Heatley Phil: Meat Board Restructuring Bill — First Reading 
Heatley Phil: Meat Board Restructuring Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:615;Page:11025] 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the National Party and certainly do support on behalf of those 26 good members of Parliament this bill going to a select committee. Who would fly in the face of the overwhelming support of farmers as expressed in the referendum held in August 2003? A huge majority of farmers clearly said that this was the direction in which they wanted their industry to go. No one with any sense will fly in the face of those farmers—certainly not in light of what happened over the flatulence tax. That was an issue where the Government flew in the face of every farmer in New Zealand. The Government did that and it got a big lesson from it because it realised that not only do farmers—those in the agriculture horticulture and forestry sectors—pay the country’s bills but all the people in the towns and cities know it. When farmers say they want something and they have considered it at length with some common sense and pragmatism then we should support them. National is not foolish about that. So we support this bill going to a select committee. 
But we do have reservations regarding the process. Interestingly that referendum was taken in August 2003. At that time it was overwhelmingly clear as I said that farmers wanted to head in this particular direction. This bill has just come into the House. The Minister of Agriculture expects a report back by 27 May which is roughly 3 months away. He wants to pass the legislation by 30 June. That begs the question of why it has taken from August last year until now to introduce this bill to the House. I know that the Minister had 6 or 7 weeks off during the Christmas period to sun himself in the South Island but why did it take as long as that to make the decision that the Government would support the way farmers want to go? Yet the Government is asking the select committee in the period of 3 months to advertise for submissions hear submissions consider submissions ask questions fully investigate and bring the bill back to the House. Why is the Minister asking us to do that? It puts us under tremendous pressure. 
He might argue that he has requested the House to bypass the Standing Orders—that is to say he has asked the House to bypass due process—in order to have us meet on Mondays and Fridays and at any other time that is not question time in the House. I am willing to help pass this legislation. I know that my colleagues on the select committee are largely willing to help pass this legislation. But riding roughshod over due process is not the way to do it. 
I bring members’ attention to Standing Order 191 “Meetings on Fridays”. It states: “Except by leave of the committee a select committee may not meet on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House.” I will not go into the reasons for that. We all know what they are. Apart from the detailed reasons related to the running of the House we represent electorates as far-flung as Whangarei and Invercargill and we need to be in those electorates serving those people on Fridays. But apart from that the fact of the matter is those are the Standing Orders and this Government has asked us to ride roughshod over them so that we can get this bill through Parliament simply because the Minister did not pay attention to the fact that farmers overwhelmingly said last August that they wanted this legislation passed. I raise that with you Madam Chair so that you can make a note that rushing legislation through the House should not become a habit with this Government. 
Sure farmers may agree with it. I understand that on weighted stock numbers 76 percent voted for the sheepmeat proposals 77 percent for the beef proposals 72 percent for the wool proposals and 67 percent for the goat meat proposals. So there is overwhelming support amongst the farming sector. But that is no excuse for cutting through due process and rushing the legislation through the House. We need to get it right. The meat industry is hugely important to New Zealand and by rushing the bill through the House and not paying attention to detail we could make mistakes that would have massive repercussions for our export industry and for our economy at home if we fail particularly in relation to our trade obligations with other countries. I raise that with you Madam Chair and wish you to note it. 
On the substance of the bill it is to— 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member should not use the term “you” to the Speaker and it is “Madam Speaker” not “Madam Chair”. 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: That is rather petty Madam Chair but I do apologise. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member will withdraw and apologise for that remark. 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: I withdraw and apologise. The substance of the bill provides for the restructuring of the board while maintaining the board’s quota and reserve management functions. I am interested in how the board is to fund itself now given that its ability to levy will be extinguished. I notice that clause 36(1) provides that fees can be charged in relation to quota management systems and I will be interested when the bill is before the select committee in checking whether that will be the sole or major way that the board funds itself. I understand that it is allowed only to charge fees that: “(a) are fair and reasonable; and (b) provide the Board with adequate funding to carry out its quota management function for the relevant quota management system including general administration costs.” I am not sure how far that extends to other activities of the board that are so minor that they are not even mentioned in the bill. That will be quite interesting. As a member of the Primary Production Committee I will be checking that those things in clause 36 have been considered. 
I do note that the Regulations Review Committee under the Regulations (Disallowance) Act will have the ability to scrutinise those fees in the future. The Minister will correct me if I am wrong but I believe that is the case. Those entities or individuals being charged fees will be able to go to the Regulations Review Committee annually and have those fees reviewed if they should go through the roof without justification. It will be interesting to see that. I am pleased to see that there will be a check on those fees. Levies by their nature provide a check because with the board structure farmers can directly challenge them but now that the levying powers are being taken away I note that the fees can be readdressed through the Regulations Review Committee and I am pleased to see that. 
The New Zealand Meat Board will remain in existence. It is authorised to distribute the assets of livestock farmers. Currently I understand those assets to be about $100 million in terms of reserves—which is an awful lot of money. I am sure lots of people in the industry have lots of good uses they could put it to. But as long as the board remains prudent it will certainly have the support of this House. 
The bill also provides for the board of directors to comprise eight or nine farmers and meat-processing representatives. It is interesting that the Minister of Agriculture may appoint two directors and I encourage the Minister to pay a lot of attention to the industry over the next few years so that when he nominates those two directors he does not just put in party hacks—it is not just a quango—but puts in those who will honour the industry with integrity and attention to detail and who will have some sort of experience or interest in the industry itself. I encourage the Minister of Agriculture to pay attention to the meat industry. He does not have to fly overseas every week for meetings to do with his trade responsibilities but I encourage him to pay attention for the very reason that he will have a direct influence due to his appointing those two directors on the process.