Meat Board Bill

I move, That the Meat Board Bill be now read a third time. The meat industry makes an enormous contribution to the New Zealand economy in terms of contributions to New Zealand’s gross domestic product, employment, and export earnings. In the year ended June 2003, $4.2 billion worth of meat products were exported, which accounted for about 15 percent of the total value of merchandise exports from New Zealand. This bill was sought by the meat industry. The concepts it puts into practice were overwhelmingly endorsed by a referendum of producers in August 2003. It makes the provision of the raising of funds and the provision of industry-good services more accountable and more efficient. It retains a wide public overview of the administration of the valuable meat quota. I wish to compliment those in the industry who have fronted on this bill—both to the participants in their own industries and to members of Parliament—notably Jeff Grant and Mike Petersen, because their energy and leadership have served the industry well.

I wish the new Meat Board well in its reduced but more focused role of managing the meat export quota markets and the board’s reserves. I also wish the new combined meat and wool industry-good organisation—Meat and Wool New Zealand Ltd—well in its role of funding and managing industry-good activities under the provisions of the Commodity Levies Act of 1990. Most of all I wish New Zealand’s livestock farmers and the wider industry well, under their new industry structures. I commend the bill to the House.

Like the Minister, I also recognise the farming folk who have led this industry to where it is at the moment. I congratulate the Minister on his support for them, and on the judicious way this process has gone through the Parliament. I also say “Well done.” to Mike Petersen from Wools of New Zealand, or the former Wool Board, and Jeff Grant, chairman, for the very strong leadership. Once again, an industry that is much maligned by our academic urban colleagues has shown that it can lead, will lead, and, once again, has demonstrated why it is the backbone of New Zealand.

Seventy-six percent of farmers who participated in the vote did support this legislation, or 80.3 percent of those on stock numbers who were represented in the vote, did support this legislation. Can I just say that the work that took place in the select committee, the members on the select committee, and the officials who worked with the select committee, obviously took note of the referendum and what the industry was asking for, and by and large have delivered, without exception, exactly what the industry wanted.

By way of an example, I shall show what members of the select committee and officials were up against. The industry has never been represented better than in the submission from the Meat and Related Trades Workers Union—the funders of the Labour Party—which stated that it wanted a member on the board as well. When the Minister talks about the necessity to appoint a couple of people, I hope he will condemn that submission to the trash can where it belongs and appoint people on their merit, not because they represent the Meat and Related Trades Workers Union, but on the basis of advice he is given by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

It is interesting to note that the union’s submission supported the general thrust of the bill, but submitted that it needed to have a representative on the board. I thank the select committee for rejecting that notion and also rejecting the notion that a woman, and a Māori representative, should be appointed. Both those sectors play a very key role in the meat industry, but both of those groups, whether it be by gender or race, should also be able to get a representative elected to the board, and will, I am sure of that. In fact, over the years many good examples of representatives from both those groups have been found.

The legislation came about as a result of the need to manage the quota structure after the merger of wool and meat. That is the guts of the bill, and it is hugely important to New Zealand. It is always interesting to note that with an industry as large as this—and the Minister said that it was worth $4.2 billion, and although my figure is $6 billion, I will not debate it. The Minister would be right. His figure is probably more accurate, although he has probably left out wool. I suggest that he has left out wool. One could dust off a billion-dollar industry as though it were not significant in New Zealand, and wool has had different fortunes of recent times. Some could easily dismiss the wool industry, being about four times the size of the wine industry and about a hundred times the size of anything Jim Anderton has ever been able to come up with, as insignificant. I suspect that he has left wool out of his figures. Whether the figure be $4.2 billion or $6 billion, I am not absolutely certain, but I suspect that that is what happened.

The bottom line is that most of that money is managed through quota into international markets, and the ability to be able to manage and negotiate that quota access from a ministerial Government, State-to-State, industry-to-industry point of view is hugely important. In fact, that is the overwhelming and most important factor in anything that the New Zealand Government can do in terms of New Zealand Inc.

Despite this Government having stated many times that it is in favour of growth and is always looking for strong growth, it fails, once again, to acknowledge that the growth this economy has enjoyed—in spite of, not as a result of, the Government I say—has come from industries such as the meat industry. Those industries underpin the strong growth this economy is enjoying at the moment, always has, and always will, as far as I, or anybody else, can see into the future.

