Eckhoff Gerrard: New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Eckhoff Gerrard: New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9605] 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
: 
 I find myself in a rather interesting situation. As the rural spokesperson for ACT I am quite clearly very keen to ensure support from rural New Zealanders whether they be kiwifruit growers or woolgrowers or whatever they may be. But the issue is not about popularity. The party I represent has always stood in this House and espoused principle. We also espouse philosophy. That is something that we will not break away from. The principle behind this bill is this question which I ask the House: do people in the year 2003 in New Zealand have the right to sell the products of their labours? It is quite a simple question and I think most would say yes of course they do and of course they should. Then we get into the intermingling of the theory and the practice and we start to say no they should not have that right because it could upset the market. 
Well I think it is important to stick to a fundamental philosophy and to a principle. The principle I espouse this afternoon is that everybody should have the right to sell the products of his or her labours. Indeed I well recall submissions from members of the Maori community who demanded—they did not ask; they demanded—the right to sell the produce of their labour. They had a very worthwhile marketing plan based on indigenous peoples as I understand it throughout the world and it seemed to me to be a highly intelligent and very sensible way of achieving a niche market. Yet the Primary Production Committee looked at that and said no. I support anybody whether Maori or non-Maori who wants to sell a product overseas. 
Kiwifruit is sold across the water to South Islanders. Where is the export authority on that one? Indeed I asked that question of the members of Zespri and so on and they appeared to be slightly embarrassed about it because the South Island is getting inferior-quality fruit. It still tastes the same as higher-quality fruit and it still has a great colour and everything else but it is misshapen. Frankly when I go to a supermarket in Roxburgh or anywhere else I do not mind about that. I look at the price and say to myself that I can buy some first-rate Tauranga kiwifruit—or wherever they may be from—for 50c and that the nice big $1 ones have been exported to the American market. But I have some sympathy with the ordinary person in Australia or wherever else who says he or she cannot afford to pay $1.50 or $1 for a kiwifruit and would actually like to buy a misshapen one for a lesser price. It makes the point that Mr Woolerton made—that is that there is a market for everything. Can members remember a situation in New Zealand whereby we said we would be allowed to export only high-grade quality wool? We export dag wool for goodness’ sake! Why? It is of inferior quality—but we have a market for it. Surely the principle behind this issue is that if people have something that other people want they can sell it. 
I was quite disturbed to hear that the House passed almost without a murmur the Wine Bill. We have a wine export authority now so we are getting a creeping socialism—I can only describe it as a creeping socialism—coming into the export of our product. First it was wine and now it is kiwifruit. What is next? Are we going to have it again with apples? Are we going to go down the path of that outrageous example of a few years ago where apples were controlled? If we look at what happened to that industry we see that that was an absolute disaster. So I ask the House to recognise that constraints of trade long term will have a bad impact on the viability of this country. Whether it is in the case of two small industries or smallish industries like kiwifruit and wine does not really matter; I come back to the fundamental principle that it is a constraint of trade. I think that the Maori members of our community who are involved in the kiwifruit industry will be most upset with some members of this House espousing the fact that Maori cannot and should not export the sort of fruit they want to after Maori have gone out there and found markets for it. I think it is very important to emphasise that particular point. 
I will go back in history a little bit just as a slight lesson for my colleagues Mr Woolerton and so on. There was a constraint of trade in Ireland. Way back in the 1700s the Irish—Mr O’Connor is looking very interested in this given his ethnicity—were not allowed to export glass and wool I think it was by decree. An export authority said they could not export those products. Then along came the potato famine and a few other things and Ireland was in all sorts of economic trouble because an authority had said certain products could not be exported. Again that principle is just so wrong. We must have a situation whereby the people of the country get out there scour the world find the markets and sell their products. We actually import a huge amount of inferior product from throughout the world and sell it in retail stores. The people of New Zealand have the nous to say they do not want an inferior product and want a superior product both of which may come from the same country. We have the ability to choose for ourselves. 
What is it that makes other parties in this House seem to think that people throughout the world do not have the capacity for choice? Of course they do. They choose on the basis of quality price and a host of things that appeal to them and that is surely their right. There is the possibility for example that somebody in Australia may come up with a wonderful way of handling second-grade fruit and turning it into a product that nobody in this country has even thought of. Yet we are saying no that person cannot do that. Again I say the right to sell the product of our labour is a fundamental principle that this country should be based on. If we are to have a deed of such principles applying throughout this country one of them must be that we have the right to sell our product whatever that product may be—whether it be wine wool or in this case kiwifruit—to a market wherever that market may be. 
I make this point also. How many million tourists do we get coming into New Zealand? They have the opportunity to buy so-called inferior-grade kiwifruit. Why? Why do we not take that inferior-grade fruit off the market in New Zealand as well? That is why this bill is so stupid. It is like telling tourists who come to New Zealand they can drink only quality New Zealand wine because they could have a bad experience if they drink a bit of stuff from Damien O’Connor’s corner of the world the West Coast—not exactly a renowned wine-growing area. The point is that this global village of ours is made up of interactions. People have the ability to make decisions and choices for themselves. They come to New Zealand have a great taste experience with a bit of Zespri Gold or the traditional kiwifruit and they are not overly concerned about the shape of the fruit. If they can get it cheaply they think that is great. When they go back home cannot get the cheap stuff there and have to pay three times the price for kiwifruit they think that when they come to New Zealand they can get cheap kiwifruit. Why do we sell cheap kiwifruit here? If we are to constrain the quality overseas why not also constrain it in New Zealand because the same people will be eating it. The same people from Australia England and America will come to New Zealand and have that so-called bad experience of eating inferior-shaped fruit. That is what we are talking about. We are not talking about quality in terms of its flavour because nobody will buy the stuff that is mush. It is only the shape and size of a kiwifruit that really seems to be the problem for the Horticulture Export Authority. 
I make the final point that there is only one authority. What will happen if its decision-making process is wrong? The whole of the industry will go down just as it did with ENZA’s apple exporting. That authority got things wrong and the whole of the apple industry suffered. That is absolutely the wrong approach to take. We should spread the risk and allow the industry to develop. We will get responsible attitudes right throughout the industry if it is allowed to progress.