New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9602] 
New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Amendment Bill (No 2) 
Second Reading 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Associate Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 I move  
That the New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a second time 
. The bill was introduced into the House in March 2003 and had its first reading on 2 April after which it was referred to the Primary Production Committee for consideration. I thank the committee for its work on the bill and for reporting it back so quickly. The bill has three main objectives. The first objective is to provide the kiwifruit industry with the option of bringing the export of kiwifruit for consumption in Australia under the framework of the New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Act. The second objective is to prevent quantitative restrictions from being imposed by export marketing strategies approved under the Act. The third objective is to make three administrative improvements to the Act itself. 
The select committee received 362 written submissions on the bill showing a clear level of interest and the importance of it. I am pleased to inform the House that the vast majority of those submissions supported the bill allowing kiwifruit exports for consumption in Australia to be prescribed under the Act in time to apply that framework from next April which is the start of the 2004 export season. Of the 352 submissions that supported this 341 were submitted by individual kiwifruit growers and focused only on this objective. The other 11 submissions supporting this proposal were from kiwifruit exporters and kiwifruit industry organisations. 
I am also pleased with the strong support demonstrated to the committee by the kiwifruit industry. No doubt this support means that I can soon expect an application from the kiwifruit industry for an Order in Council to bring kiwifruit exports for consumption under the Act. It also indicates the kiwifruit industry’s desire for this bill to be passed sooner rather than later. 
The second objective of the bill is to prevent quantitative export restrictions being imposed under the Act. This objective arises from the need to ensure the Act is consistent with New Zealand’s international obligations. This was the most controversial objective of the bill. Sixteen submissions to the committee commented on this objective of the bill. Of these the committee received seven submissions opposing removal of the provisions allowing quantitative restrictions while a further eight submissions proposed consequential amendments and one submission expressed support for removing these provisions. 
The consequential amendments proposed to the committee were insertion of the words “market development” and “flow planning” into the section of the Act that states what an export marketing strategy can be about. In respect of the proposed consequential amendments I support the committee’s recommendation that the words “market development” be inserted into the bill. Section 6 of the Act states that the primary function of the Horticulture Export Authority is to promote the effective export marketing of horticultural products as prescribed under the Act. The concept of market development is central to the Act and an export marketing strategy under the Act should clearly be able to include such proposals. 
I also support the committee’s recommendation to amend the bill to clearly state that quantitative restrictions are not permitted under the Act and to not insert the words “flow planning”. These recommendations remove any uncertainty about whether quantitative restrictions may be imposed under the Act. 
The third objective of the bill accounts for the majority of clauses in the bill. These clauses provide three administrative improvements to the bill. The first improvement is to the Horticulture Export Authority’s statutory decision-making processes. Currently the Act provides for reconsideration of decisions only in relation to applications for export licences. The bill extends this reconsideration right to cover Horticulture Export Authority decisions on export licence conditions and applications for exemptions under the Act. The second administrative improvement relates to the powers of the arbitrator who under the Act considers appeals of the Horticulture Export Authority’s statutory decisions. This amendment provides the arbitrator with discretion to award all costs of an appeal. This overcomes the narrow interpretation that has set a precedent on what costs can currently be awarded under the Act. 
The last administrative amendment is to allow the Horticulture Export Authority to cancel redundant export licences. This will allow the authority to ensure that its public register of exporters remains up to date and it will save the authority’s time and money by ceasing its involvement with those businesses that no longer export particular products under the Act. 
The committee received support for the bill making these three administrative improvements from key submitters being the Horticulture Export Authority itself the Horticulture Exporters Council and the joint submission from the Fruitgrowers Federation and the Vegetable and Potato Growers Federation. 
I would like to thank the select committee for its consideration of the bill and for reporting the bill back. I would like to say that the committee operates very effectively in a non-partisan way when we have important issues around the export of primary production from this country. I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 The National Party will support the passing of this bill with pleasure. I start by thanking the Minister for his speech and also commenting on the interesting situation that the Primary Production Committee found itself in when initially the bill was presented to the select committee under the name of the Hon Damien O’Connor and immediately to my right on the select committee to hear the evidence and consider how we should handle the bill was the very same Hon Damien O’Connor. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: A constitutional outrage! 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I would not have gone so far as to say that. 
Hon Damien O'Connor 
: Good advice right to the end. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: The Minister did give good advice but I think the select committee process is there to give the public a chance to have confidence in the fact that the executive and its work is being examined by the select committee process. It is a very odd situation that the Government managed to get itself into whereby we had the Minister sponsoring the bill sitting on the select committee as we embarked on the process to examine the bill. The good news is that common sense prevailed. I think also the workload of the Minister probably prevailed and we welcomed to the select committee Harry Duynhoven who towards the end of our consideration made a very good contribution. 
 I would like to comment on the three administrative changes which were supported—I think I am correct in saying—by all submissioners who made mention of their inclusion in the bill. I think I am correct in saying that. It seems wise to me that we have a system whereby the register of growers can be kept absolutely up to date and the change whereby export licences are recognised and removed seems common sense to me. 
The issue of the ability for the arbitrator to award costs equally is something that I think is correct. It puts some pressure on any particular party wanting to seek arbitration on less than genuine and sound reasons. 
