Prosser Richard: New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeProsser Richard: New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 29 March 2016. Volume:712;Page:9974. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First): I am very pleased to rise to take a short call in this first reading of the New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Amendment Bill. New Zealand First supports this bill at least to the select committee and very probably beyond it.At first glance the bill appears to be well-intentioned and not overly imbued with controversy in spite of the comments from my Green colleague Eugenie Sage who I think has given what is possibly the grumpiest speech in support of a bill that I have heard in quite a while. National members can rest assured that they are doing it right but they are doing everything else wrong. But doubtless we will go through this in more detail as the bill progresses. I do like the Green member’s suggestion of country-of-origin labelling. That is something we generally support but whether it is within the ambit of this bill or able to be within it remains to be seen.The general policy statement proclaims that “The purpose of the … Act is to promote the effective export marketing of horticultural commodities. Groups representing growers and exporters of a specific horticultural commodity eg avocados choose whether to export within the framework established by the Act. If a group opts to export under the Act the group develops an export marketing strategy that contains grade or quality requirements for its products.” which is eminent common sense. I am surprised in actual fact that it is not something that exists to a greater degree across the board.“The New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority (the Authority) then licenses exporters of the specified commodity and monitors exporters’ compliance with the relevant requirements.”—all of which is well and good. The authority’s website for the uninitiated and for those of us who were not around making laws 30-odd years ago or 29 years ago—in fact Mr Barclay was not around 29 years ago so he certainly was not making laws—outlines some of the machinations of the authority. It says that “The primary purpose of the HEA is to promote the effective export marketing of horticultural products. We do this by providing an export structure and support network …”—blah blah blah. “This structure requires these groups to develop an Export Marketing Strategy (i.e. their rules for exporting).”Iain Lees-Galloway: Clause 2(c)—blah blah blah.RICHARD PROSSER: Blah blah blah yes. Well a lot of these bills do contain a lot of blah blah blah particularly ones created by previous Labour Governments.It also says that “The HEA also liaises with sector stakeholder groups on matters relating to market access trade barriers and their removal and plays a role in lobbying government on such matters on behalf of the industry.” which is a good thing. It is a very good thing because it makes it a kind of voluntary single desk. Mr Smith mentioned the single desk as if it was almost a separate issue from this; in actual fact it is not. This is a voluntary single desk. It is a virtual and voluntary single desk and we know that this type of marketing works very well for New Zealand.We know from examples such as Fonterra and Zespri and ENZA—current events notwithstanding—that there is a great power that collective marketing brings to a nation of New Zealand’s size and make-up the construction of our economy and where most of it is focused in terms of production export. Dr Clark mentioned the possible benefits that could be given to the red meat industry if it was to follow a similar strategy. So it is gratifying to see that Labour is picking up on yet another one of New Zealand First’s policy initiatives and I am sure that Labour members will be supporting our bill when it does get drawn from the ballot unless of course the Government wants to sneak in and steal a bit of thunder and select the bill and bump it up the Order Paper all by itself. We would be most happy if it was to choose to do that.So the single desk works very well for importers and regulators in overseas jurisdictions as well because they have a single point of contact to deal with and because they know that they are then dealing with a Government-accredited agency that can be trusted to set and maintain standards. They know what they are buying and they know that it will be true to label.It works for producers and exporters for the same reason. The single desk helps to maximise returns to the growers and the producers and the exporters and that benefits the entire “New Zealand Inc.” story because it means that New Zealand companies are not competing against one another in world markets.There is a premium that is attached to “Brand New Zealand” which has been estimated at anywhere up to about 15 percent. It helps nobody at all to have that premium left on the shelf because New Zealand producers and exports are competing against each other for shelf space for the same market in the same market for goods that in all honesty would sell anyway and sell for the premium if we were not discounting against each other.So it is good for our companies to have that kind of an advantage. I say “our companies” in a nationalistic sense not in a nationalising sense or a socialist sense. Nobody wants the private businesses that are our farmers our producers and our growers to be brought under any kind of State umbrella but what we do want is the most unfair advantage that New Zealand business can be given—we do. New Zealand First wants New Zealand businesses to have an unfair advantage out there in the world. We want them to succeed to do well and the single desk is a very powerful tool in terms of achieving that.The voluntary single desk is a step in the right direction. The authority’s website describes it as a kind of halfway house between a completely regulated market and a completely free market. That is probably a good thing if nothing else in the sense that it is an acknowledgment from the Government that this free-market ideology thing actually does not work and that the playing field is never actually level unless it is artificially made so by intervention. But like all good things once a system has been in place for a while—and coming up 30 years is probably long enough—one or two areas do show up where there is room for improvement where the bugs need to be ironed out and this bill intends to make some of those improvements.As Mr O’Connor mentioned and others have touched on as well the system for fees collection and the system for fines are two of those things that will enable the authority to operate in a much more streamlined fashion and do its job a lot better and a lot more efficiently. These are good things that need to be sorted. In fact the Minister for Primary Industries in a press release stated that the bill was introduced to update and futureproof the Act—and that can only be a good thing. If it can achieve that then New Zealand First will be more than happy to support it going through the entire process and becoming law.At first examination as I say there does not appear to be anything that is too much of a contentious nature. I will look forward to examining it in the Primary Production Committee under as I have mentioned before the very able and affable chairmanship of Mr McKelvie. That being the case I do not intend to take up too much more of the House’s time at this stage except to reiterate that New Zealand First will support this bill through to first reading and probably beyond. Thank you.