Choudhary Ashraf: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Choudhary Ashraf: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:675;Page:14382] 
2.  
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Agriculture 
: Has he received any reports regarding the restructuring of the meat industry? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 I have seen one report from the  
Southland Times 
 last Friday of a promise of a so-called “financial umbrella” to help meat companies form a megamerger. The “financial umbrella” evidently full of a $200 million suspensory loan the usual meaning of which is a loan at no interest and not necessarily repayable is to provide capital for a new commercial entity. That is the first suggestion of a subsidy for our agricultural exports since Sir Robert Muldoon was in office and the person responsible for this financial helicopter which is to drop money all over the rural landscape of New Zealand is the leader of the National Party John Key. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: What research has he seen to support the use of $200 million of taxpayers’ money to subsidise the meat-processing industry? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I have seen none because the analysis has obviously not been done; Mr Key just made the policy up on the spot. The  
Southland Times 
 report states: “When National Party finance spokesman Bill English ambled across the paddock’’—presumably in his electorate gumboots—“Mr Key quickly told him ‘I’ve just committed you to a suspensory loan’. Apparently unfazed Mr English replied: ‘As long as it’s under $200 million I don’t mind.’ ” That shows how much effort the National Party puts into its policy announcements. The Leader of the Opposition pulls policy out of thin air and the party’s finance spokesperson sucks it all up. The result is a $200 million subsidy promise to the meat industry. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Does the Minister consider it ironic that while the meat industry is trying to emulate the brilliantly successful Fonterra model by whatever means as we understand it the board of Fonterra is likely to take dairy farmers back to the failed model of the meat industry by its proposal to list the company and therefore lose the benefits of vertical integration? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: The policy of a former National Government of paying family benefits for sheep practically bankrupted this country and now the erstwhile leader of the National Party who aspires to govern this country promises to take us back to those failed policies which led to the economic ruination of this country. 
Metiria Turei 
: Can the Minister provide the House with any assurance that a huge monopoly meat processor that is not even farmer owned as Fonterra is may drive down prices paid to farmers for their meat without there necessarily being any reduction in the price charged to families? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: What I can confirm is that if this is a good idea—and that is yet to be tested—then it will stand on its own feet as a proper business case and the farming community will give it its support. If it is not then the farming community will not give it its support. That is where the idea should stand. The idea of the leader of a political party saying he will fly over New Zealand’s rural electorates in a helicopter and drop money over them is just simply ludicrous. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Can the Minister confirm that the sort of subsidy being advocated by Mr Key would not only contradict New Zealand’s strong and consistent opposition to agricultural subsidies under both National and Labour Governments since the mid-1990s but also would likely be in breach of our World Trade Organization obligations and therefore could result in a case being taken against us in that particular forum? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I can confirm that it would be in total contradiction of New Zealand’s consistent leadership in international trade forums against agricultural subsidies and that a payment such as that advocated by Mr Key and Mr English would likely be deemed to be an export subsidy thus putting New Zealand in breach of its own World Trade Organization obligations. As a result we would immediately lose all credibility in global trade negotiations. I wonder what Mr Groser and Mr Hayes think about this—and I would be happy to take supplementary questions from them—whether they support their leader’s agricultural subsidies policy and if they do when they were converted to this mad idea. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Points of order are heard in silence. If members wish to remain in the Chamber they will hear this in silence. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I just draw to your attention if I need to the fact that when I was getting up to ask that question there was a barrage of comments from the Opposition benches but not one of those members had the conviction to get up and ask the Minister a question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: It is a point worth making Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: It may well be but it is not a point of order. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: What reports has the Minister seen of the likely reaction of the European Union to the reintroduction of subsidies for our meat exporters? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: The  
Southland Times 
 gave us that report— 
Hon Members 
: Did it? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: —yes—which stated: “one of the biggest hurdles would be getting the European Union to accept it.” That was a comment of John Key’s about his own policy announcement. To say that that is an understatement is one of the most understated things I have heard this century. The mere fact that a senior political figure in New Zealand is advocating for agricultural subsidies is in itself the biggest embarrassment for New Zealand in international trade forums in many years. 
Sue Moroney 
: Why will this Government not reintroduce subsidies for agriculture? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Madam Speaker—[ 
Interruption 
] If the National members are so keen on the idea they can tell us why it will be introducing them. For several decades this country tried to subsidise our most important industries in the primary sector. That was under a National Government and now National apparently wants to take us back to those days. We opposed subsidies then and we oppose them now. This Government does not make policy on the hoof—literally. We have a clear vision of how New Zealand’s economy will be developed over the long term and it is not by the worst kind of pork-barrel politics that this report evidences on the part of the National Party. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I seek the leave of the House for one additional supplementary question for the National Party today on the basis of its— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No the member cannot do that as he knows.