Secondly I mention the timing of the legislation. The industry appeared before us asking that the legislation be passed as quickly as possible. It presented information to the select committee that problems existed with the way Australia had been considered at the time a domestic market. More important there was some evidence before the select committee of exports occurring from New Zealand to Australia and then the re-exporting of New Zealand kiwifruit from Australia to other markets certainly to the detriment of the international marketing efforts of Zespri. So there was an issue of timing. I note that the select committee managed to report this back on 19 August and there it has languished on the Order Paper for in excess of 2 months and now we are in a position of moving it through with urgency. I imagine that the industry on the whole will be very pleased that the Government has finally seen the necessity to move this legislation through. 
In talking about the Australian situation whereby this legislation will now amend the current Act and allow kiwifruit exports to Australia to be brought under the New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority framework I support that. I support it on the basis of the strong evidence given to us that the current mechanisms whereby Australia is treated as a domestic market had resulted in an uncoordinated approach to the market to the detriment of growers in New Zealand. I take this opportunity of congratulating Zespri on the excellent job it has done in securing other international markets to the benefit of kiwifruit growers in New Zealand. 
Ian Ewen-Street 
: And staying duty-free. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Mr Ewen-Street never misses an opportunity. I will not say any more. I congratulate Zespri. I think the remarkable turn-round in the fortunes of New Zealand kiwifruit growers is in no mean way due to their superb marketing efforts and that is to be for the benefit of the guys themselves quite obviously but to the benefit of the New Zealand economy on the whole. 
The final point I make refers to the third leg of the legislation and the changes it then makes to our export requirements so that New Zealand cannot use quantitative restrictions as a means of trying to manipulate the market. It is a technical area I accept but with New Zealand being a country so dependent on exports it is vital that we portray to the world an ability to export on a fair basis without any so-called possible trade barriers and restrictive quantities. 
The select committee processed the bill as Damien O’Connor referred to in a very non-partisan way. I think we have made substantial changes which I will talk to through the Committee stage that have improved the legislation. I applaud the Government for finally moving it along on the Order Paper and the National Party supports such legislation and its changes with pleasure. 
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
: 
 First I would like to thank the chairperson of the Primary Production Committee and the officials from whom we got excellent advice as usual. I too would like to congratulate the kiwifruit industry on a remarkable turn-round in its fortunes over the last year or so. The people in the industry were innovative and took many risks in the early days but they have organised their industry and have gone out there to capture markets on the other side of the world. New Zealand First has always supported organised markets or organised marketing even in the times when it was not at all fashionable to do so. It is interesting to recall that in the haste to reorganise all the marketing boards a few years ago by another administration this one was going to be the prime contender for reorganisation. It adjusted its constitution called itself Zespri and did a whole lot of other things. But essentially it has remained a single seller and that has been its strength. New Zealand First and I congratulate the industry on its foresight. 
This bill does something else that we think is very advantageous: it stops the re-exporting of fruit that has been sent to Australia on to other markets—or at least it makes sure that the fruit sent to Australia is of a standard that is set by the Horticulture Export Authority and prior to that by Zespri itself. Our markets are damaged by inferior-quality fruit. Marketing is hugely expensive. These people have done a huge marketing job in Germany. They have purchased I do not know how many Volkswagen cars painted them all up and promoted the products—not to mention all the lovely ladies they employ in order to get people to sample the products. A huge cost was expended on marketing. It is simply not fair it is not sense and it is not good business to see those markets eroded by inferior-quality fruit. That is what has been happening to a degree. Smaller fruit fruit of insufficient quality has been going into Australia and then entrepreneurial exporters have been sending it on from there to compete with Zespri fruit in the markets where the quality has been built up by the expenditure of a lot of money over the years. This bill stops that. 
There were several submitters who would have liked to organise the market to too great a degree—in the select committee’s view and I think in the Minister’s view. They wanted to organise or regulate the quantity of fruit that was going into the market which would have had the effect of ratcheting up the price. Naturally the select committee rejected that request. This bill in fact takes away the quantitative restrictions that were in the overarching bill. We think that is fair and proper. We have no problem with regard to making sure that the market is looked after and saved from inferior fruit but we do not believe that it is in New Zealand’s interest or the growers’ interest to starve the market of fruit thus ratcheting up the price. 
There are those on the right of our party who believe that all fruit has a market. Mr Gerrard Eckhoff made that point very strongly at the select committee. He believed that even inferior fruit would have a market and that it should all be sent out there. He said we should have a “buyer beware” situation with people paying what they think they should pay and the market would sort itself out. We do not subscribe to that theory and neither did the select committee I am pleased to say. So we ended up with the amendment that we have here. 
The kiwifruit industry has recovered from some tough times. It has put tough restrictions on its growers and has asked for large contributions from them. Most of the growers—not all of them—have gone along with that and are reaping the rewards. Not all growers have agreed with that and those who have not done so and have not put the effort into ensuring the quality of their fruit would now seek to reap the rewards of those who have invested large amounts of money. We do not think that is right. I am concentrating on a small part of the bill but I think it is a very very important part. 
