Hop Industry Restructuring Bill — Second Reading Procedure Third Reading 
Hop Industry Restructuring Bill — Second Reading Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4838] 
Hop Industry Restructuring Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Associate Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 I move  
That the Hop Industry Restructuring Bill be now read a second time 
. This bill facilitates the regulatory and structural reform of the New Zealand hop industry. It removes the New Zealand Hop Marketing Board’s single-desk powers to procure and export all New Zealand hop products and it restructures the board into a producer-owned cooperative company. The bill is consistent with the Government’s policy for producer-board reform. It is supported by all 26 hop producers and by the board itself and is in the national interest. The bill will give producers the autonomy to raise capital and to make their own investment decisions in a contestable commercial environment. 
The Hop Industry Restructuring Bill was introduced into the House on 19 March 2002. It had its first reading on 1 October 2002 after which it was referred to the Primary Production Committee for consideration. The committee received one written submission on the bill which was from the Hop Marketing Board. The board gave its support for deregulation of the hop industry and restructuring as per the bill subject to an amendment to the date of the restructuring day. The board’s preferred restructuring day and the date specified in the bill was 1 August 2002. However that day had passed by the time the bill was referred to the select committee. The board proposed a new restructuring day of 1 August 2003 the first day of the board’s 2003-04 financial year and that has been recommended by the committee. 
I would like to thank the board for its support of this bill and for its constructive comments on it. I would also like to thank the members of the Primary Production Committee for their consideration of the bill and for the report tabled in Parliament on 4 December 2002. I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (NZ National) 
: 
 As I start my contribution to the debate on the Hop Industry Restructuring Bill I take the opportunity to congratulate that member both on his remarkable renaissance and on now agreeing to support yet another deregulation of a producer board. 
Hon Damien O'Connor 
: Supported by the producers. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Absolutely but I thought I would take the time to quote from  
Hansard 
 when we had a similar debate back in 1999. Mr Damien O’Connor said then that a blind ideology was driving the Government to deregulate producer boards. “Blind ideology” the member said. He made comments like: “This will be the death knell of the dairy industry.” He said: “This legislation will lead to”— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: This is about the hop industry not the dairy industry. Would the speaker come to the point. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am outlining my congratulations to the member on supporting this bill and pointing out the remarkable change in the member’s own philosophy on producer board deregulation. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is perfectly entitled to do that but not when referring to another industry. He must refer to this bill which is the Hop Industry Restructuring Bill. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: In referring to the Hop Industry Restructuring Bill I want to again congratulate the member Damien O’Connor on his remarkable about-face since only a couple of years ago we last deregulated another producer board the name of which I will not refer to in this particular debate. But I say to you Mr Speaker that I am thrilled that Damien O’Connor has matured so greatly and so remarkably in a relatively short period of time. 
Of course National whole-heartedly supports the deregulation of yet another industry that for too long has been shackled by legislation produced by this House. I was intrigued by the comment the Minister himself made when he said: “This legislation gives the company power to raise capital and to make its own decisions.” I have no problem at all supporting legislation that gives an industry the power to establish a company to look after its interests to raise the capital that it then decides it requires and most important as the Minister himself has said to make its own decisions. The Minister also referred to the fact that there are only 26 hop producers in this country so I guess to be fair to the Minister it was relatively easy for them to present a united position and to come to Parliament and ask to be unshackled from the burden of legislation. It is interesting that the industry has been able to make that move and I support it whole-heartedly. 
The other thing that should not be forgotten is the significance of the hop industry to New Zealand society. It is essential clearly in the brewing of beer and it has had a remarkable impact on the social fabric of this country. Therefore we must not underestimate its significance. 
It is relatively easy in the hop industry to get a consensus position. There are 26 producers as the Minister said. Of those producers only one made a submission to the Primary Production Committee and as I go through my notes I see that the committee took just 38 minutes to consider that submission and the officials’ report to deliberate and to present the report-back to the House. It is with some regret—although I guess we are getting used to it—that yet again we have had to change the enactment date of legislation because of the Government being unable to present it earlier. 
