Meat Board Amendment Bill

I will give just a brief word, by way of introduction. I, first, thank the Primary Production Committee for the instructive and expeditious approach it took to this bill. The committee has not recommended any changes of substance to the bill. It has recommended some minor changes, to ensure that the bill replicates the changes in drafting style adopted by the House in March 2006, and I support the changes that the committee has suggested to Parliament. I hope the bill can now proceed as quickly as possible through the House.

I rise in support of this bill. The Primary Production Committee had quite a few submissions on it, and they were wide ranging, as well. It was interesting to hear both sides of the argument. There was concern out there amongst the Government members that there could be a bit of a challenge to this bill as it sat in 2004, but I think that in going through the submission process we were able to hear both sides of the argument—the pros and the arguments against—and to understand the bill more fully.

The Primary Production Committee believes that this legislation will actually clarify the intention of the Meat Board Act as it was passed in 2004. We have gone through quite a robust process of working through all those issues. In particular, this amendment bill is about ensuring that the value of quota is apportioned appropriately throughout the industry. We need to be mindful of the actual impact on the small players in the industry and, also, on the toll processors, who are actually killing on behalf of others and taking a headage. Although we had submissions against the amendment, and they tended to be from some of the bigger meat companies throughout New Zealand, we had submissions in favour of tidying up the bill from some of those smaller processors. I think it was important that we heard both sides of the argument, and reacted accordingly.

I would like to acknowledge the officials, who have done a pretty good job, I believe, in drafting this bill, and in working with the select committee to bring it through to where it sits right now.

The bill is actually tidying up the ambiguity around the Act, and that is extremely important. The bill will allow quota to flow through. The value of quota will still be represented right across the board to farmers at the farm-gate level, and that is also extremely important. Competition in this industry is rife, so it is most important that quota are spread right throughout the industry, and that farmers actually get value for money from the quota process. Most farmers did not want to see a legal challenge to the Act, and I believe that the select committee having gone through the bill will ensure that it does not happen.

The key part of this bill fundamentally still allows the Meat Board to act in its own right in allowing the quota process to go forward. The commentary on the bill states: “The Meat Board may allocate quota on the basis of share of production history regardless of how much kill is exported.” We accept that the debate about quota allocation will continue, and that other allocation options permitted by law will remain possible. The Meat Board has statutory power to make a choice about how the quota are allocated, and that is extremely important. There is a democratic process that the board goes through. It was fortunate that we had on our select committee Mr Colin King, who was part of the Meat Board in the last term but has now stood down. He was a great influence and guiding hand as we went through that process. The Meat Board is made up of democratically elected members who come from right throughout New Zealand, and it is very important that those people have a say in how the quota are allocated, along with the officials from the Crown.

As we look forward, we see that we are tidying up, I guess, a bit of ambiguity that may surround the legislation. It is important legislation for primary production people in New Zealand, particularly for farmers growing meat and veal. It will ensure that money flows through to the farm gate. From this side of the Chamber, it is interesting to note that with Mr Sutton standing down recently and being replaced by another list member—

I also rise to speak in favour of the Meat Board Amendment Bill, and I thank the officials for the work they have done. Clearly, it has been quite a difficult task for them to arrive at the position they have arrived at. I also acknowledge the work done by the very good Primary Production Committee, chaired by the spokesperson on agriculture for National, the Hon David Carter—a farmer—who was aided and abetted by very, very good members of this House Nathan Guy and Colin King. They are both National members who are farmers, which is something that the party on the other side of the Chamber has no ability to claim any more—or parties anywhere else in the House, for that matter, as far as their members of Parliament go.

I also bring to the attention of the Committee that this Meat Board Amendment Bill was referred to the select committee on 30 March 2006, and the closing date for submissions was 3 May 2006. The committee received 15 submissions from organisations and individuals, and it heard five of those submissions orally. I know that during that process—because I have spoken to my farmer colleagues—arguments were put forward on both sides of this debate, but I need to remind the Committee of how the 2004 Meat Board Act came into being.

We heard earlier today, during question time, some of the ironies of what goes on in this Parliament. Well, the irony here is that the moves to deregulate the industries that brought about the 2004 Act were brought forward by the National Government, first of all under Lockwood Smith, then later on under John Luxton, as agriculture Ministers. I acknowledge today the work that they did, because at that time that leadership was politically very difficult. I remind the Committee that despite the fact that all of those members on the other side were against the deregulation process, including the Hon Jim Sutton, who spoke vigorously against it, campaigned up and down the country and got a lot of farmers onside, it was Labour Ministers who introduced that legislation and had it passed through this House. Because of that political climate, a lot of this stuff was rushed through so that it did not get too much exposure, as the political backlash would have been enormous. That is why we are here now making some amendments around quotas.