I commend this bill. New Zealand First is happy to support it in spite of some interjections from my parliamentary colleagues across the House. 
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. 
IAN EWEN-STREET (Green) 
: 
 I rise to take a very brief call in the debate on the second reading of this bill. I start by thanking the officials as some of my colleagues have also done. I appreciate the quality of the advice they gave us. I would also like to pay testament again to the collegiality amongst the members of the Primary Production Committee. I believe we work very well in a non-partisan way. We may take our own political views outside the committee room but when confronted with a problem inside the room we deal with it in the best and most practical way possible. 
I would like to address one aspect of this bill very briefly which is that of export to Australia. Despite the comments of my learned colleague Mr Eckhoff who obviously failed Marketing 101 the influx of low-quality kiwifruit into Australia has resulted in a loss of about $5 million per year to our kiwifruit industry. It was a loss but as I understand it that is exactly what he is advocating. One of the problems the industry has had is that kiwifruit exported from New Zealand to Australia have then been re-exported for a profit from Australia to Asian countries in particular. It is obviously to the disadvantage of New Zealand growers that growers are getting a low price in Australia while some entrepreneur in Australia is on-selling for a profit. 
It is clear to me that the idea of having an organised single-desk seller is still effective. Like my colleague Mr Woolerton I believe that the single-desk concept is not a bad one despite it being very unfashionable. Kiwifruit sellers have decided that that is the best way for them to go. They have also decided that their market both in Australia and in other parts of the world is very much dependent on quality. That is a very similar message to the one we debated on the Wine Bill last night. The wine industry is also heavily dependent on quality. A lot of our markets are dependent on quality. 
One thing we have to bear in mind is what the wine industry and the kiwifruit industry have in common other than their obsession with quality. They are both market-driven and they both state that they need to be GE-free. They cannot embrace genetic modification because markets will collapse. It is not rocket science that we are talking about. Even Gerry Eckhoff could probably get Marketing 101 if he got his head around that. If we have a market in which people do not want to buy our product we will have very low prices. What we want is to have a high-quality product that people want. At the end of the day our markets are unequivocal. They say that a premium will be paid for our product if it is of high quality and guaranteed to be free of any kind of genetic contamination. [ 
Interruption 
] I say to Mr O’Connor that that is the way it is. 
The Green Party is very pleased to support this bill. Obviously the Horticulture Export Authority is a very learned body. It is one that— 
Richard Worth 
: Learned? 
IAN EWEN-STREET 
: It is very learned. It is concentrating on quality. That is what New Zealand export is all about. 
RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It has been drawn to my attention—and it may be that the Hon George Hawkins has not noticed it—that he was keen to take a call on this issue and deliver an important policy contribution to the debate. I would not like the fact to be overlooked by you that he has not risen to seek the call. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member knows that that is not a point of order. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I rise to support this bill in its second reading on behalf of United Future. It is important to recognise that the bill amends the New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Act in two important ways. A string of changes deal with the operation of the authority in general. As it currently reads the Act provides for the imposition of quantitative restrictions on the export of prescribed products. Despite the non-utility of those particular provisions their continued existence in legislation lies contrary to this country’s international trade obligations. Given that I support the Primary Production Committee’s proposed reversal of section 26(2)(a) of the Act so that it states without ambiguity that an export marketing strategy cannot enforce quantitative restrictions on exports. If anyone else can tell me what that means I would appreciate it. 
Three other general amendments to the Act suggested by the authority itself focus on the improvement of its administrative effectiveness. There is currently a hearing process for Horticulture Export Authority decisions on export licence applications. That process also considers circumstances where the authority believes on reasonable grounds that a licensed exporter has conducted export operations that prejudice the current product group’s export marketing strategy. However at present there is no provision for hearings to be held on other statutory decisions of the Horticulture Export Authority. This bill will rectify that. 
The bill will also allow costs to be awarded to all parties in the case of any dispute under the Act. That effectively will override the precedent set by the most recent arbitrator who did not award costs to all parties. 
Finally the current Act fails to allow the Horticulture Export Authority to revoke redundant export licences and therefore the register of exporters includes some redundant information. This bill will correct that. 
Moving beyond adjustments to the general operation of the authority I note that the bill also contains specific amendments relating to the kiwifruit industry. It allows the kiwifruit industry the option of coordinating the export of kiwifruit to Australia through the Horticulture Export Authority. Kiwifruit exports to the rest of the world except to Australia are managed by the Zespri Group in a solitary export regime. 
I take this opportunity to speak highly of Zespri and its marketing which has developed such excellent returns for the kiwifruit industry—particularly in the Bay of Plenty—that the economy has been very positively affected over recent years. We are very proud in Tauranga that Zespri has chosen to move its head offices there as many other companies are also doing because of the excellent lifestyle that is offered in that wonderful part of New Zealand. 
There have been many comments made about the pros and cons of the single desk and I believe that in Zespri we have an example of how single-desk marketing works very effectively for its growers. It is to do with the quality of the people who are involved in the organisation—those who are committed to working for their members rather than becoming complacent and enjoying the lifestyle that the single desk can sometimes protect. I do not believe that there is any risk of that happening with regard to Zespri and I commend the company for its excellent work. 
