Connell Brian: Meat Board Restructuring Bill — First Reading 
Connell Brian: Meat Board Restructuring Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:615;Page:11035] 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 National supports the passage of this legislation through to the select committee but I say that with some reservations and I ask the select committee to be cognisant of that. I have noticed that people are taking a pretty liberal approach or broad definition in this debate and I want to recap what this bill will do. I will read through some notes as I want to get this right. The bill provides for the restructuring of the New Zealand Meat Board to retain in legislation the board’s meat export quota management functions the management of the board’s reserve funds and the removal of the board’s industry-good functions along with some other minor changes. 
As colleagues in this House have already indicated livestock farmers have overwhelmingly voted in favour of establishing a new entity called SheepCo to manage the industry-good aspects of their enterprises as they will fall out of this restructuring. Anyone with any sense would find it hard not to support this initiative given the overwhelming farmer support for it though we must not take anything for granted. It is this Government as I recall that ignored popular opinion when it came to the “fart tax” and when it came to the Norm Withers referendum on tougher sentencing in law and order. The Government was able to thumb its nose at common sense then and I believe it could have done so now. So I am relieved to see that the Minister got on his feet and in a very constructive way said he wanted to ease the passage of this legislation through the House. 
Conceptually having an organisation dedicated to the management of quota access which is another way of saying market access makes sense. But I am struggling to see along with some other speakers in this House why we need to have Government oversight of this process. Of course I am referring to the board’s composition and the Government’s determination to have two of its own directors appointed to that board. I note that Meat New Zealand management agrees with my view. This is another example of Labour saying to industry: “We know best” and yet another example of the National Party saying: “We listen to business.” Is it any wonder that we are the 45 percent party and the Government is the 38 percent party and going west very quickly? 
On what basis would the Government claim to have a role? [ 
Interruption 
] That got Mr Cosgrove awake! When that question was put to the Minister of Agriculture he pontificated with this justification: “Quotas belong to a nation rather than the industry. Their administration was an internationally sensitive area with potential spillover effects extending beyond the meat trade. The specialist understanding of this in a clear national perspective cannot be guaranteed on a 100-percent industry elected board.” What arrogance this Minister has and I have to say what ignorance as well! Farmers today are hugely experienced. [ 
Interruption 
] They operate I say to Mr Cosgrove in a highly scientific highly technology driven environment and it is because of their success their expertise and their energy that we have these quotas in the first place. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: A real farmer like Shane Ardern! 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I thought it was a tradition in this House that if members interject they have to do so from their own seats. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is the case. However it is only such if a member deliberately moves to interject. Mr Cosgrove has been sitting there for some time. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: I did not mention Mr Cosgrove by the way. New Zealand farmers are the best in the world. I would like to think that they would get acknowledged rather than have the Government put some sort of watchdog body on them. This Government has the perception that all farmers are just a bunch of cow-cockies knee deep in cowpats. That is insulting. Their use of science and technology in best practice is world-renowned. This board comprises eight to nine farmer representatives and meat processing and exporting sector representation. If they are skilled enough to be selected to the board then the last thing they need to feel is the constraining hand of this bungling Government and its bureaucrats. What is the point of having a dog and barking at the same time? The role of the board is clear. Its instructions are mandated for goodness’ sake! 
Phil Heatley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Mr Peck over there should not be allowed to stand up all the time to interject in that way. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I did not notice Mr Peck standing. 
Phil Heatley 
: I thought he was standing. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is trifling with the Chair. I warn the member that that behaviour is not acceptable in this Chamber. Points of order are serious issues. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: I raised the matter of interjections with you a few minutes ago and Mr Peck continued to interject and he is not in his seat. He has interjected constantly and you are now allowing that to continue. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The situation with regard to members sitting in another seat is covered in  
Speakers’ Rulings 
. It is an indication that members must not move to facilitate interjection. The honourable member has been sitting in that seat all during this debate. 
Phil Heatley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We appreciate that Mr Peck shifted there some time ago but he has interjected consistently while he has been there. That is the point we are making. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: If I notice that that is happening I will remedy the situation. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: The point I was making is that the role of the board is clear. Its instructions are mandated. It is therefore highly insulting to put on the board two members who are simply there as the Government’s guard dogs. The message is very clear: “We the Government do not trust you.” That is something the National Party takes very strong exception to. Why should farmers trust this Government to make appointments when its track record does not stack up? After all the Government can claims guys like John Davy and Ross Armstrong. That will certainly fill the farming community with huge confidence! And it is rather rich coming from a Government that has devastated relationships—I repeat devastated relationships—with Australia and America to such an extent that America and Australia have done a trade deal and we have been left out in the cold. We will pay dearly for that as a country. To those poor misguided souls opposite who argue that Australia did not get much anyway—and that is code for their self-justification for their appalling handling of this process—I say that Australia is pragmatic. Australia knows that to do a deal with the sole superpower at least puts it in the game. Australia’s deal is a starting point not a finishing point. 
When we compare that with what we have—thanks to Mr Sutton and his cohorts—we see that we do not have a course of dialogue with two of our major trading partners. It will cost this country billions of dollars. The great irony of it is that we are speaking about quota access yet because of this Government’s bungling Australia has just had its beef quota increased with America while we languish out in the cold. I have more faith in our sector’s experts than I do in this Government’s gofers and accordingly I ask the select committee to be very cognisant of this. It is bad enough that this Government ignored the agricultural sector for so long without adding insult to injury. 
The other issue that concerns me is the spectre of compliance audits. This smacks of Government interference: “We know best. Do it our way or else.” This is not an oversight role; this is just straight-out interference. I say to members in this House that they should simply set the board some performance criteria and ask it to report against those as any other board would. I think this is something the select committee has to have a very hard look at to make sure that those criteria are carefully set. 
One other issue I want to raise before I conclude is clause 55 which provides for the board to charge fees for recovery of costs in relation to its registration function. For the sake of the officials I point out that there is an error on page 5 of the explanatory note of the bill. It is fine to charge fees but implicit in this relationship is an obligation for the board to perform against farmers’ expectations. After all it is their money. The select committee needs to make this very clear when it addresses this in its final draft of this legislation.