This industry is the backbone of New Zealand. This legislation is one of the most important things that this Parliament will have to do. One would not think so. One would think that, based on what has happened in recent times, with media publicity, the number of members in the House, and the like, things like the civil union legislation are hugely important, but the reality is that this kind of legislation will help the economy go forward and fund the social programmes that this Government is intent on putting in place in health, education, and all the things that every member of Parliament comes to this place to try to represent.

The only argument, and it is a philosophical one, is whether the State, or farmers, own the quota. Technically, one could argue—and the Minister has—that because the State negotiates the quota, the State owns it. The National Party will never defend or support that notion. Regardless of the amount of official advice, the legal ramifications, and the technical points, the bottom line is that those quotas are negotiated, Minister to Minister, supported by the industries. Contrary to popular belief, the industries drive the quota generally, and not the Minister. The industries generally find the markets, develop them, and then go into negotiation over quota. The Minister seals that deal, and those quotas are negotiated for farmers, on behalf of farmers, for those who produce it. There is a simple question to answer. If it were not for the production of the material that is exported into the quota markets, there would not be a quota. That is simple, and the Minister would not be required to negotiate it. So the quota is owned on behalf of the farmers. The State does not own the quotas, and that is a very, very significant point of difference between National and Labour.

I have no strong opinion on the make-up of the board of 10 to 11 members as stated in the commentary. Providing that the industry itself consults widely enough, it will find the expertise within it. Often it is said that farmers do not have the ability to manage industries such as this. Over and over again, that has been proven wrong. Over and over it has proven to be one of those urban-driven sorts of myths. The bottom line here is that farmers in this industry will, as they always have, find the people who will best represent the views of those whom they are elected to represent.

In summary, this legislation is a very good step forward. This initiative was started under the former National Government. I would say the evolution—rather than revolution—within our primary industries has been ongoing for a long time. In fact, those regulations were started in 1922, and prior to that I know there were regulations in relation to the export of primary products. It is an evolution, it is not a revolution, and that is a good way to do business. I say well done to those who were involved. The industry is in a good position now to go forward. It should go forward and prove its critics wrong. I know that it will, and I wish it luck in the future.

The report of the Primary Production Committee was unanimous and this bill will go through with the support of all parties, including New Zealand First. However, New Zealand First has not seen the need to point out its opposition to women directors or Māori directors. In fact, I quite like the idea of women directors on boards, and would never ever oppose such a move unless there was a higher reason behind that, and of course, the higher reason would be equity. However, I do not want to let this opportunity go by without saying, in particular, that women have made a huge contribution to this industry, and have done so for centuries. I must also mention that approximately 10 percent of the total sheep and beef stock units belong to or are under the control of Māori interests, and that is significant.

There was a day—and I hope that people do not take offence at this—when people would drive past unkempt land or land that perhaps was not in pristine condition, and would lament that perhaps it was Māori land. The implication was that Māori land was not productive and was not looked after, and the explanation of that was that it was in multi-person ownership. That was all correct, of course, but since those days we have had a marvellous thing called Māori incorporations come along, and Māori have found a very good vehicle that takes into account the multiple ownership of land. They can appoint managers, and they have legislation that means they do not have to track down the last Māori owner, maybe in foreign parts of the world. So Māori can get on with the business of farming. We now have very, very productive enterprises in the hands of Māori incorporations. They are a credit to the Māori people and to the farming industry, and they take their place in the industry with pride and professionalism. I will not name the people who are involved, at the risk of missing somebody out and causing offence, but the people who are involved in the industry are highly qualified, highly motivated, very, very professional people. They do nothing but add to the industry, and we applaud that. I would be concerned if the words from my National Party colleagues were taken as suggesting there was some concern that Māori were not welcome on these boards or anything else. It is simply the fact that the select committee believed that representation on them should be on the basis of merit, rather than based on race or gender. I just wanted to make that point obvious.

