Sutton Jim: Meat Board Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Sutton Jim: Meat Board Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:618;Page:14082] 
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.