Tirikatene RinoRINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): I am very pleased to speak at the second reading of this bill the New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Amendment Bill. I would like to acknowledge at the outset the Hon Colin Moyle—Ian McKelvie: Who? Even I can't remember him.RINO TIRIKATENE: —ha ha!—the distinguished member of this House and Minister of Agriculture in the fourth Labour Government who established this authority. It was one of a number of quite groundbreaking reforms that were initiated under his tenure as the Minister. The New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority is a hybrid. It is not quite a single-desk monopoly and it is does not mean that participants in the market are free to do whatever they want and export whatever they want. This was Mr Moyle's design—that there be a hybrid export authority and this was the model that was used.So what does it do? It requires horticultural product groups to apply under the Act—if they want to as it is a voluntary system—to be a registered product group under the Act. What does that mean? It requires them to do things—two tools. One is that all product that is exported has to come from a licensed export pack-house and there are requirements around that. It also requires that those product groups comply with an agreed export marketing plan. It is about collaboration. It is about these horticultural industries working together to compete in the export market place—an international market. It is a great model and it is 29 years old—it is coming up to its 30th anniversary next year—but it has been pointed out as it is periodically being reviewed that it is in need of modernisation. This was first mooted back in its independent review back in 2009—and here we are in 2016 finally implementing the legislation that will give effect to those changes.I do acknowledge the Minister and the other members of the select committee. We did receive 10 submissions primarily obviously from the stakeholder that is directly impacted by this which is the authority itself and also from the different product groups or the participants in those product groups. Just to give people a bit of flavour as to what product groups actually come within the framework of the Horticulture Export Authority they are the likes of as we have heard avocado—what else is there? There is kiwifruit but only kiwifruit to Aussie—not generally. There is buttercup squash through to very up-and-coming industries like truffles and tamarillos. Those have not adopted the full requirements to be export-licensed because they are only just starting out. There is a wide range—we have got summer fruits in there as well—of horticultural product groups that are part of this Horticulture Export Authority regime. They are working together and they have got their requirements in place. This bill is about them updating and providing a bit more flexibility in terms of what they might have to do to better compete and to better market their wonderful produce in the international market.What are the amendments that we have considered? Primarily there were three main substantive amendments. There have been a lot of technical amendments made but the substantive issues that submitters were mainly focused on were around three things: an infringement regime that could be inserted into the bill; the requirement around the entry and the exit of a particular product group or an industry into or out of the export authority framework; and the last one was an issue around fee exemptions. Those three areas mainly revolve around the powers of the export authority and what it can or cannot do.In relation to the first aspect regarding an infringement regime the export authority wanted to be able to impose fines—for non-compliance particularly—these are like low-level fines on exporters who do not have an export licence or who are not playing by the rules. It was to send them a message. So the export authority asked whether there could be an infringement regime that they could basically carry out themselves. However on consideration it was felt that there are already quite heavy sanctions within the Act itself—and they are criminal offences—which is obviously quite a different level of offence. It was felt that to have two levels of offences with infringements being solely the responsibility of the export authority would be beyond the scope of what was required. So that was declined and it has not been put into the second reading version of this bill.The other more substantial issue which was quite interesting was the entry and exit requirements. As currently drafted in the bill it is like four out of four boxes had to be ticked for a particular product group to be included into the framework. Those four boxes were growers and exporters and—[Interruption] Gosh. Sorry. So you have got the growers and exporters and by number and value. It is quite confusing—but if you can bear with me it is about getting the support of 60 percent or more of the growers of that particular product group and the entities that are involved.The whole purpose of getting that broad support was to ensure that no one section of an industry could influence the direction in which that industry wanted to go. It was felt by the industry participants themselves that having to tick all four boxes was maybe a bit too onerous and a bit too restrictive on them—having to make future decisions as to whether they might want to exit from the regime or indeed enter the regime or make changes. However following close consideration of that particular issue it was felt that having the four requirements in place was justified for the very reason that the export authority was established which was to make sure that there was from the whole industry—small players and big players growers and exporters—broad agreement and support. That is why there is a 60-plus percent threshold from all of those different groups on the actual direction that that industry wanted to head in under the export authority's framework. So that has been left in place.They were two of the most significant issues that we had to consider and I am sure that the members of particularly the product groups and the industries and the companies concerned are just looking forward to the passage of this legislation. It has been a long time in gestation and I am pleased that we have been able to continue it on. I look forward to being able to complete this process hopefully in the not too distant future and I commend this bill to the House.