from. At the same time the Government is doing that it has the Minister of Conservation running around the country trying to take 100 productive meat and wool farms out of production. Where is the logic in that? It is beyond me; maybe the Minister will explain it to me. For that reason I say that that Government will not be back. 
This meat industry bill has a number of very important roles to play. First of all as I said it is being set up to manage the quota. Second it is being set up to make sure that there is a proper conduit for a levy to be paid for things like research and development. They are so important to this industry and it is good that the select committee was able to come to that conclusion. When the Minister makes appointments to the board which he will he should forget about the old Labour lackeys because they are history. He should not even consider them for a moment. 
EDWIN PERRY (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First will obviously be supporting this Meat Board Bill. A very well-known motivational speaker from America said: “Its time has come.” and I think the time has come for the Meat Board to be restructured. Of course this will be music to the ears of the farmers in the Wairarapa and common sense will prevail. That is not like the National Party which obviously left the farmers alone in the 1990s and had to reconstruct its efforts to bring them back. 
The commentary on the bill under “Introduction” states: “The bill restructures the New Zealand Meat Board and makes management of meat export quota the Board’s primary focus. The bill provides for the meat industry to be the recipient of the benefits of the quota markets.” Just quickly as we do not have a lot of time I want to cover one or two very important issues. In relation to the definition of reserves the Primary Production Committee—on which my colleague Doug Woolerton is very well-known as a farmer unlike others on that committee who are “Queen Street farmers”; I must mention the name of Mr Gerald Eckhoff too and also at this stage Mr Connell—recommends an amendment. It is expressed by clause 4(1): “reserves means all the net assets of the Board other than—(a) fees collected under section 55 to meet the costs of exporter registration: and (b) fees collected under section 36 to meet the costs of quota management except to the extent that they are collected to fund past payments made by the Board that—(i) were made in relation to quota management; and (ii) were not themselves funded from quota fees set under section 36.” 
We note that Federated Farmers of New Zealand opposes the prioritising of reserves as a backup to the quota system or the use of reserves to settle liabilities arising from litigation relating to quota allocation. All I want to say to Federated Farmers is that I believe that is a safeguard for the future of the industry. 
Of clause 13 “Governance” of the board the committee in relation to the Minister appointments and size of the board said it did not recommend any changes in the requirements for ministerial appointments that resulted in a board of 10 or 11 people. Some submitters argued that the size of the board was excessive and some that ministerial appointments were inappropriate. In speaking to Mr Connell this morning I went along with his view in respect of ministerial appointments but after reading the bill I think it is appropriate that directors are appointed. However there are some key points which I think the Minister brought up: experience expertise and not being a bureaucratic handbrake that will pull us up. I am happy as long as there is no bureaucratic handbrake that prevents the industry from prospering in the future. 
The other aspect of that is the representation provision of clause 13(4) which I was very interested in. With the exception of the Green member we did not see the need for clause 13(4) which required the Minister to give consideration to the representation of women and Maori farmers’ interests on the board when making ministerial appointments. Can I say to the Minister and to this Committee that New Zealand First does not support separate representation but I do support Maori farmers. I want the Minister not to ignore the contribution that Maori make to this industry. I want him to make it quite clear that Maori farmers and incorporation blocks out there make up a large part of the income of this industry. 
I will just mention one or two figures. The value of Maori agricultural output is estimated to be approximately $700 million. It cannot be ignored; it represents almost 10 percent of New Zealand’s total agricultural income. Only 15 percent of the population provides $700 million in agricultural income. Considering that their occupation of farming land is very small I want to applaud those Maori farmers and incorporations for the direction they have taken. 
I listened to the National Party going on about how this should not happen and also about the representation of women. Do my colleagues know that today women play a very important role in administeringfarming operations? 
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. 
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. 
Hon JIM SUTTON (Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 I should respond to that last point because it was the first point made by any of the members opposite who have spoken on the bill that really had anything to do with the policies covered by it. I explain to him—it was explained to the members of the Primary Production Committee and that is why they did not propose any change—that the reason for having two ministerial appointees on the Meat Board to manage the quota is that the quota belongs to New Zealand. It does not belong to the board; it belongs to New Zealand. It has to be managed in the interests of New Zealand and with a wider view of New Zealand’s interests than just the interests of this particular industry. I have had experience before of a board that was not acting in a prudent way with all the requirements of quota administration. Those board members endangered the viability of other quota held by New Zealand for the benefit of another industry. So it is essential that there be someone on the board—in fact two people are better than one because we all know that one board member can become isolated—to keep an eye on the wider New Zealand interest. 
