Meat Board Amendment Bill

on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture: I move, That the Meat Board Amendment Bill be now read a second time. This bill was introduced into the House on 22 March 2006. It had its first reading on 30 March 2006 and was referred to the Primary Production Committee on that day, with the instruction that the committee present its final report on or before 27 July 2006. The committee reported the bill back to the House on 25 July 2006.

The meat industry makes a significant contribution to the New Zealand economy in terms of its contributions to gross domestic product, employment, and export earnings. For the year ended June 2006, provisional statistics show that $4.5 billion worth of meat products were exported, which accounted for around 14 percent of the total value of merchandise exported from New Zealand. The meat industry employs thousands of people on farms and in meat processing. By international standards, our meat industry is highly productive and very efficient. New Zealand sheep, beef, and goat farmers, through their levies, make considerable investments in meat industry research and market development in our country. Our meat processors employ the most advanced technologies available, and our exporters have developed niche markets right around the world.

The Government introduced the bill to clarify a provision in the Meat Board Act 2004. The bill clarifies that a mechanism established by the Meat Board for the allocation of rights to quota markets may allocate access to quota to any person who is a registered meat exporter, whether or not the person currently exports meat products. The bill will remove any perceived ambiguity in the original drafting of the legislation framework and eliminate a potential impediment to the continuation of the Meat Board’s current and longstanding practice in respect of the allocation of quota rights. That will bring to businesses certainty in this very important industry, and will help to protect our access to those very valuable markets.

The Government continues to put considerable emphasis on export market access for our primary sector products. The lack of progress in the Doha round of multilateral trade negotiations demonstrates the considerable difficulties that export-dependent countries like New Zealand face. The meat export quotas were negotiated between New Zealand and the European Union, and with the United States of America in the context of the Uruguay round of negotiations. Those negotiations were signed off in 1994.

Getting the best benefits out of our markets must be protected for the benefit of all New Zealanders, and this bill certainly will facilitate that. I wish the New Zealand meat industry well.

I acknowledge at this particular time the contribution that was made by the Primary Production Committee and specifically by the chairman, David Carter, who conducted the bill through the select committee process. I say to my colleagues on the committee that I think we did a good job. We had a few differences of opinion, but in the end we got there.

I commend this bill to the House.

I am pleased to take a call on the second reading of the Meat Board Amendment Bill. I start by making sure that there is no question about any conflict of interest in terms of my involvement in this legislation. I am, of course, a farmer. I am also a shareholder in two organisations—PPCS and Alliance Meats—that made submissions to the Primary Production Committee. I assure this House that in no circumstances did my very minor shareholding in either of those companies play any part at all as I considered the legislation. In fact, as we conclude the debate on this bill, it will be seen that the wishes of those two major exporters, according to their submissions, have certainly not been satisfied by the select committee.

I agree wholeheartedly with the Hon Dover Samuels that the meat industry is absolutely critical to the New Zealand economy. It is an industry that has enjoyed relatively buoyant times over recent years, but it is also an industry under increasing pressure, because of the cost structure under which it operates and because of the ever-increasing ability of previously under-developed nations to develop their agriculture and then compete in every market to which we send our product. We can continue to claim the uniqueness of the New Zealand meat product because of our clean and green environment, but, at the end of the day, I think a customer going into Sainsbury’s or a supermarket in Tokyo is likely to be more persuaded by the cost of the item on the supermarket shelf than any claims we make as to the pure, untainted manner in which we as farmers here in New Zealand produce our product. Therefore, I think it is incumbent on all politicians of this Parliament to keep, seriously, a very close watch on the costs that are being imposed on the industry—some of those certainly imposed by central government.

From my point of view, this legislation came out of left field. I was involved, through the select committee process, in the original Meat Board Act 2004, and therefore was as surprised as, I think, most players within the industry that an amendment had been put before Parliament, with a special request from the Minister in charge of the legislation—the Minister of Agriculture, Jim Anderton—to progress it through the select committee process as quickly as possible. I take the opportunity of thanking my colleagues on the select committee, who were from Labour and National—there was no involvement from the smaller political parties. I thank my fellow committee members for the way they helped me to shepherd this legislation through the select committee process.

