Baldock Larry: Meat Board Restructuring Bill — Second Reading 
Baldock Larry: Meat Board Restructuring Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:618;Page:14074] 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to speak on this second reading of the Meat Board Restructuring Bill. I cannot stand with the same pride that the member before me a real farmer stood with but I do own more cows than anybody else in our caucus. Owning five cows probably does not qualify me as a genuine farmer but it has given me some appreciation for those who work hard in the primary industry around our country. Taking care of 5 acres is enough for me and it has given me an appreciation of the hard work and good management required in order to produce the maximum we can from our land in this country. 
I share in the comments that have been made by other speakers that we as a nation are very much dependent upon our primary industry. It is always encouraging to see it do better each year as commodity prices continue to rise. It is always a worry when we hear there is a possibility that farmers may be in for a glum time because we know that will pass on through the rural communities to affect so many other people in our nation. It has been heartening this year to hear that rather than the predicted doom and gloom there has been a marvellous upturn in the incomes of farmers in terms of projected payouts. We really welcome that news for the whole of the country. 
Our party not having a member on the Primary Production Committee I want to pay my regards to the members on it who worked so hard in hearing the submissions. They received eight submissions and they heard four which is an incredible workload for any committee to have to deal with. I thank the members for diligently working through these issues. The bill returns to the House with some recommendations and I would like to make a few comments on those before ending our contribution on this second reading following which we move to the Committee stage. 
The bill is all about enshrining in legislation the necessary provisions that lay the groundwork for best practice and help ensure the ongoing success of New Zealand’s meat industry and its members. It is pleasing to be part of supporting legislation that has been requested by the industry rather than imposed upon it. I take note of the honourable member Clayton Cosgrove’s earlier comments that during my time in this House we have responded to requests from the wool industry the kiwifruit industry and here we are dealing with something requested by the meat industry. That is really the role of this House: to hear from the communities that it serves to design legislation to hear submissions and to progress the issues that those who voted us here are interested in our progressing. It is a pleasure to take part in this legislation proceeding through the House so that it can meet the needs of the industry. 
The recommendation to define the term “reserves” in concise language to mean meeting the costs of quota management is a prudent measure to offset litigious opportunism. It will also ensure that the $100 million reserve fund remains the primary means to ensure solvency and the ability of the board to carry out its core quota management functions at all times. It is pleasing to note the importance given to livestock farmer buy-in and participation which has been recounted in numerous recommendations made by the select committee. Whether it be with regard to consultations over the reserve fund policy or over the validity of reserve management decisions it is important to ensure that livestock farmers’ wishes are suitably considered. 
Also clarifying the terms of reference of the board with regard to the power to delegate quota functions and the capacity to contract for services is a necessary tightening-up of its terms of reference to remove confusion within the industry. In fact many of the committee’s recommended changes are made with the intent to provide more clarity to grey areas in terms of the structure ownership issues and effective functioning of the Meat Board. It is sensible to clarify that although the quota markets are there to benefit the industry ownership of the rights resides firmly with the Crown. United Future supports that principle. Furthermore the recommendations to minimise the scope of legal disputes by clarifying distinctions between scheduled and unscheduled audits—a bugbear in many industries—is another judicious measure that deserves praise. With any overseeing body whose core role is to benefit its members an affirmation of its core purpose tempered with flexibility is essential to allow for best practice. The recommended changes that provide this necessary flexibility by requiring the industry-good organisation to be owned by a trust whose beneficiaries are all livestock farmers do just that. 
The recommended changes to this bill are sensible measures that will help make sure that the Meat Board fulfils its duties effectively and properly and that the meat industry and its members all benefit from such duties. United Future has pleasure in recommending this bill to the House for the passage of its second reading.