Meat Board Amendment Bill

I move, That the Meat Board Amendment Bill be now read a third time. This bill was introduced into the House on 22 March. It had its first reading on 30 March and was referred to the Primary Production Committee on that day. The select committee reported the bill back to the House on 25 July. The bill has now had its second reading and has passed through the Committee stage.

The bill clarifies one of the provisions within the Meat Board Act of 2004 regarding the allocation of access to meat export quota markets. It clarifies that a mechanism established by the New Zealand 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 that person currently exports meat products. The bill therefore upholds the original objectives of the Meat Board Act 2004. It will remove any perceived ambiguity in the original drafting of the legislative framework. Making quota available to all registered meat exporters, whether or not they actually export meat products, ensures that the financial benefits associated with access to quota markets will continue to be available to the wider meat industry in New Zealand—and many members will understand the implications of that for our export markets and quota systems.

The definition of “meat industry” in the current Act includes livestock farmers, meat processors, and meat exporters. The presumption is that processors who are not necessarily exporters at present but who produce export-quality meat products should benefit from the quota markets themselves, and exporters who are not processors should also benefit. There was some controversy about this, I know. But I also know that the original intention of this House has been validated by this amendment. Specialist exporters who are able to develop niche markets but do not process meat themselves should also be able to benefit from quota. Tradability of quota rights helps to maximise the value of meat quotas. It promotes competition for the supply of livestock—and that assists the on-farm community—and helps ensure that all meat industry participants, including processors, exporters, and livestock farmers, can benefit from export quotas.

The meat industry makes a very significant contribution to the New Zealand economy. By international standards, our meat industry is highly productive and efficient. New Zealand’s meat processors employ the most advanced technologies available anywhere in the world, and our exporters have developed niche markets in the international community. Our livestock farmers are extraordinarily innovative, and through their levies they make significant investments in research, product, and market development. Put simply, the meat industry is a critical part of the New Zealand economy. It has been in the past, is currently, and will be for as far into the future as we can see.

It is vital, therefore, for New Zealand’s economic future that the meat industry continues to perform at a high level, and this bill, in my view—and I am sure in the view of most members—assists in that process. I thank the members of the Primary Production Committee for their consideration of the bill and for the report that they tabled on 25 July. In doing so, I wish the meat industry well and I commend the bill to the House.

I rise in support of the third reading of the Meat Board Amendment Bill in front of us this evening, but in doing so that does not mean I rise in support of the Government, at all. I actually rise to support the landowners of New Zealand, the meat producers, and the meat industry in general. I am not supporting the Government, because who would want to support those members right now? They are a corrupt, dishonest lot—$882,000 of taxpayers’ money used—[Interruption]

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the member please withdraw and apologise—that offends the House.

I withdraw and apologise. I am trying to say that I am not supporting the Government through my support of this bill; I am supporting the primary production industry, which Government members do not seem to care too much about. Those members have all the buzzwords spinning around, but they are doing very little to help people at the grassroots—the engine room of the economy.

This bill will tidy up a bit of ambiguity surrounding the quota system. The system has been operating since 1997, and in 2004 it was enshrined into an Act. The legislation will actually stop a legal challenge from occurring, and the Primary Production Committee supports it.

I think it is important to give a few numbers around this sector. Exports worth $4.5 billion come from this industry, and in about another 5 years’ time that sum is forecast to be out to $21 billion. Passing this bill through its third reading this evening will allow meat industry operators who hold an export licence to gain benefits right through to the farm-gate level. It is important that competition is alive and well in this industry, and this amendment bill will ensure that the money will flow right through to the grassroots—right through to those people at the farm gate, the engine room of our economy.

I think that to ensure that the money flows through from the farm gate into the provincial towns and the economy, we need to ensure that we continue to capture the green and natural image we hold in this country. I need to endorse the farmers out there who are doing their utmost to follow the Dairying and Clean Streams Accord; many of them are now also getting up to speed with nutrient budgeting. When we look at that whole quota market, we see that this legislation is about ensuring that we protect the natural state we have here. It is extremely important, as we look into the quota aspect, that the actual—

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: What?

I tell Mr Cosgrove, if he would stop interjecting from the back row and just listen, that I am trying to say that the true value of the quota is around making benefits from what we have in this country, an island nation. Those benefits are around our green, natural state. That state is what we have; it is what a whole lot of other countries do not have.

I was fortunate enough in 2000 to go on a Winston Churchill Memorial Trust Fellowship.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Was that with the council?

No, it was not. Mr Cosgrove keeps going on about double-dipping, and I have mentioned to him before in the House that I am still on the council, and that I am not double-dipping. I tell Mr Cosgrove that I am not collecting my salary—let us put that on the record and carry on with what is in front of us now.