This bill deals with concerns about the re-exporting of second-quality kiwifruit out of Australia. Much comment has been made about that already and I also mentioned it in my speech in the debate on the first reading. I do not see that there is any need this afternoon to take any further time on that subject. United Future is very happy to support the second reading of this bill and looks forward to its speedy process through the House this afternoon. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) 
: 
 It is great to follow so many good speakers from the Primary Production Committee. When I was a member of that committee I used to say it was the best select committee in Parliament and now that I am not a member of that select committee I still say it is the best select committee in Parliament. I would love to be back as part of the Primary Production Committee. 
The select committee heard 352 submissions with most of them in favour so I have been led to believe. We are talking about a $1 billion export industry from New Zealand exporting what used to be called when I was a child going to school Chinese gooseberries. I do not think many people understand that—$1 billion worth of Chinese gooseberries are exported by the Zespri Group from Tauranga in the Bay of Plenty and across New Zealand. Those growers came to the select committee—a very good select committee it is—and suggested that they had one or two problems with people in Australia exporting second-grade fruit under their brand. They have some problems with that. I think they said they were a bit anxious about some of this back-door exporting. 
Recently I was contacted by a person from the BBC who wanted to talk to me about the back-door tax from down under. I am not sure whether he was referring to back-door exporting or another issue that has nothing to do with this bill so I had better come back to the— 
Hon David Carter 
: “Back-up Pete”. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: He might have been talking about “Back-up Pete”. He was talking about something from the back door. I think he said the back-door tax from down under which I thought was a very catchy line that the BBC ran. 
This bill is about people who are taking an inferior product putting it under a brand that has cost a New Zealand industry a lot of money and effort to build up and damaging that brand. We cannot allow that to happen. The Horticulture Export Authority has come up with a plan which is outlined in this bill. It says that all products must meet the standards set down under the terms and regulations laid out in this legislation. The National Party supports that concept. The kiwifruit industry considers that exporting kiwifruit to Australia with the Horticulture Export Authority framework will allow marketing to be coordinated and quality standards to be applied which will stop all that sort of activity from going on. 
I know there are some people who have concerns about the whole idea of any regulation at all of exports and I know there are some who have submitted that they will be restrained or their exports will be curtailed or otherwise restricted by this bill. I do not think that is so. I think if they applied to the Horticulture Export Authority and Zespri and worked through this issue with that group of people who appear to me at least to be interested in the best interests of this industry and of the whole of New Zealand they would find a way through. I understand that they have concerns and I note that but I think that if they work through the channels that have been outlined here they will find a solution to their problems. 
There are a number of other issues that are touched on such as market development. Section 26(1) of the Act refers to the recognised product group for the product specified under the Order in Council. Clearly that is a key point with regard to this legislation because if what is being exported cannot be specified in terms of size colour breed or other type of measurement then it is very difficult to tell what it is that those who are complaining are complaining about. We know that through the very solid science and work that are going on. Zespri Gold which is a relatively new development is starting to develop new markets that did not exist prior to the whole formation of the kiwifruit marketing structure. It is showing huge promise in countries like Japan and in other areas of the world to which we would not traditionally be able to export this product. We should support whatever it takes whatever regulation is required to protect enhance and help that. 
I think the select committee has gone through that thoroughly. I know that the chair of the select committee my very good colleague the agriculture spokesperson for the National Party assures me that the whole process was taken very seriously. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: Who’s that? 
SHANE ARDERN 
: I know that the member interjecting over there will have paid close attention to it being a huge customer of Zespri’s in terms of consumption of kiwifruit—if not the fruit itself certainly the products made from it particularly if they have some kind of alcohol content. I know that those things would have been thoroughly investigated by this committee so we can only assume that most of the problems that were raised have been addressed. 
I notice in the list of things that the bill also addresses mention of an appeal authority or a hearings authority or a structure whereby people can come put their case and have it heard fairly by people who have no axe to grind as it were or any particular political bent line or reason to want to persecute one group or another. That is an excellent structure as well because clearly for whatever reason there will be some detail with regard to exporting somewhere that the committee has not thought of. If the export authority can address those issues under its licensing structure then clearly we will have fewer problems with it. If it were too constrained people would constantly feel aggrieved and want further appeals for change and that would obviously be a costly process and a waste of time. I am pleased to see that that part has been addressed. The bill provides for hearings to take place to consider a refusal of a grant or a refusal to revoke an exemption or to impose or vary any conditions in relation to the exemption under section 40 of the principal Act. That sounds like a very sensible way forward. 
Hon David Carter 
: You can rely on us. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: The member says we can rely on the committee. I am sure that is absolutely so. I know that that issue was raised under the former chairman a couple of times. He was working on it. It took a change of Parliament and a new chair and we are here today debating it. I see that members opposite are pleased with that. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: Sit down Shane. You’ve been going half an hour. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: It is good to see that Government members over there are still awake and are pleased with that—although it is hard to tell. However they have suddenly risen to the occasion and I am sure that at least half a dozen excellent speeches from them will follow to talk about this issue. 