Paul Adams 
: Why not? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Why not? The Leader of the House would have to be asked as well as the Associate Minister of Agriculture who does not seem to appreciate the urgency with which those 26 hop growers have waited with baited breath for us finally to address their very valid concerns. 
We have worked very hard. I do not intend to take too much more of the House’s time except to congratulate the Minister on his renaissance. I am thrilled to see that he now realises the benefit of allowing producers to get on and do their own thing. May that renaissance live long and hard in the Labour Party philosophy. National of course supports the second reading of this bill. 
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
: 
 I congratulate the hop growers on forming a cooperative company to market their produce and to sell their hops. 
I have just a couple of comments on the points made by the previous speaker. This is not the sort of structure that the previous National Government and the former Minister the Hon John Luxton would have suggested for this industry. This is a move to form a cooperative that retains the single seller in all but name. Why? Because it is the sensible thing to do in a small country like New Zealand when we are competing worldwide with other countries that are subsidised. This very small industry has done the sensible pragmatic thing. This is not what was proposed by the previous National administration and I congratulate the hop growers on doing what they have done. New Zealand First supports them in their endeavours. New Zealand First supports this bill and wishes the hop growers good luck long life and great wealth. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to support the second reading of the bill. To quote the secretary of the Hop Marketing Board: “The restructuring of the New Zealand hop industry is pretty much a non-event.” The industry has been waiting for this for 20 years. There was some initial reluctance to change as the industry growers all 26 of whom farm in the Nelson region felt that the board gave them more protection than a limited cooperative company but there is also recognition that the regulations the industry is working under are over 60 years old and are virtually unworkable in today’s climate. 
The underlying objective of the bill is to enable the hop industry to position itself so that it can respond positively to the challenges of the international market. Whereas the shrinking domestic market once sent grower after grower into the red these days about 90 percent of the annual hop crop is exported. However it is worthwhile to remember that New Zealand’s annual crop represents less than 1 percent of the global total. 
The old board structure is viewed by the industry as outmoded and even a hindrance to innovation and entrepreneurship in the industry. The reforms are similar to the deregulation that has already taken place in the apple and pear industry and the dairy industry though perhaps I should not mention those industries. The bill restructures the New Zealand Hop Marketing Board to create a cooperative company in its place known as New Zealand Hop Marketers Ltd. As a matter of interest the original marketing board was set up by a hop grower by the name of Keith Holyoake which gives us some indication of how old this marketing board must be. 
The basic day-to-day operation of the industry will not change as everything currently under the board’s control will fall under the cooperative. Shares will be allocated to growers on the basis of production rather than the current situation of one vote per grower. There will be no levies under the company. Instead voluntary charges will be used to pay for industry-good items like research which it must be said is a very innovative approach. 
The bill also liberalises the export and acquisition of hops and hop products. Under the Hop Marketing Regulations of 1939 the board is the mandatory sales agent for New Zealand hop growers. This bill removes the compulsory element and will encourage exporters to compete to export hops and hop products. Thus growers and exporters will be able to arrange their own commercial activities as they see fit since the export of hops will be part of the normal business environment. This has the advantage of removing the costs and requirements associated with the current regulatory system. 
There will be some minor transitional costs involved in the registration of the new company. However unlike the restructuring of the kiwifruit industry in 1999 the proposed restructuring of the hop industry does not require a restructuring plan or a referendum because hop producers unanimously support the proposal. This saves some costs for the board in seeking the consent of growers. 
The committee received only one submission from the board itself. Not surprisingly it was in support of the restructuring. Anyone who heard the first reading debate on this bill would have witnessed Labour and National MPs arguing about whether the Government had changed its view on the deregulation of industries like hop production. We were not disappointed today when previous speakers sought to raise this point yet again. United Future however thinks that the most important thing is to ensure that when industries seek to improve the way in which they operate they should be fully supported by the Government whatever their ideological stripe. After all that is the common-sense position. United Future supports the recommendations of the select committee and supports the second reading of this bill. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT NZ) 
: 
 Along with my colleagues I take some considerable delight in welcoming this bill back to the House for its second reading. Indeed I will remark on the fact that on occasions we do have unanimity but on this particular occasion there is a large degree of unanimity about the need for deregulation of what was once a producer board—an absolute creature of Government. The previous speaker referred to 1939 as the year when the Hop Marketing Regulations first came through. That was over 60 years ago. It has taken a while but we have finally got here and I am delighted to see it. 