John Luxton was once described to me by a member of this Parliament as being the person whom most members disagreed with, but also the person whom most members liked. That was quite an achievement on his part. It means that he was, at the time, showing leadership that was ahead of where the rest of Parliament was in terms of its thinking, and that is what led us to that deregulation.

I also say to the National members of the Primary Production Committee that these issues have always been enormously difficult. On one side of the fence we have those who argue that they should have total control over quota because of its value and the lucrative markets it brings; then on the other side of the argument we have those who say that it should be thrown to the wind, that it should be up for tender, and that whoever wants it should have a big chunk of the pie. It is an almost impossible road to steer down the middle of, and I think members have done a fine job in arriving where they have.

I remind the Committee of what the Minister of Agriculture said when the bill was going through its first reading. He said that, in relation to the practice of allocating quota to producers of export-quality meat who are registered meat exporters, regardless of whether they currently export meat products, the bill will clarify the fee collection powers of the board. Once again, this is to remove a potential ambiguity that came out of the 2004 legislation. I hope that has been achieved. We will not know, of course, until some clever lawyer from somewhere or other for some interest group somewhere tests it, but I suspect that the officials and the Parliamentary Counsel Office have gone through this with fine-tooth comb treatment and that they have got it about right.

It is also true to say at this point in time that the whole debate is a sinking-lid debate in the sense that quotas have a limited time, if we look to the future.

Salaam aleikum, Mr Chairperson, and peace be upon you.

First, I thank my colleagues on the other side of the Chamber, particularly Nathan Guy, who has summarised this bill very well. I thank the members of the Primary Production Committee, who are in support of this bill. I thank the officials, who have done a great job in preparing the bill, and also the submitters—farmers, Federated Farmers, companies, and a number of individuals—who have made submissions on the bill. We heard a variety of arguments, both in favour of and in opposition to the bill.

I wish to say just briefly that the select committee has unanimously agreed that the bill does not require any change, and it has commended the bill to the House as it is, bar some technical points. Essentially, this bill amends the Meat Board Act of 2004. The amendments allow the Act to become more clear, and ensure that the intent of the Act is lawful, to allow other non-exporters to export meat. The provision involves a very small amount of quota meat—only 2 to 3 percent of the total quota available for export. I think the bill generally just clarifies the Act we already have and, once again, I thank my colleagues for supporting it.

It is a privilege to follow the Meat Board Amendment Bill’s progress through Parliament. It was with great pleasure that I sat on the Primary Production Committee along with the other members. It was great to see how we worked as a team. I acknowledge the deputy chairperson of the committee, Ashraf Choudhary, who has just spoken. It was interesting to challenge ourselves around our thinking, to test our thoughts, and to come up with what we are convinced is the appropriate answer.

For just a moment or two I would like to take members through the situation that makes the Meat Board so significant. The board originated in 1947, and it has been a strong conduit in a significant market that will be 125 years old in 2007, which is Export Year, so it is quite significant. There are 1,200 quotas into Europe, and, by and large, those quotas are administered from the country in Europe where the quota ends up. But New Zealand manages this quota on its own shores, and it does so with a huge degree of international responsibility and care. On that basis we capture the value of that administration back to the industry.

One of the interesting aspects around the mechanisms used by the Meat Board that are governing the urgency of this bill being passed into law is that companies with quota used to have to return 3 percent of their quota annually so that there was also the opportunity for new entrants to come on board and to be able to create an environment for innovation. That 3 percent might not sound an awful lot, but a big company that had built up good relationships with its clients in overseas markets over a 10-year period was giving away 30 percent of its market share. So that gives an indication of the sensitivities that exist around the meat industry. The review process undertaken recently by the Meat Board, which looked at historical data and the usage of that new entrants allocation, decided to reduce that percentage back to 2 percent, because, according to historical data, only 1.8 percent was used. There is a large amount of consultation with the industry, and one of things that has ensured the importance and maintenance of the New Zealand Meat Board as a brand overseas is the way it embraced the industry at a time when there were certain views that the producer board had long passed its used-by date.