Having acknowledged that the legislation came out of left field, I do accept that there was some dissatisfaction on the part of some players around the allocation of quota to the valuable markets referred to by Dover Samuels. Let me say that there will always be some dissatisfaction in the industry. The industry is, by its very nature, very competitive. It is vital that the industry remains competitive so that we as a nation have the opportunity to maximise value for “New Zealand Incorporated”. There will always be tension around the way the Meat Board allocates the quota. Clearly—and as demonstrated by the submissions to the select committee—there is a very healthy tension between the big players within the industry and the smaller, emerging players, who, of course, always want to get bigger. I do not think that should be underestimated. I think it is healthy, but I would not want to see any dispute progress further than a healthy debate before the Meat Board, via any question of ambiguity in the original Act of 2004. The select committee took no part in considering whether there was ambiguity. That was not our role, and, frankly, I do not have the legal expertise to consider that. Suffice it to say, the Government saw that there was possibly an area of ambiguity and moved promptly to close any argument that there could be ambiguity, and I support that move completely.

The next major point that needs to be made is that this legislation is not about Parliament or politicians determining how the quota should be allocated to the various players within the meat industry. Parliament made the decision to allocate that responsibility to the Meat Board with the 2004 Act, and that was not for debate in this legislation. I am not sure that all submitters actually saw that point; one or two took the opportunity to relitigate the issue of whether that was the appropriate process. But Parliament, without, from memory, any opposing vote by any political party, saw fit to pass that role from the House of Representatives to the Meat Board, which I think has done a very creditable job with the allocation process. It is acknowledged, as I said earlier, that there will always be some arguments around the fringes as to whether particular parties get enough of the access to those quota markets.

The fundamental issue within the industry is how to maximise the value of that access to good markets for the benefit of, certainly, the whole of New Zealand but of, more particularly, the meat industry. The select committee accepted without question that the meat industry is a combination, of course, of farmers, processors, and exporters. So the question that was perhaps for discussion by submitters and select committee members was of the position of processors who went to the effort of ensuring that their meat was produced to a standard that made it suitable for export to those markets and then, for some reason, made a decision not to export it but to sell it on the domestic market. I think that having the ability to maximise the flexibility under which companies operate so that they can determine the latter stages of the process—their decision as to how they sell a product—is the very best way they can maximise their returns, and the very best way they can be in a position to pay the best possible price to producers and, therefore, to farmers.

Having said that, I say that although the legislation must be flexible, we cannot afford for it to have any ambiguity at all. Its flexibility is valuable, because it allows new players to come into the market, to establish niche markets overseas, and then to progress the finalisation of their products so that they are in a position to maximise their returns. I would hope that at this stage all submitters will accept the word of Parliament that the issues of further allocation will be something to which all parties have every right to communicate with the Meat Board about, and to place their case. The legislation allows regular reviews, communication, and discussion between the players, but I hope that the fundamental arguments, and the fundamental acceptance of Meat Board decisions, will be put to bed with the passing of the legislation. At the end of the day, those markets are valuable to New Zealand. They are valuable, of course, to the farmers who produce the meat that ultimately goes to those markets, but also, from a “New Zealand Incorporated” point of view, they have been hard earned and are of substantial value to us.

I take this opportunity to take a short call in support of the Meat Board Amendment Bill. I also support the comments of the previous speaker, the Hon David Carter, and I take this opportunity also to knowledge him as chair of the Primary Production Committee. As a member of that committee I can say that he managed the process quite well. I also acknowledge another member of the committee, Colin King. His personal involvement in this industry was most helpful, particularly to me in trying to understand the quota system.

