Cosgrove Clayton: Wool Industry Restructuring Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Cosgrove Clayton: Wool Industry Restructuring Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:7112] 
CLAYTON COSGROVE (NZ Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I rise to support the bill. First it is interesting being a member of the Primary Production Committee where there is a great deal of unanimity and consensus—unlike another committee I chair that is highly political. Maybe it is because the issues are rural ones but we tend to cooperate in a way that I think brings a lot of esteem and honour to this place. Although we all support the bill—[ 
Interruption 
] A Green member does not and I apologise. Although most of us support the bill we echo the words of Doug Woolerton: “We gave it a lot of scrutiny.” 
It is worth pointing out that although growers have given us a mandate to do this and the Government and other parties in the House have said that they will do what the industry wants to do—in this case restructure—the point should be made as Mr Woolerton said that after 2 years growers can sell their shares. I think they will receive in the order of $2000 or $3000 each but they have an ownership cap of around 5 percent. However I can recall that when the Primary Production Committee was doing the Fonterra legislation at the same time as the fruit legislation the concern it had was somehow to preserve the cooperative structure of the dairy industry to prevent the sort of corporate burgle and raid that ENZA and fruitgrowers were put through by the Guinness Peat Group. 
As a Government we have done what growers wanted. This bill is mandated by growers and this Government will adhere to that. My hope is that at the end of that 2-year period before growers decide to sell or retain their shares they will acknowledge that there are huge issues at stake. For instance Mr Woolerton has pointed out the huge public good the research and the intellectual property that exist within a number of entities in this structure—Covita is an example—and even though there is a 5 percent cap any person who has run a business could argue that growers could make their industry vulnerable to a corporate raid. But once this bill is passed that will be a decision for growers. I support the bill because it is mandated by industry but I hope that at the end of that 2-year period growers will look very carefully at how their industry could change in terms of corporate raid or outside input and at how the cooperative structure they have had for many years could change should they decide to sell their shares. It does not take a rocket scientist to work out that 5 percent plus 5 percent plus a few other blocks of shares could end up producing a controlling or dominant interest through intangible relationships between entities or growers. 
As Gerry Eckhoff pointed out there has been huge progress in the wool industry. The select committee went to the Wool Research Organisation of New Zealand and saw the amazing things that are happening with wool. As Mr Eckhoff said with wool being a protein that organisation is turning it into all sorts of products and that is a magnificent thing for the industry. Again I just hope that growers will acknowledge that and the huge value they have if they choose to maintain that sort of cooperative control in their industry. 
I support the bill. It is good legislation and I believe that it will deliver what the industry wants. It is also fair to say that as Mr Woolerton pointed out a large amount of the motivation for providing a mandate for this legislation is that growers for whatever reason have had a gutsful of the Wool Board. Finally I say again that I hope growers will think carefully when actioning their shares 2 years hence.