Overseas, if one were to go to Brussels, one would find that the organisation operating there is known as the Meat Board, whereas, here, the farmer organisation that sits alongside the Meat Board is now known as Meat and Wool New Zealand. The amount of quota utilised comes under scrutiny annually. It has to be monitored on a very, very progressive basis so that when we get to the end of the year, which is the last day in December, we are sure that we have landed in the country of quota origin the maximum amount of that quota. In the case of the US market we are talking about a beef quota of about 214,000 tonnes, and in the EU market it is 227,000 tonnes. It is no mean feat to be able to manage that and maximise the return back to the industry.

Looking at the bill, it is significant to notice that it was during the Uruguay round of the World Trade Organization work on free-trade agreements that we were given the privilege of managing that quota. The quota belongs to the Crown, and on that basis of it belonging to the Crown it is very appropriate that the Crown has chosen a mechanism that allows the industry to capture that value. I acknowledge my colleague Nathan Guy; we talk about farms a lot. There is no doubt about it that when farmers are making good returns, they get out their cheque books and spend that money, and that does an enormous amount of good for the rural economy.

New Zealand First supports the passing of the Meat Board Amendment Bill. Personally, I am a bit sad that I am not on the Primary Production Committee anymore, where we used to debate these things with much interest, and sometimes hilarity. But after listening to my colleague Shane Ardern going on about the changes some years ago to producer boards, I must admit I was not totally convinced of the changes at that time. It does not escape me that the producer groups that have succeeded since then have been the ones that have retained—as much as possible—the structure they had prior to those board changes. So I am not too sure whether, in fact, they were needed as much as we were told they were. I certainly understand that overseas markets have to be protected and, if they are not happy with a single seller - type operation, then that must be disbanded. On that basis, I certainly understand the changes. But, as I said, it looks to me as though the ones that are succeeding more than others are the ones that have retained as much of their structure as possible.

To farmers, as opposed to those in other industries, it has always been about the industry. That is the wonderful thing about the select committee, and the wonderful thing about farmers, generally. Although they might compete on a friendly basis to get the best production out of their land, they are not in direct competition themselves because the marketing is done by another body, be it a meat company, a board of some description, or something other. So that has led to what I believe is a very important driver in our essential primary industries—that is, it is not about the person; it is about the industry and what is good for the industry. If it is good for the industry, it will be good for individual farmers. I go on about that because it makes a huge, huge difference. It saddens me somewhat that in other areas of New Zealand we have competition outside the country between players from within the country. I do not think that that is the way to go; I think people should get their heads together.

💬 Craig Foss: Winston and Phil, you mean?

R DOUG WOOLERTON: Seeing that the member mentions it, I can say that, as we speak, Winston is fit and well and up to the task. I am told he is looking forward to furthering New Zealand’s interests, as he has been doing, despite all the publicity to the contrary. I am told on good authority that he is a heck of a lot healthier than the spider that inflicted the pain and sickness. Mr Peters will be out and about, pursuing the interests of the country—which is what this bill is all about.

I would like to acknowledge the farmers of New Zealand. I would like particularly to acknowledge the farmers in the South Island who have had to battle their way through snow and all those other conditions this past winter. I think it is easy for people who hail from the cities to say: “Well, it’s either too dry for the farmers or it’s too wet for the farmers.”, or to say that this or that is wrong. In actual fact, that is because that is exactly the way it is. I, for one, flew over those snow-ridden lands and I saw them on my TV. I thought: “Thank God we have people willing to go through all of that—to continue with a smile on their face, electricity or no electricity—and produce the primary production that gives the standard of living to all those of us who live in the cities.” Thank God they do that, and thank God they have the back-up of legislation such as this to keep open markets into other countries, when people within those countries, and farmers within those countries, fight continuously to keep us out.

I rise to speak to the Meat Board Amendment Bill. First of all, I would like to congratulate the Primary Production Committee on its work—and on the cooperation of the committee, in general—and also acknowledge the work of the officials, to get the bill to this stage. In particular, National’s agriculture spokesman, Mr David Carter—and I am not sure how many Ministers of Agriculture he has seen off now—is doing a great job, backed up very well by Mr Nathan Guy, who is one of our new intake, and Mr Colin King, who just gave a very good speech on the bill. I thank Mr King for the technical references he gave. I also acknowledge Mr Phil Heatley, who is also on the select committee.