At this point I want to thank the officials and my colleagues on the select committee. We do work well together. We enjoy each other’s company, dare I say it, and we certainly look forward to the reappearance of Mr Shane Ardern on that committee. I think I can say that we are of one voice on that. So we urge his contemporaries and his leaders to bless us with his presence. It is not often that we get the chance—we do get the chance, but we do not get it often enough—to tell the people of New Zealand via speeches such as this of the talent, integrity, and intelligence of the so-called bureaucrats, or the people who shepherd bills through the House. We are blessed in this Parliament. I know that sometimes debates rage around these matters, but we have a bureaucracy to serve this country and this Parliament that is free of corruption, and that has clear ideals and clear guidelines to work to. Officials give freely of their advice. They work long hours; they do not work normal days and take weekends off. If there is a job to be done, they work after normal working hours and in the weekends. They work hard at it. We are served by them, and we owe them a debt of gratitude. I know that I do not thank them often enough, so I am doing so now and making up for what I have neglected to do previously.

I cannot let this opportunity go by without mentioning the fact that New Zealand First sees a difference between export-led and consumer-driven economic activity. It has been the fashion in the last 15 years or so for people not to differentiate between those things. This bill deals with export-led economic activity, and we support it. Members can see that there is complete unanimity on this bill in the House. Whether economic activity is export led or consumer driven makes a difference to the inflation rate of this country. It makes a difference to where the money first lands, if one likes. It is far better for the economy for the money to come in through export-led activity, go into the hands of people in the provinces in the case of this industry, and then flow through into the cities. The money always ends up in the cities, but it does matter how it gets there. When it goes through the rural economy into the cities everybody gets a drink, if one likes, and shares in the wealth, and the economy is better balanced for that.

This is a huge industry. Mr Ardern has rightly drawn some comparisons, and we tend to forget them. I came up through my farming career in a cooperative structure. It is a structure that I still favour. I believe this industry would have been better served without some of the very well-known names that were involved in the past, like Vestey’s meat companies, and things like that—people who have substantial wealth.

💬 Shane Ardern: Foreign investors!

R DOUG WOOLERTON: Yes, we mention the words “foreign investors”. New Zealand First is well known for talking about that, and I am going back into past history and talking about that now. Sure, those people have contributed to this industry, but they have also taken great wealth off these shores from it. I personally would like to see more cooperative involvement, and I believe if this industry had had that it would be further ahead than it is. It does not surprise me, coming as I do from the dairy industry, that the dairy industry, which played second or third fiddle to this industry, has now surpassed it with a cooperative structure that many people in this industry believed to be inferior in days gone by.

I would like to make this observation in the third reading of the Meat Board Restructuring Bill. The reason why we are having such a high degree of unanimity in the House, why this bill is going through the House virtually without dissent, and why there is very little acrimony is that we are seeing ACT policy in action.

💬 Larry Baldock: Ha, ha!

Larry Baldock laughs! He is the man of high-handed regulation and control. But we do not see in the meat industry, or, indeed, in the primary industries, Government handouts or subsidies. In other words, those industries run themselves. That has to be a prime reason why we are not having arguments over who will get what, and how much more taxation has to go into the primary production sector. I ask Mr Baldock how much the meat industry gets from the Government. It gets nothing! How much does the forestry industry get? It gets nothing! The Government stole from the forestry industry, just recently. That is exactly what the ACT party says. We say that if people take the Government out of their lives they will find that things just happen, because people will get on with it. The Government likes to think that we have to have more control, more regulation, and more acrimony. I do not agree with that.

That is also the reason why by and large the Primary Production Committee gets on extremely well. I have not, perhaps thankfully, sat on very many other select committees, but we do have a reputation on the Primary Production Committee for being very sensible and being able to achieve things that are in the best interests of this country. Why is that? Yet again, it is because the issues that we deal with are—as, indeed, in the case of this bill—about easing the path and making things easier for those industries to get on with the job of wealth creation in this country, for the benefit of the shareholders and owners of those industries, rather than the industries relying on Government handouts time and time again. That is why the meat industry is so good.

That is very obvious to all those in the primary industries of course, but it is quite remarkable that with the huge reduction in stock numbers, especially in sheep numbers in this country, production is up. Why is that? It is because the farming community has invested its own money. The Minister has been promoting a “fart tax” just recently so he can hit us again, but the farming industry stood up and said there should be no more taxes. We said we did not need that tax because we were achieving the aims, in terms of the global warming problems that are perceived by some. We are contributing enormously to a greener planet, through our farming processes. We turn water to grass, and then to protein hugely efficiently. There is no other industry in the world that can compete with us, although of course we are blessed in New Zealand with a microclimate that enables us to do that. But we do that with great efficiency. I can only emphasise the point that stock numbers are down, yet production is up. That is hugely reflective of the capability of our pastoral farmers.