The select committee also considered that section 26(2)(a) of the principal Act should not be replaced. Obviously that would have taken a fair bit of time and a lot of consideration. Clearly the select committee has looked at all the reasons why that would be so. I am pleased that it has been left there and I look forward to one of the Government members taking a call to tell us why it was not replaced or repealed. I look forward to the contribution from those members opposite on that. 
I also note that clause 5 has been altered to state clearly that there should be no quantitative restrictions on exports. That is a very good idea. Of course we would not want to restrict the tonnage that we can export. If we can export thousands of tonnes of kiwifruit whether they be Zespri Gold or just ordinary Zespri we would not want to— 
Hon David Carter 
: Chinese gooseberries. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: And Chinese gooseberries if a market could be found for them still. We would not want to restrict that either. This is excellent work from the best select committee in Parliament. The bill is very good and I look forward to its passage through Parliament. 
Bill read a second time. 
Instruction to CommitteeCWH 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I am sure the Minister is about to move a motion but it might be useful if Parliament is of a mind to seek leave to instruct the Committee to consider the bill as a whole. I seek leave for that so to happen. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to take the bill as one question. 
Is there any objection? No there is not. 
In Committee 
Clauses 1 to 11 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 I have two points to raise and the first is with regard to the commencement date. I am certainly not proposing that we alter the commencement date. The sooner this legislation is passed the better. I see that Mr Cosgrove is already applauding silently although I do not know quite why. I have been concerned that this legislation has sat around for so long on the Order Paper. The Primary Production Committee is always asked to rush these things back. There is a bit of a pattern around this kind of thing as the Minister in the chair the Hon Damien O’Connor will well appreciate because he spent so much time working on the committee prior to his elevation to higher things. An explanation as to why the industry has had to wait for so long would be much appreciated. 
My second point is the issue of the quantitative restrictions and the removal of the ability to apply quantitative restrictions. I refer to a number of submissioners in particular the impassioned pleas made to us by the New Zealand Avocado Industry Council Ltd and the New Zealand Avocado Growers Association. Those people were quite genuinely concerned that the removal of quantitative restrictions would allow one particular grower who has established a market to a particular destination but who is having trouble with that destination suddenly to change plans and dump a large amount of product into another market which could have an adverse effect on people who had spent some months or years establishing a credible marketing plan in that particular destination. I think the committee took note of their concerns in a very credible way. 
We acknowledge that the removal of quantitative restrictions does not mean that any grower does not have the ability to consider and formulate a marketing strategy that he or she will maintain throughout any particular season of export to any other nation. The growers were concerned about whether they would still have the ability to manage the flow of fruit on a consistent basis and according to their production processes their pack houses shipping requirements and shipping availability to any market. I think the changes the select committee has embarked on have given a level of comfort to those people who were concerned about the removal of quantitative restrictions. Certainly all members of the committee acknowledged the need for that. We must make sure as a country that is so dependent on exports—as I am sure Mr Chairman will appreciate—that we are squeaky clean. We cannot have an accusation raised against New Zealand that we are using quantitative restrictions to try to hike the price in any market. 
I would appreciate a comment from the Minister on those two points before I raise any other points of view. 
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
: 
 I will take just a short call. I want to address some of the concerns of those people who think there should be no regulation at all of anything—least of all exporting markets. 
Gerrard Eckhoff 
: That’s it! 
R DOUG WOOLERTON 
: Mr Gerrard Eckhoff is happy to be guilty of that. It is not right no matter which way we look at it. The great majority observes quality standards observes undertakings that are not necessarily imposed on them by this House. It is not right that they are taken advantage of by the few people who do not agree with the majority who do not go along with the majority view and who seek to get an advantage from the majority yet pay nothing. The majority of producers have come to Parliament asking for this legislation. 
It is also said along with that that these sorts of regulations often stifle enterprise. They stop people from doing things that are experimental that are entrepreneurial that change industries and that forge future relationships and markets. That is taken care of in this bill because there is the ability to have one’s case reviewed or to call the Horticulture Export Authority to account for that very reason. We must not stifle entrepreneurial activity we must not stifle experimentation and we must not stifle those who seek to do things in different ways. Just because a bill or an industry seeks the very very best and seeks to impose quality standards does not mean to say that those entrepreneurial activities are lessened or in any way damaged. 
I thought I would rise and point that out for those who may have nothing better to do than to listen to this Committee. I point out to them that those considerations have been taken into account and nothing in this bill will stifle the entrepreneurial pioneering spirit of good hard-working New Zealanders. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
: 
 I too would like to take call—a relatively short call in deference to the forlorn looks of my colleagues. I would be happy to debate this issue till midnight but I can see a few distressed-looking faces around the Chamber so I will get on with it. 
In looking through the debate on the Committee stage of this bill I note that one of the concerns I have is this word “authority”. The word itself conjures up all sorts of images that take me back to my school days. In respect of the question of why we should have an authority we have been there and touched on that. But I have learnt during my 30-odd years in farming and in my time in politics that it is not so much the make-up of a system that is important as the quality of the people within that system—the authority itself the handful of people who make up that authority. I am perfectly sure that at this time we have excellent people on the Horticulture Export Authority. I am sure they are very sensible decent honourable people. 