For me, the bill clarifies one of the provisions within the Meat Board Act 2004, regarding the allocation of access to meat export quota markets. New section 24(5), inserted by clause 3, clarifies that a mechanism established by the New Zealand Meat Board for the allocation of rights to quota markets may allocate “access to quota markets to any person who is a registered exporter, whether or not the person currently exports meat products.” On that note, I can tell members that we heard from submitters in support of, and against, that proposal. I found it really interesting to hear of the impact of that situation on the local economy, and the price on the international market. I felt, having heard that explanation, that it was a rewarding opportunity within the industry for those players to participate on that basis.

The bill also upholds the original objectives of the Meat Board Act by removing any perceived ambiguity in the original drafting of the legislative framework. Although some submitters to the committee welcomed the amendment bill, others opposed it because they considered that the Meat Board’s current allocation mechanism did not capture the best possible returns available from meat export quota markets. Some submitters took that as an opportunity to seek changes to the original intent of the Meat Board Act, with regard to quota allocation. In particular, they argued that quota should be allocated only to processors who export all, or a major part, of their production, because only exporters can capture the best possible ongoing returns available from quota markets. They also considered that that would reduce or remove the distortions they believed existed in the New Zealand market for slaughter stock.

However, in contrast, submissions in support of the bill noted that making quota available to all registered meat exporters, whether or not they export meat products, would ensure that the financial benefits associated with access to quota markets would continue to be available to the wider New Zealand meat industry. They also submitted that when passing the Meat Board Act in 2004, Parliament clearly intended that all of the different parts of the meat industry should benefit from quota. For example, the definition of “meat industry” in the current Act includes livestock farmers, meat processors, and meat exporters. The presumption is that exporters who are not processors should benefit from the quota markets.

It is also important to note that the Meat Board Act 2004 clearly states that the Crown owns the rights to secure the economic benefits deriving from quota markets, and that those benefits are assigned to the meat industry. The Primary Production Committee’s report on the amendment bill concludes that meat processors should be able to access those benefits, whether or not they export, and that exporters should be able to benefit, whether or not they are processors. The bill will clarify the Meat Board’s ability to have an allocation mechanism that allocates quota rights to all meat processors. Such a mechanism should help to ensure that quota benefits can be accessed by specialist exporters, who are able to develop niche markets but who do not process meat themselves, through buying quota allocations from processors who are allocated quota but who do not export. I value the opportunity to raise those points as a member of the committee, as I mentioned earlier. I thank the House for that opportunity. Kia ora.

I wish to take a call on the Meat Board Amendment Bill too, and it appears to me that the Primary Production Committee has done its job. Some issues need clarifying and it is important that that is done, for all sorts of reasons. I will make some comments about the meat industry in the first instance, because I think this is a salient time to remind the House of one or two pertinent facts.

I acknowledge at this time those farmers, particularly in South Canterbury, the Wairarapa, Wanganui, and the East Coast of the North Island, who are currently involved in the arduous task of competing with the elements at a crucial time in the cycle of the meat industry—that is, either lambing or just before lambing, when the risk of metabolic disorders and diseases is high and farmers are working in inclement conditions. They are absolutely committed to doing their best for themselves, and the big gainer from that is the New Zealand economy.

On that point I wish to make one or two comments. Since I came back to the House I have watched the Labour Government members just about falling on their faces from self-congratulatory pats on the back at how well they have done on the economy. But in reality the economy has done well because the people who provide the bulk of our export income—namely, the farmers—have stuck to their knitting, in spite of being told under a previous Labour Government that theirs was a sunset industry and it was time they moved on.

In the mid-1980s, the price we were getting for lambs was about $13 and we could not sell a ewe for profit unless it was an extraordinary ewe. So we donated them to the Labour Party. We sent them off so that the bill went to the Labour Party, in order to give it some appreciation of what it had done. At that time I wrote to Mr Peter Neilson, who was then the Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister of Trade and Industry. He had said that if farmers could not make money from meat—from lamb—then they ought to do something more productive. So I wrote to him and asked what I could do. I described my property, which was largely pastoral. The topography meant that it could not be used for arable farming, and some constraints about dairying meant that I could not do that. I was really locked in.