But the Government, as has been pointed out in previous speeches, seems hell-bent on closing down much of the industry. I ask Mr Clayton Cosgrove, in his third reading speech, to tell me how the meat industry will benefit from the number of stock units in the South Island high country being reduced by 600,000. He will have some responsibility for that. Why should that occur, when we have such a successful industry that contributes so much to the wealth of this nation of ours? We are very successful, yet the Government now wants to shut down parts of the industry because the Prime Minister wants to go tramping.

I think it is time for the Labour Government to show some real leadership, and for Mr Sutton and the Prime Minister to stand in this House and thank the primary production industry. I have never, in my 5 years in this House, seen the Prime Minister come to the Chamber to make a speech on a bill like this, and say to the productive sector of this country that she thanks it for what it has done to enable the Government to spend money on other aspects of the country. That has never happened to my certain knowledge, and that is a matter of some considerable regret. It is time that this Government, and indeed the country, understood that wealth creation is not something we should ever apologise for. It has given us a standard of living in this country that enables us to look after the less well off, and a lot of that has come off the backs of sheep, cows, or cattle—whatever animal it may be. Our wealth has come from primary industry, and it has come from the fact that that industry is deregulated and farmers do not rely on Government largesse to help them out when they need it from time to time. That just does not happen any more, and we should be eternally grateful for that.

The Minister, Mr Sutton, alluded to the fact that the Government needs to continue to manage and have influence over the quota. I ask this question, and perhaps my colleagues in the National Party may know the answer: does the Government need to have a couple of directors on the board of Fonterra, to manage the cheese or the butter quota? Why is it, then, that we need that in the meat industry? What is the difference between a meat quota and a quota for cheese or butter that comes from, say, Japan? Why is that not being managed by two appointees of the Government on the board of Fonterra, appointed so they can manage that? It is an absolute nonsense; it is not needed. We argued against it, but the Minister insisted that he have some influence. Well, with any sort of luck it is only a matter of time before that influence disappears, or certainly dissipates.

I want to make one final reference in my closing moments in this debate. The farming community does not want accountability from its meat and wool board, or the new pastoral board. Instead, it wants performance. Any fool can account for his or her hundred dollars of expenditure, or whatever amount it is. It is not accountability but performance that is wanted. As I alluded to earlier, I went to Whangarei to the first annual meeting. I did not see any Government members there. It was like walking back in time and going back into the 1960s or the 1970s, in terms of what happened there. There were remits, and it was just old hat stuff. The board has to revitalise itself. It has to show the real leadership that farmers are looking for, because in a few years’ time, when the farming community again debates this issue to determine whether it should be levied to keep the board going, unless there is performance I suspect the days of even the Meat Board will be numbered. We have to see performance from the board. We have to be able to benchmark that performance, and the board has to show relevance—more than just being there, going through the motions, and supporting the political party of the day, whichever it may be. That is totally wrong.

The meat industry knows where it has come from and where it is going. As long as politicians keep out of the industry, other than meeting the vital need I talked about earlier of ensuring that free trade operates throughout the world, then we will progress mightily if we get the opportunity. If we get constraint, cost control, and cost structures being placed on us by this Government, we will not progress. So the choice really belongs to the people of this country. Do they want a Labour Government that will perpetuate cost and control, or do they want a free enterprise, centre-right Government? That is the issue; that is what it comes down to. I can see no finer example of success in industry than our current meat industry.

I rise to take a very short call on behalf of United Future as this bill passes through its third reading. The member who spoke before me said in his speech on the second reading that he was a very proud farmer, and in that speech he certainly portrayed himself as a very proud ACT party member, as well. He wondered why I laughed. Well, when we hear some things that are really ridiculous we cannot help ourselves. It is spontaneous. We just had to laugh as he took credit for the fact that there is unity in the House today, saying it is entirely dependent upon ACT party policy. The real reason why there is unity on the passage of this bill today is that ACT, for the first time in a long time, has decided to vote for something, instead of simply opposing everything that is ever brought into this House. We are happy that there has been unity on this legislation, because it is important legislation. It is good for the country. It will be good for the meat industry, for our primary industries, and United Future is very happy to see it pass through its third reading today, to benefit the country.