Because most of the elected board members are mainly involved with delivering and managing industry-good functions that have nothing to do with quota there is absolutely no reason to believe that the board would have had within its members people with the specialist expertise in international trade negotiations and quota management that is needed to do that specialised job. That is why those people are there. They are there for a particular purpose and I am sure that the Minister after consulting with the chairman of the board and through him the elected members of the board will appoint suitable people. 
Apart from that most of the discussion was a political rave and one has to wonder whether in the end it is better to have a wide-ranging debate on these matters or to try to get members to concentrate on the subjects in the bill. The ACT member Gerard Eckhoff demonstrated some wide-ranging hostility to cooperatives. He attacked Richmond and PPCS. He does not like cooperatives. He thinks they are a step on the road to the salt mines of Siberia. We have seen that attitude in the right-wing parties in Parliament in the past. At the same time he wants to tell the board exactly what it should do with the reserves it manages. Those are not his reserves; they are the reserves of the producers of New Zealand. That member wants to tell the board exactly what it should do. He thinks he should define what it spends the reserves on. I am sorry to say he was supported by Brian Connell the member for Rakaia. I thought that was a bit surprising. It shows how impressionable some of the novice right-wingers are. 
This is a good bill. It provides for the slimmed-down more-focused producer organisation that producers have been calling for. It will be more accountable in the way that it raises funds and spends them on industry-good activities and it will be involved in the administration of the quota in the interests of the industry. I appreciate particularly the words of support from Edwin Perry a New Zealand First member. Indeed apart from a little action that occurred off the ball in the debate I thank all the members of the select committee and all the parties that participated because they have demonstrated bipartisan concentration on the issues of the bill which speaks well for Parliament on issues concerning our primary industry. 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 I want to take a quick call in rebuttal of the retiring member for Aoraki. There are some clear arguments as to why what the Minister of Agriculture said just does not make sense. He said that the composition of the board needs the two Government members because of their expertise. That flies in the face of what other boards do all across New Zealand—in fact of global practice. What he is saying if members think about it is that if a board has a legal requirement on it it must have a lawyer and if it has a marketing requirement on it it must have a marketer. What absolute nonsense! Any board worth its salt goes out and gets that expertise consults it takes it into account then comes back and uses it as part of the decision-making process. But to have two patsy members on the board with their fingers all over the decision-making process just to keep the Minister informed does not make sense. 
The Minister in the chair Jim Sutton knows that. Federated Farmers raised the point and it was raised right around the country. When the restructuring initiative was taken around the country every farmer who was thinking about the issue stood up and said that he or she wanted the best individuals possible on the board not patsy members appointed by this Government. This is a Government that does not really understand farming practice so how dare it say what farmers will have. It just does not make sense. This is the same Government that insisted in the select committee process that we have Maori representatives and female representatives on the board regardless of their merit. My message to the Minister is simply that people should be selected on merit and we should let the board get on with doing its job. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
: 
 I too would like to respond to the comments made by Jim Sutton a man described by many as one who will never make the top 10 but who will have no trouble getting into the bottom three of anything. The Minister seems not to have read the commentary to his own bill when he criticises my attitude to the use of the reserves. I can do no better than to quote from the bill’s commentary: “We note”—that is the select committee—“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.” That is exactly what I have said and I make no apology with the support of the farmer-owned organisation called Federated Farmers and the Minister stands in the Chamber and criticises me for having done so. Well I make no apology for that and the farmers of this community and Federated Farmers can make their own judgment call on the contribution of the Minister. 
The other aspect that he criticises me on is that I am flagging the size and the ability of a very very large meat company into the future called PPCS in combination with Richmond and their ability to influence perhaps the quota management of the meat industry. It will have two members sitting on the quota allocation committee. The full board of course makes the judgment call but there will be two members of the New Zealand Meat Industry Association sitting on that board. Their influence will be huge because they are so big. Now I do not and never have criticised the sense of two big companies PPCS and Richmond getting together in terms of the geographical distribution of meat the timing of the meat kill etc. It makes enormous common sense but I will say as I have done publicly in the past and I do again today that it is totally wrong for a company to abuse its size and indeed the goodwill of its shareholders. Indeed the company has been criticised by a High Court judge for gross commercial misconduct. That is something that we cannot take pride in in this country. It needs to be spoken about so that these companies know that the representatives—and I count myself amongst them—of the farming community have the backbone to stand in Parliament and criticise if they believe it is necessary. 