I will take a moment to reflect on the fact that this marketing board was a direct creature of Government. It was a creature of a former Prime Minister Mr Palmer and also of Mr Caygill who decided in 1989 that they were going to get rid of these quangos as they saw them to be at that time. In fact what happened was that they left the hop board and indeed the raspberry board and got rid of a heap of other quangos. But in getting rid of them they also gave us commissions for everything else but. That is just a little bit of history. However I think it is also worth reflecting that the hop board did a very good job in that early stage. 
I do not want to upset my Green colleague too much but it was the hop board that ensured the genetic modification of hops and that is not disputed. I am sure that the next time Mr Ewen-Street gets his jaw around a tankard of high-frothing beer he will reflect on the fact that that small grouping of people under the auspices of the board genetically modified hops to ensure they became a high-yielding alpha resin. I think it was through the then Department of Scientific and Industrial Research but I do not have the particular date. Those who are interested in beer and I am sure that most people in this House are at some stage would find that very interesting and a sign of the future as well once we get past this fetish about genetic modification. 
As I said earlier the Hop Marketing Board has run its course. It was a completely unanimous decision of all the members of the select committee not to mention the members of the hop growing board who decided that the board was no longer appropriate. I take issue with Mr Doug Woolerton and I regret having to do so but this is clearly not just some hybrid single-marketing board. I draw the member’s attention to the commentary on the bill which states that the bill removes that compulsory element and gives growers the commercial choice of marketer and exporter. No single desk gives a commercial choice of marketer and exporter. Along with Mr David Carter I applaud the good work of Mr Damien O’Connor in ensuring that the hop industry has reached this new 21st century. 
In fact from what I hear the industry has a very exciting future. It has the control of its own destiny. It is not relying on Government; nor is it relying on Government to wipe out the $26500 that it asked for. It is appropriate that the new cooperative—once it becomes so—will be standing on its own two feet. It will find that $26500 and can say that it is truly an entity it can be proud of—not having to rely on Government but on itself. 
It is really encouraging to hear the ACT party’s philosophy which has been vilified for so long in this House—and I pay tribute again to my colleague Owen Jennings who pointed out to this House many many years ago when I was a mere farmer from Coal Creek the futility of having statute-controlled producer boards. We still have a few relics to my right. However it is nice to see that the majority of this House understands that deregulation equates to individual responsibility and indeed collective responsibility if the growers so wish. 
I am not about to tell growers that they should not be in a cooperative and that they should be in some other arrangement. If they wish to be in a cooperative selling their hops that is absolutely wonderful. I am a member of some other cooperatives in terms of my farming career and selling my products so I understand how cooperatives work. 
It is important to see in the commentary on the bill that the select committee did ask the board to address subsequent shareholding changes to ensure that the industry is indeed very very well structured. This is so that the industry can progress and not have a run on capital for example if others decide to leave the industry which can happen in a cooperative. It is not a perfect answer but it is certainly a lot better than a single-desk structure where statute demands not performance but just this thing called accountability. With every industry whether it be the hop industry or any other in this country we demand of ourselves and of our industry a thing called performance not just accountability. With those few words I certainly welcome the passage of this bill and commend it to the House. 
IAN EWEN-STREET (Green) 
: 
 I would like to take a very short call in this debate. I will start by congratulating the hop industry and sharing my sympathy with it for the time it has spent waiting so patiently for this day to arrive. I also take issue again with my colleague the “member for Upper Coal Creek” Mr Eckhoff who talked about genetically engineered hops. 
Gerrard Eckhoff 
: Genetically modified hops. 
IAN EWEN-STREET 
: There are no genetically engineered hops in New Zealand. There is a difference between genetic engineering and selective breeding and hybridisation. They are different concepts. It is quite simple. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member may interject if he wants to but he should move out of that quarter. 