But what happens if there is a change? What happens if some individuals are appointed to this authority who turn out to be absolute disasters? I cannot see anywhere in the legislation a provision that will allow for the removal of those people. There is no allowance for a petition or whatever by Kiwifruit Growers for example if it is unhappy with the performance of one or two members of the authority and wants rid of them. I emphasise again that it is the individuals who make the difference. Whether they be in a political party or on an authority or on a regional council does not really matter. It is not so much the system; it is the individuals who make the huge difference. 
 I am delighted to see that the sensible people on the select committee—myself included of course—ensured that there was an appeal provision. That is hugely important because an individual who is not satisfied who does not believe that he or she has had a fair shake from the appeal authority can go to an arbiter. Many would say that is not appropriate either and is like one or two individuals making a choice for a family. I come back to Maori people who wish to export their own fruit: if the arbitrator and the authorities say no then that is it. Where do those people go? They go nowhere. There is a real problem there. 
I will touch on the views of Mr Woolerton—who I am sure is widely respected in the Woolerton family—who talked about the rights of the majority to impose on minorities. That the majority can always impose is a thing called democracy. The real question is not when or whether—not whether they can; of course we know that they can—but should they? Should we always allow minorities to have their say and do their thing? I think that in a society like New Zealand we do and should allow it. In this very House we used to have Labour and National—the old school the old parties—dominating politics in this country. People said that their time was nigh. People like to see minority points of view being expressed. I am most certainly in a minority here this evening—and it is a hugely honourable position to be in. The point is that Mr Woolerton who is a member of a minority party in Parliament says that the majority should always be able to impose its views on the minority. No it should not. The right of the individual is hugely important in our society and the views of individuals who get together in a small grouping should be respected. As long as they do not impose their views on others then that is entirely appropriate. I am opposed to the tyranny of the majority just as I am opposed to the tyranny of the minority. 
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. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 It is all very well for the Minister in the chair the Hon Damien O’Connor following his elevation from the Primary Production Committee now to sit in the Committee stage and refuse to answer the valuable questions that have been raised. I take the opportunity of raising another couple of questions in the hope that the Minister will rise to his feet and earn his salary today by answering those questions. 
I was particularly concerned about the pre-information on the growers who would object to the bill. Allegedly some growers were marketing their product quite successfully in Australia—so they claimed. There were allegations that some of those growers were then on-exporting to Australia. We received one written submission from Te Awanui Huka Pak Ltd. It was a written submission only. There was not the opportunity for those people to present before the select committee but to my knowledge they were the only people who were adamantly opposed to the legislation—that was the only evidence that the select committee got. I want to make sure that the Minister informs the Committee before we vote on the third reading today that there is not a number of other people out there who for one reason or another did not have the opportunity to present to the select committee. I would appreciate that point being answered. 
The second point as today I again look through the submissions from a number of submissioners relates to the issue of quantitative restrictions which has been discussed widely in the Committee stage tonight. The other issue that was evident throughout the submissions we have seen was the significant impact that trade restrictions are having on New Zealand exporters to other countries. I happen to know that the Persimmon Industry Council was meeting with the executive of the Government yesterday trying to progress its case for assistance from the New Zealand Government to get access for its product to America. 
 We know of the difficulties we have had with our American friends over recent months. We know of the insults that have been traded. We suspect that those insults have meant that the persimmon industry of New Zealand is now suffering because of the comments made by the Rt Hon Helen Clark. I would like to take the opportunity of getting the Minister to assure the Committee that the meeting did take place yesterday between the Persimmon Industry Council and himself or his senior Minister the Hon Jim Sutton. I would certainly like to be assured today that if that meeting took place every encouragement was given by the Government that the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade will work with this industry and in fact with all the horticultural industries identified through the submission process on this bill. We are passing legislation today to tidy up our side of the Act but we want to make sure that every effort has been made by the Government to make sure it is furthering the interests of New Zealand growers in gaining access to other markets particularly the United States. 
Finally I want also to seek an assurance from the Minister that he will convey those thoughts to the Rt Hon Helen Clark. I ask the Minister to please ask her to restrain herself. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: He’s too busy on his immigration portfolio. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I did not know he had one. I thought his portfolio was racing. Has he been moved up? 
John Carter 
: A couple of places. He’s a very good Minister on immigration. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Oh good. I know that the Minister is now keen to take a call. Following some suitable answers I think we could then move to the third reading. I do want the Minister to take the concerns of the Committee to the Prime Minister. 
John Carter 
: Now? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Absolutely! We could break for 5 minutes if he wants to. I want the Minister to give the Prime Minister sincere advice that it would be better if she does not know anything about foreign affairs and the damage she does to trade to please stay out of it. We were able to tell the Persimmon Industry Council that we sympathise with the representations it made to the National Party yesterday. We do sympathise with the position it found itself in. It is comments that are made perhaps in the heat of the moment by a Prime Minister who should know better that have on-going ramifications that make it very very difficult for growers of our produce in seeking access to markets particularly the United States markets. I look for that assurance now as the Minister is about to rise to his feet. 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Associate Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 I am happy to take a call and answer a couple of the issues raised by the chairman of the Primary Production Committee. Firstly I turn to the growers who potentially were objectors to the bill. We understood that there may have been some objectors to the bill but in the end the fact that there were no substantive submissions opposing the bill leads us to suggest that there is a maturity in the kiwifruit industry that understands that collaborative marketing is beneficial to each and every one of the growers while there is an ability for them to expand the opportunities through entrepreneurial work which the growers can undertake themselves. 
