New Zealand Horticulture Export AuthorityAmendment Bill (No 2)

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.

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!

I would not have gone so far as to say that.

💬 Hon Damien O'Connor: Good advice right to the end.

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.

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.

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.

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 Māori 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 Māori or non-Māori, 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 Māori 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 Māori cannot and should not export the sort of fruit they want to, after Māori 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.

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?

It is very learned. It is concentrating on quality. That is what New Zealand export is all about.

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.

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.

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”.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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 Committee