I say to Mr Sutton that if that means I end up in the political salt-mines I do not care. I am perfectly happy to go to a political salt-mine but I will not compromise my integrity and what I believe for the sake of political expediency although quite clearly the Minister seems to think that that is a necessary part of politics in this country. I say to the Minister that I do not think it is and that is why I have come to this place to try to change that in my own way if it is at all possible. It seems as though the Minister does not agree with me. 
So these are issues that I think are terribly important. I believe that the farming community thinks they are terribly important as well. But there is also one issue that—instead of criticising the Minister on this time—I am delighted to say the Government does understand the significance of—trade. I think the Minister does understand in a perverse sense if one likes given his dedication to the meat industry that New Zealand will progress only through trade—it is absolutely essential. The Greens of course and this has been alluded to here earlier do not agree that trade is vital to this country. Well the Minister for Trade Negotiations does do a lot of calling around the world along with members of the meat industry the Meat Board—the pastoral board the new Meat and Wool New Zealand. That is an essential part of government and I understand that. The question of whether in fact the Government owns the quota I think is a moot point but as I said earlier it is one that I am certainly not going to die in the ditch on as long as the country and the Minister understand that the real benefit comes from an industry like this one. 
The meat industry has the ability to go out there service its clients and service the world without the constraints the controls and the cost structures that are constantly being imposed on us by this Government. But there is no question that I think some members of the Government do understand the absolute necessity to get out there and sell our product and open access to New Zealand. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Members further to the leave granted by the Committee for one wide-ranging debate is it the wish of the Committee that I put the question as one? 
John Carter 
: Yes. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: It is. 
Clauses 1 to 89 and schedules agreed to. 
Bill reported without amendment. 
Third Reading 
Hon JIM SUTTON (Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 I move  
That the Meat Board Bill be now read a third time 
. The meat industry makes an enormous contribution to the New Zealand economy in terms of contributions to New Zealand’s gross domestic product employment and export earnings. In the year ended June 2003 $4.2 billion worth of meat products were exported which accounted for about 15 percent of the total value of merchandise exports from New Zealand. This bill was sought by the meat industry. The concepts it puts into practice were overwhelmingly endorsed by a referendum of producers in August 2003. It makes the provision of the raising of funds and the provision of industry-good services more accountable and more efficient. It retains a wide public overview of the administration of the valuable meat quota. I wish to compliment those in the industry who have fronted on this bill—both to the participants in their own industries and to members of Parliament—notably Jeff Grant and Mike Petersen because their energy and leadership have served the industry well. 
I wish the new Meat Board well in its reduced but more focused role of managing the meat export quota markets and the board’s reserves. I also wish the new combined meat and wool industry-good organisation—Meat and Wool New Zealand Ltd—well in its role of funding and managing industry-good activities under the provisions of the Commodity Levies Act of 1990. Most of all I wish New Zealand’s livestock farmers and the wider industry well under their new industry structures. I commend the bill to the House. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) 
: 
 Like the Minister I also recognise the farming folk who have led this industry to where it is at the moment. I congratulate the Minister on his support for them and on the judicious way this process has gone through the Parliament. I also say “Well done.” to Mike Petersen from Wools of New Zealand or the former Wool Board and Jeff Grant chairman for the very strong leadership. Once again an industry that is much maligned by our academic urban colleagues has shown that it can lead will lead and once again has demonstrated why it is the backbone of New Zealand. 
Seventy-six percent of farmers who participated in the vote did support this legislation or 80.3 percent of those on stock numbers who were represented in the vote did support this legislation. Can I just say that the work that took place in the select committee the members on the select committee and the officials who worked with the select committee obviously took note of the referendum and what the industry was asking for and by and large have delivered without exception exactly what the industry wanted. 
By way of an example I shall show what members of the select committee and officials were up against. The industry has never been represented better than in the submission from the Meat and Related Trades Workers Union—the funders of the Labour Party—which stated that it wanted a member on the board as well. When the Minister talks about the necessity to appoint a couple of people I hope he will condemn that submission to the trash can where it belongs and appoint people on their merit not because they represent the Meat and Related Trades Workers Union but on the basis of advice he is given by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. 