I did not get an answer from Mr Neilson. Yet that administration was saying that the meat industry was a sunset industry, and that we should forget about it and do something else with our land. I suppose I could have planted it with trees and had my carbon credits stolen. I do not know what I would have lived on in the meantime. My point is simply that farmers have stuck to their knitting, and what they are doing they are doing very, very well. Today they produce a prestige, quality product.

We now come to the issue of how we manage that prestige quality product. Essentially New Zealand is very fortunate because, for a whole lot of reasons, it has access to the best-paying market in the world: the European Union. I have not seen the figures and I do not know whether they have changed, but we used to send 226,000 tonnes equivalent of bone-in carcass into that market. The next biggest player at the time when those figures were current was Australia, with 17,000 tonnes. That is a huge advantage for us.

Here we need to note three significant points. The first is that the quota rents, the value of that market, belongs to New Zealand—to no one else. The second point is that the quotas are protected by statute—and what we are doing now is providing a bit of clarification around the statute process that protects them. The third point is that those quotas are allocated by the industry, largely through the Meat Board. Those are the three fundamental issues at stake here.

This bill provides a bit of clarification about the issue of allocation. We will always have dispute between the players as to who should get what, where it should go, and who should get the advantage from it. We have quite a mix of players, from very, very big players to some very small players and some aspirant players who want to get in to the market. So we need an element of tradability. That is an issue the industry should sort out, not parliamentarians, who would get it wrong in picking winners. We probably need to have 2 percent, 3 percent, or a lower order of quota traded every year in order to provide opportunity and to allow transition to take place. It is important that we have new players—that we have an opportunity for innovators to expand or to come into the market. That is crucial.

The quality product we are producing is delivered in a range of ways. We have seen a huge shift from the frozen stockinet all-in carcass to the range of products—fresh, pre-cut, frozen, and chilled atmosphere packaging technology—that the industry now produces. It has moved significantly upmarket. Its product used to lie around the bottom shelves of the supermarket. That product is now pretty close to the top shelf in most European markets. That is because there is now an absolute commitment to produce an excellent, high-quality product.

It is interesting to note that in the days when all the support systems were pulled out and the price of lamb dropped from about $25 or $30 down to $12 or $13—which is hard to believe now—we had 70 million - odd sheep. I do not know how accurate the count was, but it was around 70 million. Today we have somewhat fewer than 40 million as a winter population—between 37 million and 39 million, I guess—and we are producing the same quantity of meat from those sheep. That has happened because we have seen huge gains in productivity. We have seen huge gains in fertility—up about 25 percent in the last 15 years—increases in the weight of lambs, and increases in the yield of lambs. That is what has given us a similar volume of meat today.

We have a product that continues to advance. It is an exciting time to be producing lamb and sheep meat. Not only has the prestige of the product improved but also nothing else in the primary production sector has had such significant production gains. And there is no reason to say the gains will stop here. With gene mapping and a whole lot of other things out there, the parabola of growth—the diagram that shows a parabola of growth spurt—is still on the up.

This is an exciting time. We have an industry that is performing exceptionally well on the production side, and we want the other side—the product development, marketing, and branding side—to continue the growth gains we have seen. As I said initially, the important thing is that we manage the best-paying quota market in the world. We probably would prefer that it not be a quota market, but it is, and fortuitously we are the biggest player in it. I stress again the important issues: that the quota rents belong to New Zealand, that they are protected by statute, and that the allocation is the responsibility of the industry.

I conclude by coming back to the points I made earlier about the Labour Government, which is still congratulating itself on its performance. It is farmers who have stuck to their knitting, in spite of the adverse climate conditions that I have talked about and in spite of being instructed by a previous Labour Government to get out of farming, who have brought about the prosperity this country now enjoys. Brock Waterfield kind of summed it up in this statement: “A nation cannot prosper till it learns that there is as much prosperity in tilling a field as there is in writing a poem.”

