New Zealand Horticulture Export AuthorityAmendment Bill (No 2)

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.

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.

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 Māori 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.

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.

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 pōhutukawa 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?

I am not sure. No, I do not think so. We could probably get a kiwifruit vine to grow over a pōhutukawa tree, and then we would be able to have both pōhutukawa 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 Māori 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.

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.

I did not know he had one. I thought his portfolio was racing. Has he been moved up?

A couple of places. He’s a very good Minister on immigration.

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.

Now?

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.

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