The progress of this bill is a great example of MMP in action. I almost surprise myself by saying that, given that the Minister in charge of the bill, Jim Anderton, is from a party to the left of Labour, and slightly to the right of the Greens, I guess. In this current environment we should celebrate such cooperation, and focus on the right and good outcomes of this Parliament. Certainly, Parliament’s reputation is enhanced when bills like this come to the House.

I think—but I am not sure—there is unanimous support for the bill. As previous speakers have mentioned, there are no substantial changes to the bill as it was first read, which was then considered by the select committee. Again, congratulations are due to the officials and to those who have contributed to the drafting of the bill. As I mentioned earlier, the National Party is supporting the bill, and there are no major changes.

I would like to note one point. The National Party is supporting the Minister and the officials on the Meat Board Amendment Bill, but I must note that this will not be habit-forming. I say that because last night I attended the inaugural Horticulture New Zealand conference in Auckland, and the Minister of Agriculture was the guest speaker at dinner. I do not think the Minister realised I was there, so he may have shared a few too many secrets. They were good words, but I need to point out to the Minister that they were only words. Much of the discussion around my table and at drinks afterwards included statements like: “Well, show us some action, Minister; words are cheap.”

I also note for the benefit of the Minister that most of the people in the room took gross offence at the accusation that they, and New Zealand land-based industries, constantly saw the glass as being half empty. That is a gross insult to those who have worked so hard to put this nation where it is now, in spite of, in many instances, the Labour Government’s actions. They were quite indignant at the comparisons with our cousins over in Australia, as to how well they are doing in respect of productivity and return to the farm gate, etc. Again, he should celebrate the industry of which he is the Minister in charge.

I also note that they were quite astounded when the Minister spoke last night, pertaining to land-based industries, of the need for productivity gains in this sector in New Zealand. In spite of the actions of the current Government, including in its previous term, this sector has had massive productivity gains. In discussion after the Minister’s speech, questions were asked. How on earth can the Minister say that, when he has been part of a Government that has flooded regulation on to the farm—including, pertaining to the Meat Board Amendment Bill, farms that produce meat? How on earth can he keep asking about productivity gains, when he has hiked up everyone’s wage bill by about 2 percent with the Holidays Act? How on earth can he talk about the need for productivity gains and incentives in this sector, when he has been part of a regime that has hiked up personal taxes, that has absolutely trawled another $30 billion over the last 6 years, rising to $60 billion, in personal tax, wasting the gains from the investment of hard-working farmers, over many years, that they had hoped to enjoy at this time?

In the discussion about whether this Minister is right about the need for productivity gain, and about things that are good for the country and for the agricultural sector, the issue of Sovereign Yachts came up. The Minister, in his previous incarnation, constantly wrote out cheques for decent photo opportunities. He absolutely squandered taxpayers’ money on Sovereign Yachts, for example—money that farmers could have enjoyed using in the first place.

My electorate consists of many meat processors. They are cooperatives, listed companies, and private companies—large and small. Discussions on issues concerning procurement and processing run very deep and get very emotional. An example is the recent debates about PPCS Ltd being taken over by, or merging with—depending on whom one talks to—Richmond Ltd, which is a company with a great history in Hawke’s Bay.

The Meat Board does a great job. As I said earlier, National is supporting the bill, which is relatively unchanged. There are no substantial changes to the bill. The board does a great job of managing, corralling, and advocating for New Zealand’s position and access to markets abroad, in spite of the absolute best efforts of other parties and competitors to prevent that.

I would like to take a call on this Meat Board Amendment Bill. It is a Government bill that is being supported by the Primary Production Committee. The bill pretty much confirms the status quo. We should bear in mind that exporters need an export registration certification to be a part of this process. Whether meat-processing plants export or are involved in domestic supply, they will still need an export ticket. That means every plant throughout New Zealand needs to be at an optimum, high standard of hygiene.

I urge those members in the Chamber who have not been through a meat-processing plant to go through and have a look, because the cleanliness of plants in New Zealand is fantastic in comparison with plants in other parts of the world—and I was fortunate enough to go through a few in North America when I went there on a Winston Churchill Memorial Trust Fellowship in 2000 to follow our New Zealand beef exports—and in those big markets to which we export. Our industry has had to invest millions and millions to meet the United States Department of Agriculture safety standards. The people of New Zealand need to be reassured that our meat-processing plants—commonly called “the works”, but I like to call them processing plants—actually have very good, high standards of hygiene, which is fantastic.