The Government needs to recognise the contribution of provincial and rural areas, and particularly of the people who are out in the snowfields and mud paddocks right now creating the prosperity and wealth of this country.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker.Tēnā tātou katoa I te Whare. Last night I was told off because it was reckoned that my kōrero contained matters that were not particularly relevant to the bill I was addressing. So as I rise to speak to the Meat Board Amendment Bill I am mindful of ensuring that all of my kōrero tonight is relevant.

💬 Hon Member: Kia ora, kia ora.

Kia ora tātou. This bill states that the Meat Board can grant access to quota markets for all meat exporters, whether or not they currently export meat products. I wonder whether it is relevant to bring up some of my own vivid memories of the rank smells and the freshness of blood and offal on the gut floor of the Moerewa freezing works—my memories of being on the chain and of the slashing knives, the hoses, the flash white gumboots, and the endless humour amongst those at the works back in their heyday in the 1970s. Yes, it is a personal memory, and yes, it was a long, long time ago, but still I have no doubt that it is a memory I share with thousands of other meatworkers and the 32,000 sheep, meat, and dairy producers all over the country.

I ask whether it is relevant that these meatworkers—many of whom were Māori in my day, and probably still are today—should have a view on this bill, or, for that matter, whether the Meat Industry Association, AgResearch, or even the Federation of Māori Authorities should have a view. The Māori Party certainly thinks so, yet despite the fact that about 30 percent of all meatworkers are Māori, there were no submissions from anyone specifically representing Māori interests in the meat industry.

We also know that despite our having a booming agricultural industry, which is forecast to reach $21 billion by 2010, there are very, very few Māori training in the field. It is for those reasons, then, that we believe it is timely to consider how Māori may be affected by opening up access to quota markets, and timely also to consider training and recruitment strategies to create a pathway into the industry for tangata whenua. We ask how this bill might advance Māori interests for the benefit of the whole nation. And we ask how Māori might be encouraged to participate in this $20 billion industry at all levels, rather than just on the chain—not that we are sneezing at the chain gang, which is an association that goes back many years for Māori. In fact, in a 1962 edition of Te Ao Hou, Steve Watene described the Māori workers at Gear Meat Processing in Petone, where my colleague Mr Te Ururoa Flavell used to work back in those days, as having a natural aptitude for the work and being exceptionally good workers. That must have been before Mr Flavell got there. He went on to say that the workers in those days managed well because they were particularly good at using their hands and enjoyed the work. This capacity to enjoy the work, especially when they are in groups, a capacity that, in general, is probably more typical of Māori than Pākehā, made all the difference. Though they got on well with their Pākehā mates, they preferred, on the whole, to work in all-Māori groups. They were very good at the heavy work like butchering and dressing.

Māori have been there in the meat industry in big numbers ever since. So the place of Māori in the industry is very relevant to any amendments being proposed to the Meat Board Act 2004. In fact, the survival and economic stability of many, many Māori families has long been linked to the up and down fortunes of the freezing works. Indeed, the huge social disruption to the small Taranaki town of Pātea when its freezing works were closed down in 1982 has become immortalised in the lyrics of “Poi E”. The break-up of their close-knit community and their attempts to deal with that symbolise the confusion and struggle many Māori families went through as they were forced to go to the cities to look for work. The lyrics by Ngoi Pewhairangi and the music by Dalvanius Prime describe the poi like a fantail that flies through the forest, as a metaphor for Māori youth trying to find their way in the concrete jungle of the Pākehā and still searching for their identity.

So as we turn to this bill we have a number of questions to ask. What provision is there for Māori meatworkers to make the transition to becoming producers? What plans are there to ensure that Māori can participate in positive economic outcomes through this access to quota? Whose views are being taken into account? What particular groups of New Zealanders stand to benefit from the measures being introduced? And how might Māori benefit from improved business certainty in the primary sector? We ask these questions because we know that some workers, like those at the Southmore meat processing plant in Christchurch, are getting only a measly $13 something an hour.