The second point relates to trade restrictions. We understand that there are always difficult trade restrictions facing New Zealand exporters. This bill is an attempt to work through those things in a very measured way—in a way that does not upset any of our trading partners. They have an assurance about the quality of the exports they are getting. 
With regard to the US we are very very good friends with the US. We are also very grateful for the efforts of the US administration in assisting us to get exports into their market—unlike the comments made by some politicians that we have had in recent days. 
Finally I understand that quantitative export restrictions were a key part of the discussions at the select committee. The officials identified them as being potentially at odds with our position on free trade so they through this bill advised us that we should remove any ability to have quantitative restrictions. Effectively that will mean that those exporters who work in collaboration through the Horticulture Export Authority do not necessarily have to limit the amount of fruit they put into a market. 
However there was an understanding and a discussion at the select committee that the strategy should incorporate market development. It is important not only for the growers but also for the wholesalers and the retailers in the markets that they have a consistent supply and a consistent quality of fruit. The inclusion of market development as a key consideration of any strategy is a positive step forward. It offsets some of the concerns of some exporters that removing quantitative restrictions would have led to a free-for-all and perhaps to the dumping of large volumes of product into a market at an inappropriate time. I am sure that importers of our products will appreciate this and it is for the benefit of the kiwifruit exporting industry as a whole. 
Clauses 1 to 11 agreed to. 
Bill reported without amendment. 
Third Reading 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Associate Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 I move  
That the New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time 
. The Horticulture Export Authority was established in 1987 under the New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Act to promote the effective export marketing of horticultural products. It has achieved that very effectively. In the last financial year around $125 million of horticultural products were exported under the Act. Squash avocados and summer fruit were the major contributors to that $125 million of exports. 
The bill we are dealing with was introduced into the House in March 2003. It went to the Primary Production Committee for consideration where a large number of submissions were heard. The bill has three objectives as stated. The first was to enable the export of kiwifruit for consumption in Australia to be facilitated under the Act. Because the export of kiwifruit comes under the Kiwifruit Export Regulations 1999 there was a requirement to adjust the New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Act to enable the Horticulture Export Authority to regulate the collaborative marketing of kiwifruit into Australia. The submissions from the kiwifruit industry demonstrated a clear mandate to the Primary Production Committee for amendment to this Act. 
The second aim of the bill was to ensure consistency with New Zealand’s international obligations. It was achieved through the bill by preventing export marketing strategies from imposing quantitative restrictions on exports under the Act. The committee improved the clarity of the bill in that respect through proposing amendments that have now been incorporated into the bill. The first of the amendments was the insertion of the words “market development” into the bill to ensure that an export marketing strategy while not imposing quantitative restrictions on the Act would indeed allow sensible consideration of market developments and long-term market access. 
The third aim of the bill was to improve the administrative provisions in the Act by applying hearings and appeal provisions to the licensing decisions of the Horticulture Export Authority. There is also now an ability in the bill to allow the Horticulture Export Authority to cancel redundant export licences. That will assist the authority in keeping an up-to-date roll on those who are exporting. 
Finally I would like to thank the Primary Production Committee under the chair of David Carter. It has done an excellent job in making some minor amendments to the bill. That was necessary and it will certainly ensure that we get good solid and consistent value—the best value we can—from the Australian market which does not undermine exporters’ efforts in that area. I commend the bill to the House. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 National supports with pleasure the third reading of this bill. Initially I want to make two points. First I want to acknowledge in this third reading the tremendous turn-round that has occurred within the kiwifruit industry of New Zealand and I congratulate Zespri and the growers on the progress that has been made. It was not many years ago that we perceived that industry to be an industry on its knees and now it is enjoying record returns. So Zespri as an organisation with the support of growers has done tremendously well over those intervening years. 
The second group that I want to take note of today is the Horticulture Export Authority itself. The authority has been a very successful mechanism that allows the control of horticultural products under a framework. This results in the betterment of those products that are now included within the product groups under the Horticulture Export Authority. Products like buttercup squash table grapes chestnuts persimmons avocados tamarillos boysenberries and Nashi Asian pears just demonstrate the wide diversity of horticultural exports from New Zealand to overseas markets. The producers of these individual products would if left to their own resources find it difficult to get a cooperative marketing approach to the world but this mechanism provides a highly successful means of New Zealand having the ability to market its product in an orderly fashion to present top quality produce to markets around the world. So I pay credit to them. 
The reasoning behind the amendment to the Act has been well explained through the second reading and the Committee stage and I do not intend to go over it again now. Suffice it to say that the Australian market was initially tried as a domestic market. That meant that the returns from the Australian market were not being maximised to the benefit of New Zealand growers. There was also the side issue—but an important side issue—reported to the select committee of some New Zealand product going through Australia then being re-exported to other nations to the detriment of the efforts of Zespri in those particular countries. I think that was a valid concern. It was a loophole that needed to be closed down and therefore National is happy to support that. 
