Eckhoff Gerrard: Hop Industry Restructuring Bill — Second Reading Procedure Third Reading 
Eckhoff Gerrard: Hop Industry Restructuring Bill — Second Reading Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4841] 
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.