Madam Speaker—[Interruption] I was going to take a very short call on this bill, but if I keep getting heckled I might take my full 10 minutes. We will see how it rolls.

There is a lot to commend this bill. A lot of the credit goes to the outstanding work of the Primary Production Committee. There are no finer examples of members of that select committee than Phil Heatley and David Carter. David Carter, in his stewardship of the committee, managed to pull back the more extreme views of some Government members and the Greens. I take my hat off to him. I also acknowledge that the consulting advice provided by Shane Ardern in the corridors has made this bill what it is today. I commend the bill to the House.

There is overwhelming support for this legislation from those farmers who did vote. [Interruption] The Clayton’s member for Waimakariri is calling out again. I am not sure what he is saying. I would engage the member in a battle of wits but I never attack an unarmed man, so I will just carry on. There is overwhelming support for this legislation. People see that it is common sense and they support it, and that is pretty much the theme. But common sense and the Labour Government do not necessarily go hand in hand. It was not very long ago that this Government was trying to foist the “fart tax” on to the agricultural industry. If not for people like Shane Ardern, who had the courage of his convictions to jump on his tractor and drive it up the steps of Parliament, becoming a symbol of defiance for the farming communities, then this Government would be taxing sheep and cattle throughout this country right now. I say to Shane Ardern and the farmers who marched on Parliament: “Well done!”.

I noted when I was taking a call during the Committee stage that there is a tendency to over-regulate. I was not pointing the finger at any particular Government, but I did raise the question of whether some of this legislation is necessary. I reiterate that concern, because I think there is a tendency for successive Governments to get involved in legislation that is just not necessary.

Let us also be clear that the Meat Board Bill is in existence only because of the hard work and outstanding contribution that our meat and wool farmers have made thus far. Jeff Grant, a former National Party MP, and Mike Petersen have led that work. They are the types of individuals who have made this legislation what it is today. Now, of course, we have the Minister of Agriculture coming in on their shirt tails and trying to claim some of the glory. But the farming industry does not buy that. That is why there will be a change of Government. That is why that member has already flagged that he will retire; he knows that he will not be re-elected down in Aoraki.

Let us also be clear that we have a meat quota now only because of the outstanding work that our farming community has engaged in. There is a sense within this Government that all farmers are a bunch of hayseeds. Well, let me tell those members something: our farmers are now working in a deregulated, highly technology driven, and highly scientific industry, and they are at the forefront of this industry right across the world. They are not underpinned by subsidies. They do not believe in the types of things this Government is trying to do to the rest of New Zealand—that is, to make people dependent. They know that they can exist on their own merits. So I tell Government members opposite that they should be standing up and applauding the farming industry for what it has done, not sitting in judgment and putting in place things like the “fart tax”. That is exactly what they tried to do, and, lest we forget, it was not very long ago. We will not forget, and the voting public of this country will not forget either.

We in the farming industry know that we work in a global market. We select people on merit when we put boards together, so that principle should have been adhered to by this Government in deciding the composition of the board. I have already taken a call to signal my concern about that, but it fell on deaf ears as far as the Minister was concerned. But the National Party and the farming industry believe that one appoints people according to merit. Why would one have a board with highly skilled people, then put in place Government patsies to keep an eye on how they perform? It just does not make sense.

I will leave the House with this view. The members of the farming community are successful business people, with asset backings in most cases of $2 million, $3 million, $5 million, $10 million, $15 million, $20 million, or $30 million. If one took that type of business to the city, people would say: “Oh, that’s a big business. You are successful. We must learn from you.” But we do not do that. There is some sort of derision of the farming community as a bunch of hayseeds, and it is driven by the Clayton Cosgroves of this world. It might surprise members that he talks about being a rural representative. His office is in Papanui Road in Christchurch. He is so far from the rural communities that he gets out there with a packed lunch only once a month to see what a sheep actually looks like. So people should not listen to what that member has to say; they should listen to what the National members have to say, because we respect farmers, and we understand that they are successful business people, and that is why we have thrown our full support behind this legislation.

Bill read a third time.