I was saying, in relation to my Winston Churchill Memorial Trust Fellowship, that when I went over to North America I followed produce—beef exports—from this country right through from gate to plate. I saw the produce slaughtered, I followed it through on to the ship, and I was at the Delaware port when it arrived. Our produce went through the whole quota process, and when it arrived in North America it was great to see that it met the stringent standards of the United States Department of Agriculture. Our processors in this country are doing a fantastic job in meeting the department’s standards, which are stringent around food safety. Having gone through some of the plants in North America, I can say that it is amazing to see how stringent we are in comparison with some of those companies. The money from this quota flows through to those people at the farm-gate level, and it is really, really important, fundamentally, that we meet the United States Department of Agriculture’s stringent food quality standards.

It is also important, as we look at this legislation going forward and capturing the true benefits through to the farm-gate level, to ensure that we have enough money going into biosecurity in this country. If we had a tuberculosis outbreak, an outbreak of bovine spongiform encephalopathy—mad cow disease—or an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease here, this bill would not matter. It would not matter at all, because such outbreaks would be detrimental to the engine room of our economy, represented by primary production people, whom I do not think get enough recognition in this House. So we, and the Government, in particular, need to ensure that we have enough money going into biosecurity. We saw a bit of a scare last year at Waiheke, did we not? That showed just how vulnerable we are in this country. We must at all times realise that if we had such an outbreak here, agriculture would be, as a former Labour Prime Minister mentioned, a sunset industry.

But that is not what is happening now. When we look at those figures that I talked about before, we see that, just from the meat producers, $4.5 billion of exports is going out every year—and that is forecast to be out to $21 billion in another 5 years’ time. Meat production is a significant export earner that has money flowing right through to those people at the farm-gate level and into our rural and provincial towns.

Just to summarise, I tell the House that we had about five oral submissions on this bill through the Primary Production Committee. We had some other submitters who unfortunately could not come and make their submissions in person, so we read those submissions. We looked at both sides of the argument—and the argument clearly had two sides. We took our time in digesting all of those different thoughts, and we came up with the fact that we just needed to tidy up this legislation. That is why the amended bill will go through this evening. National is supporting the bill because it will tidy up any ambiguity and it will ensure that competition carries on in what is an extremely important industry to New Zealand. That is not acknowledged on that side of the House, but it is here tonight by the National Party.

I am proud to take a quick call on the Meat Board Amendment Bill, following the previous member, Nathan Guy, who mentioned “clean and green”. Well, a member has to be a bit green to start to accuse the Government of being corrupt, and Nathan Guy must come clean himself about the role he is still undertaking with his district council and whether he is drawing a salary.

I just want to get on record that Federated Farmers currently have scored our Minister of Agriculture, Jim Anderton, 10 out of 10 for his relationship with the rural sector. I must ask the member opposite how long ago it was that a National Government Minister of Agriculture had such a good attitude and relationship with the rural sector. I want that to be on the record.

This bill simply removes the ambiguity that could get in the way of our current trading relationships with our trading partners. I congratulate the Primary Production Committee on getting through its considerations quickly. It is an important symbol to the rural sector that we will move quickly when we have to get impediments to trade out of the way. If that is what the Meat Board wants, that is what the bill will deliver. It is a good thing for rural New Zealand. Thank you.

I am delighted to take a call on the third reading of the Meat Board Amendment Bill. This certainly is an issue that needs to be settled. The ambiguity that was mentioned is not at all helpful to one of our prestige industries. The meat industry is such an industry.

I remind members that about 20 years ago we had 70 million - odd sheep and we were killing lambs when we got short of feed or short of money. There has been a total reversal in the attitude of the producers today, as well as the processors and the marketers. Today we have somewhere under 40 million sheep and we are producing the same tonnage of sheepmeat.

Today the product in the market place has certainly elevated in status from somewhere on the bottom shelf to the second-top shelf, if not the top shelf, in terms of value and prestige. New Zealand is indeed fortunate that it has access to the highest-paid markets in the world, and they are the quota markets of the European Union. We are also fortunate that we have a significant proportion of the quota trade. If we look at sheepmeat traded internationally, we see that New Zealand has about 55 percent of the sheepmeat traded across borders—that is referring to the European Union as one particular border. So we are a very big player, and we have a quota market into the European Union.

It is significant to note that the quota rent comes back to New Zealand because the quota is owned by New Zealand, it is protected by statute, and it is managed by the industry. That is a very intricate and interesting relationship. We have the three players operating together to deliver the value, which we do have, out of our quota markets.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.