Heatley Phil: Meat Board Restructuring Bill — Second Reading 
Heatley Phil: Meat Board Restructuring Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:618;Page:14076] 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the National Party. There is certainly no shortage of National Party members who could sit on the Primary Production Committee. There is a lot of depth in our party which comes from people who have a rural background. That is why Shane Ardern is standing in the wings waiting to replace us at any time and there are plenty of others in the National Party with a respect for farming who are standing right behind him. We in the National Party certainly support this industry and would like to acknowledge the productivity and the go-forward attitude of the primary sector that has carried this economy for many many decades and certainly with no help from this Government for the last 4 years. 
 National supports this Meat Board Restructuring Bill with the changes that we have made in the Primary Production Committee. I would like to touch on some of those. We are very comfortable with the merger of Meat New Zealand and the New Zealand Wool Board to create Meat and Wool New Zealand Ltd a limited-liability company. We on the select committee did have some concerns particularly with regard to the governance arrangements. For example members will see in the commentary that some submitters argued that the size of the board was excessive—being a board of 10 or 11 people—and some argued that ministerial appointees were inappropriate. In this case the legislation states that the Minister would have two appointees. In the select committee that particular clause was referred to as the “Jim’s job clause”. 
Shane Ardern 
: His retirement clause. 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: “Jim’s retirement clause”. There was some cynicism from people in the industry when they came to the select committee about who the Minister Jim Sutton would give those two jobs to—whether one would land in his lap or whether he would give them to other Labour Party lackeys. That concern was put to us. We reflected on that and with some reluctance the industry—and I must say the National Party—will accept having two ministerial appointments. Yes eyebrows were raised at that possibility but with some reluctance “Jim’s retirement clause” was passed. 
Interestingly enough we were quite interested not only in the number of directors but also in clause 13(4) of the original bill regarding the management of the board. I think the country will be quite shocked at that clause particularly with the current climate out there. It stated: “In appointing directors … the Minister must have regard to the desirability of—(a) the representation on the Board of women;”. The Minister must consider putting women on the board. How condescending and patronising is that? We have a large number of women involved in the running of “New Zealand Incorporated” both at Government level and in the private sector—Telecom and other companies. Clearly we have a woman Prime Minister—as Don Brash pointed out the other day—we have a female Governor-General and so on. Women have done very well and are quite capable of getting these appointments on their own merits but no the Labour Government felt that for some reason this appointment should be put at their feet regardless of merit. How condescending and patronising is that? 
Another clause stated that in appointing directors the Minister must have on the board: “… persons qualified to represent the views of Maori livestock farming interests.” How condescending and patronising to Maori is that? As if Maori amongst themselves do not have people who are more than able on their merits to sit on this board and to achieve for livestock farmers throughout New Zealand all the things that need to be achieved. How condescending and patronising is it that the Government would lay out the red carpet for Maori regardless of merit and say that Maori were in? I can tell members that Maori in the fishing industry are more than capable of reaching governance levels and jobs like that on merit without those jobs being passed out to them like a welfare cheque. So we opposed that and we are delighted to see that those particular clauses that put Maori and women on the board without necessarily having merit have been scrapped. We look forward to seeing Maori women and New Zealanders of other descent on that board because of merit. I recall that when we raised this issue—when we said that women and Maori would be put on the board as of right—Clayton Cosgrove asked why. Clayton Cosgrove himself said: “Why?”. He could not understand it and neither could we so he scrapped that clause—as did we—and we are pleased about it. 
There is another clause that will go through to the Committee stage and it is about the Crown and its approach to the rights of the quota. Members will be interested that the clause originally said that the Crown—this is what the Labour Government said: “… owns the rights to secure the economic benefits deriving from quota markets”. I would have to say that there was a shade of nationalisation of those quota rights in that clause and we are delighted that it too has been changed to better reflect the Crown’s role in this. The clause now states: “The Crown owns the rights to secure the economic benefits deriving from quota markets and those benefits are assigned for the benefit of the meat industry ...”. The quota rights are for the benefit of the meat industry. They are not for the Government not for the Government’s coffers and not for the Government to get some benefit that it might redistribute in some way to every New Zealander but for the benefit of the meat industry alone. 
I am also pleased to see that some accountability will be given to this board with regard to fees in relation to quota management and to the operation of quota management systems. I was somewhat concerned when I saw that the board could recover the costs to it of carrying out its functions in relation to the quota markets and that the board may set fees payable by meat exporters who are allocated a quota—not that I think the board should not be able to recover those costs through fees but simply that it would have the ability to set those fees. They would need to be fair and reasonable and the fees would need to provide the board with adequate funding. My concern was that those fees would be set and that there would be no redress for exporters if the fees were excessive unfair or unreasonable. 
But I see now—and it was in the bill—that those fees are to be treated as a regulation for the purposes of the Regulations (Disallowance) Act. In other words they are to be subject to the Regulations Review Committee and can be reviewed. I say to exporters that should problems arise in the years to come regarding those fees they do have access to Parliament through the Regulations Review Committee to see that the fees are reviewed and are set accordingly. So there is a degree of accountability there. 
National certainly supports this bill with those changes. The bill was originally quite condescending particularly with regard to who owned the quota and who should get the benefit and to whether Maori and women should be on the board as of right simply because of their race or gender. I am glad that those clauses have been changed. National supports the bill. We are pleased with the accountability processes and I commend this bill to the Committee stage. 
Bill read a second time. 
Name changed to Meat Board Bill.