We also want to express our ongoing concern for genuine progress in our nation, because, as with any other bill, we need to weigh up the costs and measure the benefits against the deficits. Under the terms of a genuine progress index, although we recognise that primary beef and sheep production are key features of our wealth, yesterday, today, and tomorrow, we also know that that wealth is dependent on exploitation of our natural capital—our soil, our water, and our air. I mention that in light of a workshop held a couple of weeks ago in Tai Tokerau to discuss sustainable rural development. Dr Morgan Williams, Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, spoke on environmental sustainability and noted that on fewer than 40 percent of farms in the north, farm and dairy effluent discharge complied with environmental standards. The meeting also highlighted the need for iwi to ensure that Māori concepts of kaitiakitanga were fully considered as an integral part of the rural sustainability agenda.

These are all highly relevant issues that must be accounted for when considering the benefits associated with opening up access to markets. At the first reading of the bill, the Minister trumpeted the fact that the social and economic well-being of Aotearoa depends upon the success of growth in agriculture, forestry, and the related primary sector industries. We remind the House, though, that any likely financial returns from quota allocation must also be considered in light of the possible adverse impact on the quality of our environment.

The matters we have raised today may not be matters that the Primary Production Committee bothered to consider, but they are matters that must be considered by all players in the industry—farmers, meat-processing plants, meatworkers, employer groups, and unions; indeed, all the key players in the market. It reminds me of the whakatauākī: “Kia mau ki te kura whero kei mau koe ki te kura tāwhiwhi kei waiho koe hei whakamōmona mō te whenua tangata—hold fast to the valued treasure, not the illusory one, lest you be left as fertiliser for the human land.” It is a little like “a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush” but a bit stronger. It inspires us to value tangata whenua’s good workers, who are ready to avail themselves of the opportunities anticipated by this bill. It also reminds us to cherish the land and the environment—indeed the whole world around us—so that in caring for our world we know it will care for us. If we can open up access to quota markets, while maintaining our commitment to kaitiakitanga and to sustainable development, then we will all benefit from the economic and social gain that comes with genuine progress for everyone in Aotearoa. Tēnā koutou. Kia ora tātou katoa.

It gives me pleasure to rise to speak to the Meat Board Amendment Bill. It also gave me great pleasure today, when we farewelled Dame Silvia Cartwright, that our main course was a beautiful fillet of lamb. It should make all New Zealanders remarkably proud that we have the platinum level of food safety, and it is something we never want to undervalue.

In answer to my colleague from the Māori Party Hone Harawira, I acknowledge at this time the great work of Regina Rudland and Wayne Walden, who were Māori members of the New Zealand Meat Board and who worked towards setting up Meat and Wool New Zealand, and the Meat Board as it is today. I also acknowledge the Meat Board and Meat and Wool New Zealand for the leadership role they have taken with the Māori Farmer of the Year Award, and for the consultation they undertake regularly with the Māori stakeholders in the industry.

I also note the point of view that although those meatworkers would have been on $13 an hour, there would also have been a substantial bonus in there in that if they worked as a team they would have been remunerated at a rate of close to $20 an hour. I think we can do better, but we have done quite well, to date.

Applying ourselves to the Meat Board Amendment Bill, we can see that it does clarify the situation as it stands today. In actual fact, the purpose of the amendments are to clarify that under the existing law the allocation of quota to meat processors who do not export is lawful. That is where it is today with the Meat Board. The Meat Board allocates its quota to meat producers or processors on that basis of production history. It all sounds very simple and straightforward, but those meat plants that process have to have EU and US certification to be eligible for quota. They do not just get it by right; they have to be able to certify that their plants measure up to the highest food standards possible, and only at that cost and expense are they then eligible to be able to get that quota. It is also very important for us to remember that under the Doha round, the Crown owns the quota. However, it has set it up in such a way that it has enabled the industry to capture that value. It is on that basis that we want to walk through the steps of what is so successful. It has been running since 1997. It was enshrined in a 2004 Act, and this amendment clarifies that position. Meat processors are included in this benefit, whether or not they export, and exporters are included, whether or not they are processors. Those are two steps. The third and fourth step is that returns from quota allocation will flow to farmers who sell the livestock to the meat processors, because of the competition that exists between the various meat processors and companies.

