Ardern Shane: New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Ardern Shane: New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9613] 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) 
: 
 I rise with a great deal of enthusiasm to speak on the Committee stage of this legislation. In particular I want to speak on clause 5 which relates to the quantitative restrictions on exports. The reason for that— 
R Doug Woolerton 
: A few good frosts would fix that. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: That is right a bit of bad weather would fix it. I see my colleague Mr Ian Ewen-Street over there and I would like him to go out and check on the poor old pohutukawa tree as I think it may have been cuddled to death by a helluva lot of people. It may recover through the extra carbon dioxide that it has had to inhale over the last few hours but its roots and bark have had a helluva pounding with the amount of cuddling it has had out there in the last while. Coming back to the export of kiwifruit— 
John Carter 
: Do you get the same with cabbage trees? 
SHANE ARDERN 
: I am not sure. No I do not think so. We could probably get a kiwifruit vine to grow over a pohutukawa tree and then we would be able to have both pohutukawa flowers and morris dancing with kiwifruit hanging from above. 
I would like to talk about clause 5 with regard to the quantitative restrictions on exports. The problem when there is any type of regulation around an export industry—and the ACT party will champion this—is that we get into a position where we could potentially be criticised by other exporters or other nations that are involved in exporting as putting in place some kind of non-trade barrier. We have to pay attention to just how that operates. 
I think that is the reason why the select committee gave a considerable amount of consideration to this clause and came up with the removal—or clarification I guess is the way to put it—of quantitative restrictions on exports. Even though there were those who would have liked to see some brackets put around it—and I believe that they put forward very good reasons for wanting to see that—the problem is that we then have a battle when we go overseas to try to develop new markets in places where there are tariffs and quotas. Those who do not want our products to be exported into their market will say: “Hang on a minute you guys are doing this back at home and now you are complaining about the restrictions that we place on the products that we have.” So there is a high degree of sympathy in the National Party for making sure that legislative mechanisms that others could use against us are not put in place in that way. I am pleased to see that the select committee gave some time to that. 
Some Maori exporting groups oppose the idea on the basis that they would be restricted in terms of the markets they were developing. There may be some truth in that and it is one of the things that the committee no doubt had to weigh up. The fact is if we allow small quantities of fruit to go to where our markets know and trust the brand and it does not meet the quality that has been established in that market then equally we can damage that market or damage future potential markets with regard to where we export. 
It is always a mixed bag in terms of trying to balance regulation restrictions criteria around the size and quality of fruit with those people who may have developed a niche market somewhere—which may or may not grow—and feel that they are being restricted because of the regulations we have put in place. I understand that the select committee gave a lot of consideration to that. I understand that the overwhelming majority of the industry—something like 90-odd percent of those with products being exported—came down on the side of the regulation that the committee finally finished up with. 
I think that on balance Parliament today will not exclude anybody to any great extent and will allay the fears that some people put forward in respect of what may happen with a non-trade barrier against New Zealand if we went too far with the regulation. On that basis I consider the bill a very good idea.