IAN EWEN-STREET 
: In terms of the passage of this bill through the select committee as other members have said we were unanimous—finally. However I did raise with my colleagues the question of ownership of the shares of that cooperative company. In the end we decided that we would not change the legislation to impose a limit of shareholdings on individual members or the cooperative but it would be of benefit to the hop industry as a whole to bear in mind the example of what happened to ENZA formerly the Apple and Pear Marketing Board. When that was privatised and corporatised— 
Hon David Carter 
: Are you mounting a takeover? 
IAN EWEN-STREET 
: There was a takeover. There was a maximum holding of 19 percent and people assumed that any company that had a maximum holding of 19 percent would not be able to take control of what was a monopolistic export body. However history has shown that two companies got together 38 percent of the votes and took a controlling interest in ENZA to the very great disadvantage of the members. 
I suggest to members of the hop industry that in the immediate future they set their own regulations to limit the number of shares that anyone or any group of owners can have. The cooperative structure obviously is very powerful but if one allows an organisation a corporate or any individual to take control of the industry it will be to the disadvantage of everyone else. 
I commend this bill to the House and look forward to the third reading in the near future. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
: 
 I know there are some wine buffs in this House. I confess to being a beer buff. The hops that are produced by the hop industry in the Nelson region go to the core of some of the best-quality beers in the world and this Parliament should be proud of the producers of those hops and of the quite unique industry that exists in the Nelson region to support that international reputation. 
I shall make a few comments about the bill because it brings with it a huge irony. So many of the agricultural debates that we have had in this Parliament over the last decade have been about marketing structures. It seems extraordinary to me that just 6 years ago when we had the first of those debates about single-desk selling they were like a political mantra; they were an absolute. In fact I shall repeat to the Minister who sponsors this bill—Mr Damien O’Connor whose name is on the front of the bill—what he said about those who opposed single-desk selling. He said that they were traitors. He said that there were traitors in this Parliament who opposed single-desk selling. I shall quote the Minister. He said: “And these traitors will one day attempt to deregulate the hop industry.” 
Hon Damien O'Connor 
: Who was that? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Damien O’Connor said those words. Now I have in front of me a bill that is in the charge of the Hon Damien O’Connor. What is honourable about saying in this Parliament that others who talk about deregulating the hop industry are traitors? When Mr O’Connor says that it is OK. Would Mr O’Connor like to provide some explanation? 
Hon Damien O'Connor 
: Yes happy to. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Will the member provide an explanation? 
Hon Damien O'Connor 
: I’ll do it during the third reading. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I hope he does. I also think that he owes the House an apology. Effectively what we see in the House today which is unanimous support for the bill is that National won the argument. So well have we won the argument that even—[ 
Interruption 
] Can that new young member from Kapiti explain for me why members of the Labour Party said that anybody who wanted to dismantle a single-desk selling operation was a traitor? The word “traitor” is the strongest word one could possibly use. It is the strongest argument one could make. On our criminal law books being a traitor is the strongest offence one can commit against one’s country. Yet members of the Labour Party accused members of National of being traitors because they dared to suggest deregulation and the free market. Mr O’Connor owes the House an explanation. I also remind him that he stood at the top of Trafalgar Street and said that the Labour Party stood for single-desk selling. 
David Benson-Pope 
: Does that member support this bill? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Yes I do support this bill. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: What about the numbers man? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: We always know when Labour does not want to debate the issues. I want to know from Mr Benson-Pope why Mr O’Connor stood at the top of Trafalgar Street and said that Labour stood for single-desk selling. He said that Labour is a cooperative party and it wanted single-desk selling. Now as a Minister of the Crown he says the opposite. I think the House is owed an explanation. 
