Hop Industry Restructuring Bill

I rise on behalf of United Future to indicate our support for the third reading of this bill, and also to say how impressed we have been with the level of cooperation in the House this afternoon. It is absolutely stunning when a bill such as this, which is requested and supported by the hop growers, is given to the select committee with no contentious submissions, and is then put through the House with the kind of speed that we have seen this afternoon. It is my first experience as a member of this House to see that level of cooperation. It really encourages us in United Future to think that common sense is spreading throughout the Chamber. The only real glitch this afternoon has been remarks from the National Party, which continues to harp on about the ideology involved in this bill. It does not understand that the average taxpayer in this country does not care a fig about that. The taxpayers would like to see bills passed through the House in this manner more often, so that the good work they are waiting for can be achieved with maximum speed. United Future thanks the House again for being able to speak on this bill, and to indicate our support for it.

New Zealand First supports the third reading of this bill, and supports it happening very quickly, so I will be brief. I will answer a couple of questions, and read a little bit from the explanatory note to the bill to explain a couple of things, and to give some indication of why I said what I did. It says here that, “on the restructuring day, the Board is converted into a cooperative company registered under the Companies Act 1993”. Further on, it also talks about the conversion of the board into a cooperative company, and so on and so forth. Clearly, the hop industry participants have something in mind along the lines of the old board. They very clearly have a cooperative marketing structure in place, and they very clearly desire to carry on as before, but under a cooperative company. That is what I said, and that is what I believe. That is not what National proposed when the special committee sat to look at the restructuring of industry boards per se. I take issue with what has been said. We have a difference of style and intent, but we are all of one view at the end of the day, and that is to congratulate the Hop Industry Board on getting on with its business as it sees fit. We hope that it will remain for a very, very long time to come.

I rise to support this bill. I just want to make one comment about the speeches made by Dr Smith and Mr Carter. Mr Smith knows the facts. The pipfruit industry asked for a cooperative commercial model, and it was Mr Luxton who then ignored it. He did not listen to it, and gave the industry a strict corporate model, which meant that that industry lost ownership of the whole sector. To prove that point, I can recall when thousands of pipfruit growers marched against Dr Smith and Mrs Shipley down Trafalgar Street to vent their spleen.

As for this bill, the hop growers came to this Government to ask for a cooperative model. We listened, and we gave it to them. They have their mandate, they came to us and requested that model, and we listened to them. Pipfruit growers requested a different model, Mr Luxton and the then National Government did not listen, and, as a result, the pipfruit growers lost complete control of their own industry. The Guinness Peat Group did that, and then the growers marched against that member and his then leader to express their angst. This is a good bill. It preserves the ownership structure. It does what the hop industry itself wants, and we support the bill.

How we reinvent history in this House! I have just listened to Mr Clayton Cosgrove, who I believe is a former trade union official, and who understands all about producer boards, talking arrant nonsense. What he has just told us about the apple industry is arrant nonsense. I am here to pay tribute—but not to those on the left who have finally woken up to the benefits of deregulation. I believe that it is important in a third reading speech to render under Caesar that which is Caesar’s, if I can put it like that. I believe that it is important to pay homage to people like John Luxton, Owen Jennings, and the free-thinkers of this primary industry of ours, who many, many years ago suffered the slings, arrows, and poisoned shafts of derision, because they dared to challenge the conventional wisdom of control: “We must have a single-desk seller. We must have Government influence.” Those are the things that have constrained our country, and have taken away the ability of New Zealand to be in the top 10 of the OECD.

Mr David Parker mentioned in the Otago Daily Times the other day that we desperately want to be back in the OECD—I do not think he used the word “desperately”. He thought that it might be OK in 50 years’ time. But I and the ACT party are desperate for New Zealand to get back into the top 10 of the OECD, and this Hop Industry Restructuring Bill is, in its own small way, a step forward to what we believe is the only way to achieve it. That is, by our tapping into the natural capital of our people—not of a producer board, not necessarily of a cooperative, not of a Government, and not of some huge monolith, but of individuals’ capacity to go out there and sell throughout the world a product they produce. Whether it is hops, or apples, or kiwifruit, I do not mind.

It is important to recognise at this time a certain irony in that yesterday we passed a bill constraining trade with those who wish to sell kiwifruit to Australia. It passed by 112 votes to 8. ACT did not support that bill, and I believe we will revisit that situation in a very short space of time in order to do another restructuring. It will be a “Kiwifruit Industry Restructuring Bill”, not a Hop Industry Restructuring Bill as it is today.

As I said earlier, it is important to reflect on the efforts of those in the House before us who fought tooth and nail to ensure that finally on this day in April 2003 the House finally understands just what those people were striving to achieve all that time ago. They were vilified for it, either by industry leaders seeking to protect their own little patch, or by those members in the House who did not understand what they were trying to do for that industry. It was not out of any self-interest that John Luxton, Owen Jennings, and others stood up and argued for deregulation. They did it in the interests of this country and of the industry they were talking about at the time.

