Woods Megan; McKelvie IanDr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): I would like to say to the member Ian McKelvie who just took his seat: cheer up. It is not that bad. Twenty-six for none in the fourth over—not that bad. Maybe it is the kind of week that that side of the House is having. I call that a good start.We are here at the third reading of the New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Amendment Bill. There are a number of points the previous speaker made that I would like to respond to. First of all I would like to commend the Primary Production Committee. Clearly this is a piece of legislation that is aimed at updating a piece of legislation that was past its use-by date. It needed updating. It is a piece of legislation that was passed in 1987. That was 3 years before Bill English entered Parliament so it really did need updating in terms of that.A number of these changes that the committee made were warranted and sensible changes. They were around the need for the industries covered off under this agreement to have the flexibility to be able to respond. I think the first change that the select committee made about when an office holder is unavailable—in the amendment that was made to clause 10 inserting new section 13A identifying who the alternative chairperson is when the chairperson is unavailable—could be seen by some as quite prescient in terms of what the members on the opposite side of the House are doing. But do not worry—you can always look at the caucus rulebook to find out what those rules are as well.The other changes that needed to be made around this legislation were the tiers of licences and of course the rules that needed to go around the sharing of information. This is a piece of legislation that is about seeing product groups cooperate for industry good working together to market particular product groups. That requires the sharing of information. Whenever we do require that kind of sharing of information there have to be robust rules around how that is done. Likewise when you give statutory power to a body to levy that is also something that we need to make sure is circumscribed and that the right rules are around it because fundamentally the groups who are asked to voluntarily sign up and be part of this authority have to have faith. Because it is a voluntary scheme they have to have confidence that that is the case.The previous speaker the chair of the select committee—who has done an able job on this legislation—made a good point in his speech. He talked about the need for us to be able to identify and allocate more land for horticulture in our future—that it is a high-value export for us that is very much part of New Zealand's economic future. I could not agree more. I hope that member will see that a land-use strategy is what is required and that introducing agriculture into the emissions trading scheme is an absolutely critical part of deciding how it is that we use our land for future use. I was heartened to hear those comments from the speaker opposite saying that he is up to face the challenge of how it is that we identify more land—and it is through progressive measures like looking at how it is that we use our land in a holistic way.The kinds of products that are coming into this industry speak to the diversity of our horticultural industry in New Zealand. The horticultural industry is an industry that I worked with before I entered Parliament. I think it is an exciting industry and one that is very much part of New Zealand's future. When we see the diversity of the groups coming in there—as previous speakers have mentioned from chestnuts to squash and various products in between—it is very exciting.I think one of the key things this legislation does which was really required and shows how the world has moved since 1987 is allowing fit for purpose marketing in different markets. What we know is that where we have seen New Zealand horticultural products succeed they have had very targeted marketing strategies into particular markets that have been based on the benefits of the particular cultivar that is being used. Often a screening process is used to identify the type of cultivar that will be fit for that market and then marketed through there but also a lot of very sophisticated consumer research occurs within many of our horticultural industries in New Zealand. They know that if they want to market into a particular market health and wellness may well be the way in one market but it may be about security of supply in another market and it may be about pure New Zealand" in another. I celebrate any legislation that allows this kind of flexibility for groups to be really strategic and to target their effort where it is going to benefit the particular industry group that it is benefiting.We all know and I think can all agree that the export value of our fruit and vegetables is going to be very much part of New Zealand's future. We know that this is a more sustainable use of our land than many other land uses that are out there. We can just look at the dollars. We had $50 million of exports in 1988 a year after the principal Act was passed rising to $300 million last year. This is growth that we need to make sure we are putting the legislation in place to support and we need to make sure that our industry sectors can succeed. Labour is happy to support this legislation.IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Thirty-six for nothing."