Ardern Shane: Meat Board Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Ardern Shane: Meat Board Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:618;Page:14085] 
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.