Again, whether it was the meat, apple, or hop industry does not really matter. What matters is principle, and the principle we must never lose sight of in this House is the right of individuals to sell their product, either in a cooperative or as a single entity, and to the exporter of their choice. What a wonderful word “choice” is. A word I put alongside it is the word “freedom”. That is a word we should be reflecting on very deeply in these days of troubled times in lands far away from New Zealand. These are very, very fundamental issues.

I take the Speaker’s point. He is indicating that I am perhaps moving away from the bill. But whether we are talking about a hop industry or about international relationships, the words “freedom” and “índividual choice” are hugely important. This is a wonderful day for the House, and it is a wonderful day for New Zealand when yet again just a little bit of deregulation finally has been chipped off the huge monolithic block.

I rise to speak, again very briefly, in the third reading. I want to pass on the best wishes of the Green Party to the members of the hop industry. I also want to reiterate my recommendation to them that they limit the size of any individual or group shareholding of the shares subsequent to the passage of this legislation. My recommendation would be that for any individual, or for any one holding, the maximum holding should be about 9.9 percent. That would mean that a minimum of six people then have to get together to have a controlling interest in the industry—bearing in mind, of course, that there are only about 25 or 26 people who are contributors to the industry in the first place. Obviously, with that small number of operators, the average holding at the moment would be around 4 percent. It is a strategy that members of the industry could use to maintain the cooperative structure and to allow the industry to continue to be a cooperative into the future. If it is allowed to get into too few hands it will get corporatised. It will get monopolised, and the small player is always the one who will lose out. The Green Party wishes the hop industry very well. I am very pleased to see the passage of this bill into law.

I want again to hold Labour members to account for what they said. They said: “Labour opposes deregulation”—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: We have had repetition. I allowed the member to go on and on in the second reading speech. In this third reading speech we will talk about this bill.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There has been a debate on this side of the House that both Labour speakers have addressed. This bill is about deregulation, and I take offence at you saying that I am not allowed to debate issues of deregulation, when very clearly this is a deregulation of the hop industry.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member will debate according to the instructions I have given on this third reading; otherwise he will not be speaking.

In respect of the third reading of this bill, I point out what Labour members said prior to the election, and what this bill does. I have here a quotation, which states: “Labour opposes deregulation of the apple, dairy, and hop industries, because single-desk selling gets the best market returns.” That is what Labour said to the people of New Zealand and what it said to the people of Nelson. The commentary on the bill states: “This legislation follows similar deregulation measures already passed in respect of the apple and pear and the dairy industries.” In spite of all the words and all the fancy footwork, the fact is that Labour has flip-flopped. Labour has said one thing and done another. The greatest irony in respect of the third reading of this Hop Industry Restructuring Bill is that the apple and dairy industries have had their single-desk arrangements removed by this Government. Mr O’Connor’s explanation was that it was because of what the growers said. I will quote what he said about the hop industry restructuring in the Nelson Mail—a process that began in 1998.

💬 Hon Steve Maharey: Whinge, moan, moan.

Mr Maharey does not want to be held to account for what was said. Well, I will remind him of what he said, and members on this side of the House will continue to remind him that the people of New Zealand will not accept the “Maharey principle”.

💬 Hon Steve Maharey: No one cares.

They do care—and I care, because I think people should be consistent. People should say what they do, and while Mr Maharey wants to be able to re-invent things all the time and tell porkies, we on this side of the House will do our job as the Opposition and hold Government members to account.

Let us see exactly what was said. In 1998, when National had discussions with the Hop Marketing Board about a cooperative bill of this sort, Mr O’Connor said: “The only reason hop growers have asked for reform is that the axe is being held over their head by Mr Luxton.” That is word for word what Mr O’Connor said. How does he explain that today? If the hop growers in 1998 were asking for reform only because Mr Luxton was holding an axe over their head, why are they asking for reform now? There is absolute silence, because there is no explanation.

Mr O’Connor owes hop growers an explanation. If the only reason they were asking for reform in 1998 was that Mr Luxton was holding an axe over their head, is the Minister holding an axe over their head today?

💬 Hon Damien O'Connor: No.

He is not, but 26 hop growers today agree to reform the hop industry. I simply say to the member opposite that he has done an absolute about-face. What he said to this Parliament in 1998 was absolutely the opposite. I have to compliment him on his speech. His speech then said: “The only way returns could be guaranteed for growers is through a single-desk structure.” But in the speech he has given today he said that a deregulated environment would provide better market signals. I ask Mr O’Connor whether John Luxton wrote that speech for him. He may as well have. I can accept that people might change their views slightly, but to do an absolute 180-degree switch, as we see from Mr O’Connor, shows him to be the flake that he is in saying one thing and doing the complete opposite. Members on this side of the House—

💬 Hon George Hawkins: Tell us about the National Party leadership!

I see the incompetent Minister of Police has poked his head up. Why does he not organise some police for the streets of Auckland rather than cutting police colleges?

I come back to the bill. The hop industry is a wonderful industry, and it has a great future. This bill had its genesis in the discussions that occurred between National and the hop industry at the time. I am pleased to see that it has come through, but sad to see there has been no reasonable explanation of why Labour has done its flip-flop. The best news is that the hop industry will be able to continue to grow and to control its own future, and that is key.

Bill read a third time.