I conclude by thanking my colleagues on the select committee. We have had a very significant workload this year with another matter that we hope to bring to fruition in approximately 4 or 5 weeks’ time. In between the hearings we have had on that other substantial matter we have managed to facilitate the legislation through the select committee process. With the amendments we have made through that process the bill is now back before the House in a very commendable shape. 
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
: 
 I nearly fell over a wee while ago—not as a result of the gin—when I heard my colleague Gerrard Eckhoff speak about the tyranny of the majority. That was a bit unusual coming from him. 
Every producer every business person and every marketer has the right the opportunity the privilege and I believe the obligation to maximise the returns of its products to the benefit of its growers. If that industry market group of farmers or horticulturalists can do that then I say: “All strength to their elbow.” They are marketing in niche markets for the benefit of New Zealand and conducting market development which is very costly. I believe that this bill will reward them for that and help them to get the better returns they seek. 
We cannot let this bill pass without mentioning the competition. I read in trade magazines just the other day that the Chinese—from whence kiwifruit came; it was originally the Chinese gooseberry—are getting into the market in a big way themselves. They are formidable opponents in this area. They have thousands of years of culture behind them. They have been involved in agriculture for thousands of years and they are not to be taken lightly. 
This industry of ours which is still a very very small industry by world standards needs all the help it can get. It needs the reputation that has been built up it needs all the authority the Government can give it to make sure that its markets are not invaded by inferior quality fruit and at the same time it needs to be very quick on its feet to move and develop new products—and it can still do that. In other words the industry needs to keep on its mettle and I am sure it will. I am sure this bill will help it. 
If we were to go out in a naive fashion we would have individual farmers—or individual traders even—in the most ridiculous scenario trying to sell their produce to huge supermarket conglomerates which is where the buying power is held nowadays. It is not just a matter of going and selling on a fair market. We are selling on markets where every objection will be put up. They will put up every tariff. 
 They will put up any blockage possible in other countries to either stop or make it harder for our exports to enter their market and chief among them are the huge supermarket conglomerates. They will use their power to lower the price to our exporters and therefore lower the prices received in New Zealand. We rely on those prices for our standard of living. This bill will do what it can to stop that practice from happening and New Zealand First is all for it. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
: 
 Despite what some might think in listening to this debate this bill is one of the more important measures that we have around this House. It is very important because it affects the wealth of this country and it affects those who create and export that wealth and add to our overall prosperity. 
In listening to previous speeches I could not help but wonder—as I listened with my extra-sensitive perceptive ears although I am rather deaf—just how long ago it was that we sat listening to speeches some that Mr Speaker might well have heard that lauded the formation of the Dairy Board the Meat Board and indeed the ENZA Board. All these boards became single-desk authoritative bodies that we are now debating at this time. We also remember that although at the time they sounded like a very very good idea they have now passed into history. So time will tell whether I am right or wrong. I suspect that in time—perhaps 10 years; I do not know when—we will be back here wondering why we passed this particular bill. 
That aside I have absolute pride in speaking to this bill because the philosophy behind it is hugely important. Indeed the principle behind it is of equal importance. It is about the right of people to export their own product—it is not difficult; it is quite simple—and it is about innovation. It is about the right of indigenous people as I have mentioned in previous speeches to sell their product without input from overwhelming cost structures which inevitably— 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Which ones are you talking about? 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: We have one or two still I believe in the North Island—but we will not go there. 
The fundamental basis behind that philosophy of ensuring that people have the right to sell their product if they create it is a hugely important one. That is why I will vote against this bill out of principle not so much out of the practice or what is going to happen over the next few years. I am sure things will go along quite nicely in the interim but long term I suspect we will be back here again wondering why we passed this bill. 
I also reflect on the fact that the wine industry has become hugely more regulated. The regulations were three or maybe four pages long as I recall but now they are 100 pages. We have had concerns from the World Trade Organization about the near monopoly that Fonterra operates. In this global village of ours these are very genuine and real concerns that this House should be concerned about. Our trade Ministers of all Governments present and past go overseas exhorting the rest of the world to get rid of controls and regulations and unless we do something very similar we really cannot stand at the top of the mountain and say: “We’ve done it follow us.” We are still looking for this measure of protection. If the rest of the world sees that we are not pulling our weight or we are a little less than pure as the driven snow as we pretend we are then I suspect we will have some trouble convincing countries like America and Europe that they should do away with regulation and allow the trade of the world to interact with one another. It will find its natural balance as indeed the kiwifruit industry will under the same basis. 
It is with some ambivalence—I think that is the right word—that this bill will pass as far as I am concerned. I respect the rights of kiwifruit growers to form themselves into a bloc if that is what they wish but I wish also that other people would respect the rights of individuals—and this is what is so important—to do their own thing throughout the world if they so choose. It is very foolish people who go out there and undercut their neighbours because ultimately they will undercut themselves and that adds nothing. 
I understand why people are very much in favour of some sort of export authority. However I come back to the philosophy and the principle. It makes me feel rather sad that we have come to this situation but I do have to respect the rights of kiwifruit growers to form themselves into a grouping. That is their right and their privilege. 
Bill read a third time.