It is interesting to note that the union’s submission supported the general thrust of the bill but submitted that it needed to have a representative on the board. I thank the select committee for rejecting that notion and also rejecting the notion that a woman and a Maori representative should be appointed. Both those sectors play a very key role in the meat industry but both of those groups whether it be by gender or race should also be able to get a representative elected to the board and will I am sure of that. In fact over the years many good examples of representatives from both those groups have been found. 
The legislation came about as a result of the need to manage the quota structure after the merger of wool and meat. That is the guts of the bill and it is hugely important to New Zealand. It is always interesting to note that with an industry as large as this—and the Minister said that it was worth $4.2 billion and although my figure is $6 billion I will not debate it. The Minister would be right. His figure is probably more accurate although he has probably left out wool. I suggest that he has left out wool. One could dust off a billion-dollar industry as though it were not significant in New Zealand and wool has had different fortunes of recent times. Some could easily dismiss the wool industry being about four times the size of the wine industry and about a hundred times the size of anything Jim Anderton has ever been able to come up with as insignificant. I suspect that he has left wool out of his figures. Whether the figure be $4.2 billion or $6 billion I am not absolutely certain but I suspect that that is what happened. 
The bottom line is that most of that money is managed through quota into international markets and the ability to be able to manage and negotiate that quota access from a ministerial Government State-to-State industry-to-industry point of view is hugely important. In fact that is the overwhelming and most important factor in anything that the New Zealand Government can do in terms of New Zealand Inc. 
Despite this Government having stated many times that it is in favour of growth and is always looking for strong growth it fails once again to acknowledge that the growth this economy has enjoyed—in spite of not as a result of the Government I say—has come from industries such as the meat industry. Those industries underpin the strong growth this economy is enjoying at the moment always has and always will as far as I or anybody else can see into the future. 
This industry is the backbone of New Zealand. This legislation is one of the most important things that this Parliament will have to do. One would not think so. One would think that based on what has happened in recent times with media publicity the number of members in the House and the like things like the civil union legislation are hugely important but the reality is that this kind of legislation will help the economy go forward and fund the social programmes that this Government is intent on putting in place in health education and all the things that every member of Parliament comes to this place to try to represent. 
The only argument and it is a philosophical one is whether the State or farmers own the quota. Technically one could argue—and the Minister has—that because the State negotiates the quota the State owns it. The National Party will never defend or support that notion. Regardless of the amount of official advice the legal ramifications and the technical points the bottom line is that those quotas are negotiated Minister to Minister supported by the industries. Contrary to popular belief the industries drive the quota generally and not the Minister. The industries generally find the markets develop them and then go into negotiation over quota. The Minister seals that deal and those quotas are negotiated for farmers on behalf of farmers for those who produce it. There is a simple question to answer. If it were not for the production of the material that is exported into the quota markets there would not be a quota. That is simple and the Minister would not be required to negotiate it. So the quota is owned on behalf of the farmers. The State does not own the quotas and that is a very very significant point of difference between National and Labour. 
I have no strong opinion on the make-up of the board of 10 to 11 members as stated in the commentary. Providing that the industry itself consults widely enough it will find the expertise within it. Often it is said that farmers do not have the ability to manage industries such as this. Over and over again that has been proven wrong. Over and over it has proven to be one of those urban-driven sorts of myths. The bottom line here is that farmers in this industry will as they always have find the people who will best represent the views of those whom they are elected to represent. 
In summary this legislation is a very good step forward. This initiative was started under the former National Government. I would say the evolution—rather than revolution—within our primary industries has been ongoing for a long time. In fact those regulations were started in 1922 and prior to that I know there were regulations in relation to the export of primary products. It is an evolution it is not a revolution and that is a good way to do business. I say well done to those who were involved. The industry is in a good position now to go forward. It should go forward and prove its critics wrong. I know that it will and I wish it luck in the future. 
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
: 
 The report of the Primary Production Committee was unanimous and this bill will go through with the support of all parties including New Zealand First. However New Zealand First has not seen the need to point out its opposition to women directors or Maori directors. In fact I quite like the idea of women directors on boards and would never ever oppose such a move unless there was a higher reason behind that and of course the higher reason would be equity. However I do not want to let this opportunity go by without saying in particular that women have made a huge contribution to this industry and have done so for centuries. I must also mention that approximately 10 percent of the total sheep and beef stock units belong to or are under the control of Maori interests and that is significant. 