We need to have a look at the wider industry benefits of this quota and at how they flow through not just to farmers at the farm gate but to rural New Zealand and those provincial towns right across New Zealand. I am talking about the fertiliser companies, stock and station agents, and other people, right through to the greengrocer and the person running the local dairy where one buys one’s milk. All of these people will benefit from this amendment passing through the Committee today.

Another important thing is how we value our clean, green, natural resources in this country. That is a significant part of this bill when we look at our quota and at meeting our export requirements around the world. Fundamentally, we in this country are blessed with wonderful natural resources. But farmers are environmentalists in their own hearts. They have been brought up on the land for generations, and they know that if they do wrong environmentally, they cause suffering right down through the chain and into our markets, as well.

The speech made the other day by Charlie Pederson, president of Federated Farmers, sparked debate around this whole environmentalist approach. We need to be cautious that we do not get too extreme in our approach, but we need to be mindful of the fact that we need to maintain our clean, green aspect that we have in this country. We are an island nation, and that aspect is worth billions—absolutely billions—to us as a country. But we need to be mindful of the fact that if we go down the road of extreme environmentalism, that will be detrimental to our overall productivity. We will see unemployment levels grow and fewer jobs in the rural, provincial areas of New Zealand. It is a fine balancing act, and farmers, along with industry organisations like Fonterra, the Meat Board, and others, are actually doing fantastically well.

The other thing I will touch on is the issue of biosecurity, and how that impacts on our island nation. We would be down the gurgler if we got something like foot-and-mouth, bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or tuberculosis in this country.

💬 Shane Jones: National have already got that.

What was that from the member over there? I have forgotten his name. Anyway, one back-bencher from over the other side is trying to chime in. He probably does not even own a pair of gumboots. He probably has not even been out to talk to any cockies in their woolsheds. He probably would not even know what this bill was about, like a lot of people on that side of the Chamber. We have seen Mr Sutton, unfortunately, be pushed out by a replacement Minister, and now farmers are left with no one rural to represent them.

It gives me great pleasure to follow on from my good colleague—my good farming colleague, I hasten to add—Nathan Guy. Is it not an indictment on the Government that the Minister in the chair, David Cunliffe, is a Japanese sheep station owner from west Auckland? Does that not demonstrate to us the depth of rural support that this Government now has? For sure, the Minister in the chair is learning very quickly about issues of immigration, but I am sure he has learnt very little about issues concerning the Meat Board Amendment Bill at this point in time.

My good colleague Colin King made some very good points. The meat industry is very important to the economy of this country. A total of 240,000 tonnes of beef goes to the US. I say to the Government, while I have this opportunity, that it would be absolutely marvellous if it could focus for more than 30 seconds on what is important in this country and do some work to build relations with the US, rather than doing what it has been doing recently, which is to destroy what has taken years to build up. Would it not be absolutely marvellous, in terms of health funding, education funding, road building, or even, God forbid, some spending on biosecurity, if we could secure a free-trade agreement with the United States of America? Would that not be wonderful? This bill is all about quota access, but we would not need quota access if we could get a free-trade agreement with the US. These amendments would be redundant if we could achieve a free-trade agreement and get access to that lucrative market, where we export so many of our products.

The Minister in the chair, who is from west Auckland and is struggling a bit with immigration issues at the moment, does not even know that. This Government does not even know that. Aha, the Minister in the chair has been replaced! We now have a much more learned, earthy Minister in the chair, Mahara Okeroa. It is good to see yet another farmer—from somewhere down in the deep south—occupying the chair. He is a good Naki boy at heart, so I know he has been on a farm at least once in his life—somewhere around Parihaka. It is good to see a replacement Minister in the chair who is closer than David Cunliffe is to the farming sector.

I also say to the Government that it would be absolutely marvellous if it could focus for more than 5 minutes—like the very good Primary Production Committee, which has done the work on this bill—on the issues that are important to the economy of New Zealand. The Government should focus on things like, for example, biosecurity. The same department advises the Minister on that as on the meat industry, but the Minister himself is not a farmer and would not have a clue about farming. He knows nothing about the effect that some of his silly nonsense has on this economy. I say to the Minister—wherever he may be; I am sure he will be listening in to this debate, because it is very important to New Zealand and to that Minister—that he does go out and he does say the right things. In fact, when we hear that Minister from the hard left give a speech to farmers, we would think he has had a road to Damascus experience, because he sounds as though he has moved over to the right of centre. But I can say to farming folk out there—and they are starting to know this already—that that Minister talks big and does nothing.