 If he is going to flip-flop on that what other things can we believe about anything that Damien O’Connor and members of the Labour Party stand for? If he can flip-flop on that what else is he going to flip-flop on? I have heard the pathetic explanation from Mr O’Connor. He said: “Oh the difference is because in this case the hop industry wants it.” Well if that is the case why did Mr O’Connor not stand at the top of Trafalgar Street during the apple industry restructuring and say: “It is not that we are in favour of single-desk selling; it is just that we believe it should be for the industry to decide.”? But that is not what the Minister said and if that is the case when we debated the apple and pear restructuring legislation in 1999 why did you accuse Mr Luxton— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I did not do anything. The member will come back to the bill. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I ask the member opposite Mr Damien O’Connor who is in charge of the bill—and this issue is at a the core of it—why it is that when Mr John Luxton debated single-desk selling being changed in 1999 he was accused of being a traitor but now when Mr O’Connor does it it is different? 
Hon David Carter 
: It will be the “Maharey principle”. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I think it is indeed and I am pleased we have Mr Maharey here. I think it is the “Maharey principle”—saying one thing when in Opposition and doing exactly the opposite in Government. I say that that is a complete abrogation of integrity. Then we heard from my colleague Mr Doug Woolerton. He said: “Oh the reason New Zealand First has changed its position is because this is different.” Well I have to say to the member that this is deregulation in every sense of the word. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: This is not the model you proposed and you know it very very well. They know it is different. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: What is the difference? 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Every difference in the world—and that just shows the stupidity of you guys. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well Mr Woolerton needs to explain to the House why it is when it comes to other areas that New Zealand First members have taken a completely different point of view. They flip-flop all over the place. There is no consistency at all in their position. This bill says that it is for ever more the decision of hop growers as to how they are to structure themselves. It is a complete deregulation of that industry and it provides a sensible structure. I think that the credit for this must go to the previous National administration because it set the agenda. 
Hon Damien O'Connor 
: Aw! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Mr O’Connor argues against it when he is in Opposition then does it as a Minister. I tell Mr O’Connor that I have not in my 12 years in this Parliament ever seen a Minister flip-flop so badly on what he said. I want some explanation as to why he criticised those who said that the removal of single-desk selling was appropriate to hops. I want to know why he said that in Opposition and why there is now a bill in his name now that he is in Government. 
Bill read a second time. 
Procedure 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 Unanimity has broken out wildly around the House on this bill and I want to say “cheers” to members who have made a speech. I seek leave after my discussions with the whips of all the parties to move directly to the third reading. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought accordingly. Is there any objection? There is not. 
Third Reading 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Associate Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 I move  
That the Hop Industry Restructuring Bill be now read a third time 
. This bill was introduced into the House on 19 March 2002. It had its first reading on 1 October 2002 and was referred to the Primary Production Committee on that day. The select committee amended the restructuring day as requested by the New Zealand Hop Marketing Board and reported the bill back to the House on 4 December 2002. The bill restructures the New Zealand Hop Marketing Board into a cooperative company—New Zealand Hop Marketers Ltd—and removes the regulatory controls on the domestic marketing and export of hops. 
Hops are grown for the flavouring of beer—for those who do not know. New Zealand production is concentrated in the Nelson-Motueka district and I am proud to say that about 90 percent of that is in the Tasman district in my electorate. Exports of around $8 million of hops and hop products go from New Zealand each year. The New Zealand Hop Marketing Board was established under the Hop Marketing Regulations in 1939 to coordinate the marketing of hops to breweries both in New Zealand and overseas. The regulations provide that the board is the sole agent of growers in the sale and export of New Zealand grown hops. Today the Hop Marketing Board is the only statutory single desk to retain domestic marketing powers as pointed out by Mr Smith. 
When the board was established the industry was predominantly domestically focused. Today over 80 percent of the annual production of New Zealand hops is exported. The current regulated structure of the New Zealand hop industry is outdated and out of step with the international trading environment for hops and hop products. The board sought the bill on behalf of hop growers to enable the hop industry to respond positively to the challenges of the international market. New Zealand accounts for just 0.6 percent of world production. The price of hops in New Zealand generally reflects the world price and the worldwide demand for hops is dependent of course on beer consumption. 
The bill means that the industry can be more flexible in responding to changes in consumer tastes for example towards speciality beers. The removal of the single desk will improve market signals to growers we trust. 