There was a day—and I hope that people do not take offence at this—when people would drive past unkempt land or land that perhaps was not in pristine condition and would lament that perhaps it was Maori land. The implication was that Maori land was not productive and was not looked after and the explanation of that was that it was in multi-person ownership. That was all correct of course but since those days we have had a marvellous thing called Maori incorporations come along and Maori have found a very good vehicle that takes into account the multiple ownership of land. They can appoint managers and they have legislation that means they do not have to track down the last Maori owner maybe in foreign parts of the world. So Maori can get on with the business of farming. We now have very very productive enterprises in the hands of Maori incorporations. They are a credit to the Maori people and to the farming industry and they take their place in the industry with pride and professionalism. I will not name the people who are involved at the risk of missing somebody out and causing offence but the people who are involved in the industry are highly qualified highly motivated very very professional people. They do nothing but add to the industry and we applaud that. I would be concerned if the words from my National Party colleagues were taken as suggesting there was some concern that Maori were not welcome on these boards or anything else. It is simply the fact that the select committee believed that representation on them should be on the basis of merit rather than based on race or gender. I just wanted to make that point obvious. 
At this point I want to thank the officials and my colleagues on the select committee. We do work well together. We enjoy each other’s company dare I say it and we certainly look forward to the reappearance of Mr Shane Ardern on that committee. I think I can say that we are of one voice on that. So we urge his contemporaries and his leaders to bless us with his presence. It is not often that we get the chance—we do get the chance but we do not get it often enough—to tell the people of New Zealand via speeches such as this of the talent integrity and intelligence of the so-called bureaucrats or the people who shepherd bills through the House. We are blessed in this Parliament. I know that sometimes debates rage around these matters but we have a bureaucracy to serve this country and this Parliament that is free of corruption and that has clear ideals and clear guidelines to work to. Officials give freely of their advice. They work long hours; they do not work normal days and take weekends off. If there is a job to be done they work after normal working hours and in the weekends. They work hard at it. We are served by them and we owe them a debt of gratitude. I know that I do not thank them often enough so I am doing so now and making up for what I have neglected to do previously. 
I cannot let this opportunity go by without mentioning the fact that New Zealand First sees a difference between export-led and consumer-driven economic activity. It has been the fashion in the last 15 years or so for people not to differentiate between those things. This bill deals with export-led economic activity and we support it. Members can see that there is complete unanimity on this bill in the House. Whether economic activity is export led or consumer driven makes a difference to the inflation rate of this country. It makes a difference to where the money first lands if one likes. It is far better for the economy for the money to come in through export-led activity go into the hands of people in the provinces in the case of this industry and then flow through into the cities. The money always ends up in the cities but it does matter how it gets there. When it goes through the rural economy into the cities everybody gets a drink if one likes and shares in the wealth and the economy is better balanced for that. 
This is a huge industry. Mr Ardern has rightly drawn some comparisons and we tend to forget them. I came up through my farming career in a cooperative structure. It is a structure that I still favour. I believe this industry would have been better served without some of the very well-known names that were involved in the past like Vestey’s meat companies and things like that—people who have substantial wealth. 
Shane Ardern 
: Foreign investors! 
R DOUG WOOLERTON 
: Yes we mention the words “foreign investors”. New Zealand First is well known for talking about that and I am going back into past history and talking about that now. Sure those people have contributed to this industry but they have also taken great wealth off these shores from it. I personally would like to see more cooperative involvement and I believe if this industry had had that it would be further ahead than it is. It does not surprise me coming as I do from the dairy industry that the dairy industry which played second or third fiddle to this industry has now surpassed it with a cooperative structure that many people in this industry believed to be inferior in days gone by. 