It was interesting to note that one example of how this operates is that quota that has been allocated to a number of a companies or a few companies is traded, and people who do no processing at all but purely export do business. They buy the quota, and the trading that occurs is a small amount, around about 2 to 3 percent. However, it is well structured in the sense that the Meat Board measures month by month the amount of meat that is exported to a quota market, whether it is to the United States or to Europe, and they work this through. They constantly monitor those who underutilise their quota and give them warning signals as to the nearness of the responsibilities of releasing that quota so that it can be utilised by the rest of the industry; 1 October is the date when those who are holding quota and have not used it have a time to return it to the Meat Board for reallocation to general quota. On that basis, if they do not utilise that quota they are severely penalised in two ways. They are penalised by losing the quota, and they are also penalised by a cash penalty.

It is a very interesting situation we find ourselves in. When we look at the amendments, we have to realise that they amend the provisions inside the Meat Board Act 2004, and when we go through the various aspects of it, I can tell members that probably the most contentious that arose in the Primary Production Committee, which we had to give our full attention to, was section 24(5), inserted by clause 3, which states: “To avoid doubt, an allocation mechanism may provide for an allocation of access to quota markets to any person who is a registered exporter, whether or not the person currently exports meat products.” That was a clarification around the basis that up until that point there was a moot point as to who should be the ones who were allocated the quota. There was the view that exporters were the ones who should be allocated quota, and there were those who contested that, for the betterment and the capture of complete value to the market, it should go to all meat processors that are registered or certified as able to export. That was overcome reasonably.

The next point came up in section 32 around the insertion of the word “eligible” in clause 4. In that amendment to section 32, eligibility again clarifies the situation of the decisions. The amended section concludes by stating “or processing of meat products eligible for export.”, so it helps to clarify the situation, quite clearly, that it is consistent with the allocation mechanism that the Meat Board is using.

Finally, we come to the fifth point, in clause 5, which amends section 36. Clause 5(1) uses the phrase “persons applying for or allocated quota”, and in doing so, again, it makes that section consistent with the terminology throughout the Act now. Where section 36(1) stated that fees are payable “by meat exporters”, it will now state: “by persons applying for or allocated quota”. Section 36(3) previously stated: “The Board must take all reasonable steps to consult with meat exporters on the initial level of the fees, and on any increase in the fees.”; clause 5(2) omits “meat exporters” and substitutes “registered exporters”.

So, again, it certainly does tidy up aspects of the Act itself by clarifying how the quota may be allocated, and we can take comfort from the fact that, on a regular basis, the Meat Board has to consult with the industry. That is borne out in section 26, “Consultation”, which states: “The Board must not establish any particular allocation mechanism without consulting those meat industry organisations the Board thinks appropriate about its proposed establishment.” I can assure members that that process has been gone through over the last 18 months, and I am confident it will reoccur again, because section 29, “Review of allocation mechanisms” states: “(2) The Board must review each unrevoked allocation mechanism at intervals not greater than 5 years. The first review of each allocation mechanism after the commencement of this Act must occur within 5 years of that commencement.” So we should take comfort that there is a huge amount of accountability of the Meat Board to the industry, and that the communication with the Meat Board itself—with its industry representatives and its farmer representatives—is very alert and reactive to the industries and to the value that those quota markets have to New Zealand.

It gives me great pleasure to support this bill through its second reading. I trust that New Zealand and all those farmers out there who are lambing at the moment will be able to sleep comfortably in the knowledge that we have the best access in the world to quota markets. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Bill read a second time.