The Minister told the bee-keepers and the farming sector in the South Island, which depends on pollination from the bee industry, that the Government would look at eradication of the varroa bee mite. Then his associate the Minister for Rural Affairs, Damien O’Connor, said he thought we should attempt eradication and we should do it now. But no, the Minister got on a plane and went overseas on a leftist little junket around some of the socialist countries that the Minister currently visits. While he was away, Damien O’Connor’ big words and the Minister’s big words all went into hot air, and what did we hear last night? We heard this Government say there was no point in trying to eradicate the varroa bee mite in the South Island. That opportunity has gone; we are to give it away and forget about it.

I guess we can say to all of the recreationalists, fishers, hydroelectricity producers, and other people like that out there that that is what will happen with regard to didymo, as well. It will be in the North Island before we know it. It is no use going to the Minister. If people in those industries are listening out there and are concerned about that issue, they will have to front up and eradicate didymo themselves, because there is no point in going to this Government. It will do absolutely nothing to protect the borders with regard to biosecurity. There have been 229 new incursions in the last 5 years, and that Minister stands up and says we have “the best biosecurity in the world”. Well, I can say to the Minister that, with 229 new incursions in the last 5 years, God help us if we had had a poor biosecurity system. I say to the bee industry and farming folk out there at the moment that that is what they will get from this Government. To the meat farmers out there, who are actually earning the income for this country, I say does it not—

I start by making the point to the New Zealand First member who spoke earlier about it being no use our having a free-trade agreement with America, that for every cattle beast Australia sells to America it receives $21 more than we receive, because of a free-trade agreement. I would also remind the member not to bite the hand that feeds New Zealand.

I draw the attention of the Committee to section 24, “Requirements for allocation mechanisms” of the Meat Board Act. The amendment the bill proposes to that section, as intended and approved unanimously by the Primary Production Committee, was the most controversial of the amendments being made by the bill. The new subsection (5), to be added to section 24 of the Meat Board Act by clause 3 of the bill, states: “(5) 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 amendment, as the commentary on the bill states, is being made for the point of clarification.

Until recently it was a moot point over where the quota should be allocated. Potentially it could have been contested in the High Court as to whether the quota should be based on the meat exporter or on the basis of a mechanism whereby meat that was processed in a certified and an approved processing plant was eligible to be exported. The point was not necessarily the fact that the meat was exported. When we consider that point, there has to be some very subtle thinking around who earns quota.

When members sat down yesterday to that beautiful lamb fillet during our farewell to Dame Silvia Cartwright, we could appreciate the importance of ensuring that, in a country where we rely so heavily on tourism, we are able to present the highest quality of product. When we look at our food safety level, which is considered to be the platinum level throughout the world, it is nice to be able to entertain our overseas guests with such a delicacy as a lamb fillet.

If we turn to the amendment to section 32, “Decisions”, made by clause 4 of the bill, we see, again, that the word “eligible” will be included in that section. This will ensure that subsection (1) of that section will summarise things by stating that committed future investment in the distribution, marketing, packaging, or processing of meat products eligible for export has to be considered when deciding matters of allocation. So on that basis, we can see how the bill clarifies that particular clause, and takes the steam out of the debate over whether litigation will be taken out against the Meat Board.

The process the bill has gone through in the select committee has been very, very important to ensure that we can add certainty to the process so that we do not confront those issues. We can also have comfort around the responsibilities and the accountabilities of the Meat Board back towards the industry, because section 26, “Consultation”, states: “The Board must not establish any particular allocation mechanism without consulting those meat industry organisations the Board thinks appropriate …” for that purpose. So it has to consult and it has to do that on a regular basis, because section 29 of the Act, “Review of allocation mechanisms”, talks about this having to be done on a regular basis. Subsection (2) 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 everything has been lined up appropriately. I reflect back on the tumultuous times surrounding the restructuring of the producer boards, and the outcome. We saw the demise of the Wool Board and its separation of industry-good activities as opposed to commercial activities.

Clauses 1 to 5 agreed to.

Bill to be reported without amendment presently.

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported the Coroners Bill with amendment and the Meat Board Amendment Bill without amendment.

Report adopted.