Hops are unusual in that they are particularly sensitive to the latitude and climate in which they grow. Due to this latitudinal sensitivity hops are grown in relatively few countries throughout the world the majority of which are in the northern hemisphere. This enables New Zealand to provide out-of-season hops to the northern hemisphere. New Zealand has unique cultivars bred at the Riwaka research station that demand a premium in some markets. The bill enables growers to retain joint ownership with the Crown of these unique varieties by transferring the board’s ownership rights in the cultivars to the grower-owned cooperative company. 
There is a strong tradition and culture of cooperation and coordination within the New Zealand hop industry. The bill gives effect to the industry’s request for defining its ownership rights in the board releases the board from the regulatory constraints imposed by the regulations and the two old Acts and deregulates the sale and export of hops. 
The difference in this Government’s approach to producer board deregulation is that we have responded to requests from the industry not threatened the industry with deregulation as did the last Government. We have delivered to the hop growers a cooperative structure not forced on them a corporate structure as the previous National Government did to ENZA. That is one of the key differences and that is the reason I support this bill through the House. I wish the industry well in the restructuring of the board and I am sure that it will do its best into the future. I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (NZ National) 
: 
 The National Party of course supports the third reading of the Hop Industry Restructuring Bill and in fact will facilitate the Government’s progress today and make sure we complete the third reading as quickly as possible and save the particular member leading the debate any further embarrassment. The position the poor member finds himself in whereby he has changed his point of view completely has been outlined well in the House in the last half hour or so. But I want to take the opportunity of congratulating the member. He clearly acknowledges now that the damage that he threatened would occur to other industries that were deregulated has not occurred and he is prepared to be mature enough to acknowledge that and therefore see the benefit of now moving to also help the hop producers in New Zealand achieve greater wealth for themselves and therefore for the country. 
I guess in supporting the bill I just want to pick up on the latter comment of Damien O’Connor and certainly the comments of Doug Woolerton in his second reading contribution. Doug Woolerton said that what we are doing here in effect is all but creating a producer board under another name. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: I didn’t say that. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: That is exactly what Doug Woolerton said because I wrote his words down word for word: it is all but creating a producer board under another name. He went on to say that that is not what National proposed. I say to the member that what we have here is exactly what National proposed. As Damien O’Connor has said what we have here is the ability of the 26 hop growers to belong to a company that happens to be a cooperative company. This legislation does not force any of those hop growers to be part of that company—it is up to their free will which is as it should be. If they decide they want to be part of that company they have the ability to set the rules under which that company will operate. Again I tell Mr Woolerton that that is how it should be. In other words there is a huge amount of choice and flexibility available to the people who are involved in the industry. 
It is nothing like what we have had in the past. I tell Mr Woolerton that it is certainly not a producer board in disguise. Mark my words: as this industry settles down and further develops those producers will have the ability to remain in the company if it continues to produce results for them as individuals. If the company fails to do that then I do not see any move by the producers that would cause them to be restrained by the cooperative company—the company will not be able to do that. I have little doubt that in an industry as small as this which clearly is run in a cooperative way with issues being debated amongst the 26 members—who incidentally are all confined to a very small region of New Zealand which is the electorate of my colleague the Hon Nick Smith—the growers will arrive at the ability to make decisions and company rules that advance their particular case. 
Finally I question again Damien O’Connor’s earlier contribution. He said he would give the House the benefit of an explanation as to why this remarkable renaissance has occurred and if I understood his explanation it is because the hop industry has matured and developed since 1999 and now exports about 80 percent of its product overseas. The reason Mr Damien O’Connor is now comfortable supporting the deregulation of the hop industry is that it has grown to a stage where it exports 80 percent of its produce overseas. 
Hon Damien O'Connor 
: They have asked for it. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I accept that they have asked for it but that is the explanation Mr Damien O’Connor gave. I remind the member that when he was so opposed to deregulation calling members on this side of the House “traitors” for advancing the cause we were dealing with the dairy industry which at that stage exported in excess of 90 percent of its produce overseas. I leave it to the next speaker from the Labour Party to have a brief discussion with Damien O’Connor to see whether that obvious inconsistency can be clarified for him. 
Debate interrupted.