Smith Nick: Hop Industry Restructuring Bill — Second Reading Procedure Third Reading 
Smith Nick: Hop Industry Restructuring Bill — Second Reading Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4843] 
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.