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. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I rise to take a very short call on behalf of United Future as this bill passes through its third reading. The member who spoke before me said in his speech on the second reading that he was a very proud farmer and in that speech he certainly portrayed himself as a very proud ACT party member as well. He wondered why I laughed. Well when we hear some things that are really ridiculous we cannot help ourselves. It is spontaneous. We just had to laugh as he took credit for the fact that there is unity in the House today saying it is entirely dependent upon ACT party policy. The real reason why there is unity on the passage of this bill today is that ACT for the first time in a long time has decided to vote for something instead of simply opposing everything that is ever brought into this House. We are happy that there has been unity on this legislation because it is important legislation. It is good for the country. It will be good for the meat industry for our primary industries and United Future is very happy to see it pass through its third reading today to benefit the country. 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 Madam Speaker—[ 
Interruption 
] I was going to take a very short call on this bill but if I keep getting heckled I might take my full 10 minutes. We will see how it rolls. 
There is a lot to commend this bill. A lot of the credit goes to the outstanding work of the Primary Production Committee. There are no finer examples of members of that select committee than Phil Heatley and David Carter. David Carter in his stewardship of the committee managed to pull back the more extreme views of some Government members and the Greens. I take my hat off to him. I also acknowledge that the consulting advice provided by Shane Ardern in the corridors has made this bill what it is today. I commend the bill to the House. 
There is overwhelming support for this legislation from those farmers who did vote. [ 
Interruption 
] The Clayton’s member for Waimakariri is calling out again. I am not sure what he is saying. I would engage the member in a battle of wits but I never attack an unarmed man so I will just carry on. There is overwhelming support for this legislation. People see that it is common sense and they support it and that is pretty much the theme. But common sense and the Labour Government do not necessarily go hand in hand. It was not very long ago that this Government was trying to foist the “fart tax” on to the agricultural industry. If not for people like Shane Ardern who had the courage of his convictions to jump on his tractor and drive it up the steps of Parliament becoming a symbol of defiance for the farming communities then this Government would be taxing sheep and cattle throughout this country right now. I say to Shane Ardern and the farmers who marched on Parliament: “Well done!”. 
I noted when I was taking a call during the Committee stage that there is a tendency to over-regulate. I was not pointing the finger at any particular Government but I did raise the question of whether some of this legislation is necessary. I reiterate that concern because I think there is a tendency for successive Governments to get involved in legislation that is just not necessary. 
Let us also be clear that the Meat Board Bill is in existence only because of the hard work and outstanding contribution that our meat and wool farmers have made thus far. Jeff Grant a former National Party MP and Mike Petersen have led that work. They are the types of individuals who have made this legislation what it is today. Now of course we have the Minister of Agriculture coming in on their shirt tails and trying to claim some of the glory. But the farming industry does not buy that. That is why there will be a change of Government. That is why that member has already flagged that he will retire; he knows that he will not be re-elected down in Aoraki. 
Let us also be clear that we have a meat quota now only because of the outstanding work that our farming community has engaged in. There is a sense within this Government that all farmers are a bunch of hayseeds. Well let me tell those members something: our farmers are now working in a deregulated highly technology driven and highly scientific industry and they are at the forefront of this industry right across the world. They are not underpinned by subsidies. They do not believe in the types of things this Government is trying to do to the rest of New Zealand—that is to make people dependent. They know that they can exist on their own merits. So I tell Government members opposite that they should be standing up and applauding the farming industry for what it has done not sitting in judgment and putting in place things like the “fart tax”. That is exactly what they tried to do and lest we forget it was not very long ago. We will not forget and the voting public of this country will not forget either. 
We in the farming industry know that we work in a global market. We select people on merit when we put boards together so that principle should have been adhered to by this Government in deciding the composition of the board. I have already taken a call to signal my concern about that but it fell on deaf ears as far as the Minister was concerned. But the National Party and the farming industry believe that one appoints people according to merit. Why would one have a board with highly skilled people then put in place Government patsies to keep an eye on how they perform? It just does not make sense. 
I will leave the House with this view. The members of the farming community are successful business people with asset backings in most cases of $2 million $3 million $5 million $10 million $15 million $20 million or $30 million. If one took that type of business to the city people would say: “Oh that’s a big business. You are successful. We must learn from you.” But we do not do that. There is some sort of derision of the farming community as a bunch of hayseeds and it is driven by the Clayton Cosgroves of this world. It might surprise members that he talks about being a rural representative. His office is in Papanui Road in Christchurch. He is so far from the rural communities that he gets out there with a packed lunch only once a month to see what a sheep actually looks like. So people should not listen to what that member has to say; they should listen to what the National members have to say because we respect farmers and we understand that they are successful business people and that is why we have thrown our full support behind this legislation. 
Bill read a third time.