New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Amendment Bill

on behalf of the Minister for Primary Industries: I move, That the New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Amendment Bill be now read a second time. The New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Amendment Bill modernises the current framework for exporting horticultural commodities. It amends the New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Act 1987. That Act enables smaller horticultural industries to collaborate in the marketing of their products overseas.

The horticultural sector is a star performer. In the last 12 months it has grown by about 20 percent, and the sector continues to grow. For example, avocado export volume is forecast to double in the 2016-17 year.

Before I talk about the bill in a little bit more detail, I want to thank the Primary Production Committee and its chair for their hard work in considering this bill. I also want to acknowledge the valuable input that was given by the 10 oral submitters.

The Act promotes the effective export marketing of horticultural commodities by enabling the industry to set grade standards for its produce and requiring exporters to comply with those standards. In controlling the marketing and export quality of the industry’s produce, affiliated product groups are able to develop a consistent brand for its produce. It also enables affiliated industries to leverage the benefits of New Zealand’s clean, green, high-quality reputation. The Act does not create a single desk or monopsony exporter model, and the Horticulture Export Authority itself is not an exporter. The Act preserves a multi-exporter model. For example, there are 12 buttercup squash exporters and 21 summer fruit exporters. There are nine affiliated product groups currently exporting under this framework, and their combined export revenue ending 30 June 2016 was over $282 million. The two largest horticultural industries operate outside this export framework—of course you know that they are pipfruit and kiwifruit, exported by Zespri to all markets other than Australia.

The changes in the bill will enable affiliated product groups to better target their marketing strategies to specific markets overseas. Better-targeted export strategies will support affiliated product groups to meet different demands in different markets and optimise their returns. The changes provide more clarity around the requirements for entering and exiting from the export framework. They also provide certainty as to how the authority and the product groups are funded to deliver on their strategies. When we look at clause 28, for example, this clause formalises the current information sharing that occurs between the authority and the New Zealand Customs Service, and between the authority and the Ministry for Primary Industries.

The bill originally required the authority to consult with the Privacy Commissioner when developing such information-sharing agreements. I agree with the committee that the authority must also consult with the Privacy Commissioner when amending an already existing information-sharing agreement.

Finally, I support the committee’s recommendation to add a new notification provision in clause 31. This will require the authority to formally notify the nominal fees it sets, where the authority is given discretion to set fees within a maximum cap or by a formula through fees regulations created under this Act.

I support the changes recommended by the committee, as they will enable our horticultural producers and exporters to have the tools available to optimise these returns from their export markets. Most importantly, they will continue to make significant contributions to growth of the New Zealand economy and the regions. I commend this bill to the House.

I am very pleased to speak at the second reading of this bill, the New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Amendment Bill. I would like to acknowledge at the outset the Hon Colin Moyle—

💬 Ian McKelvie: Who? Even I can’t remember him.

—ha, ha!—the distinguished member of this House and Minister of Agriculture in the fourth Labour Government, who established this authority. It was one of a number of quite groundbreaking reforms that were initiated under his tenure as the Minister. The New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority is a hybrid. It is not quite a single-desk monopoly, and it is does not mean that participants in the market are free to do whatever they want and export whatever they want. This was Mr Moyle’s design—that there be a hybrid export authority, and this was the model that was used.

So what does it do? It requires horticultural product groups to apply under the Act—if they want to, as it is a voluntary system—to be a registered product group under the Act. What does that mean? It requires them to do things—two tools. One is that all product that is exported has to come from a licensed export pack-house, and there are requirements around that. It also requires that those product groups comply with an agreed export marketing plan. It is about collaboration. It is about these horticultural industries working together to compete in the export market place—an international market. It is a great model and it is 29 years old—it is coming up to its 30th anniversary next year—but it has been pointed out, as it is periodically being reviewed, that it is in need of modernisation. This was first mooted back in its independent review back in 2009—and here we are in 2016 finally implementing the legislation that will give effect to those changes.

I do acknowledge the Minister and the other members of the select committee. We did receive 10 submissions, primarily, obviously, from the stakeholder that is directly impacted by this, which is the authority itself, and also from the different product groups, or the participants in those product groups. Just to give people a bit of flavour as to what product groups actually come within the framework of the Horticulture Export Authority, they are the likes of, as we have heard, avocado—what else is there? There is kiwifruit, but only kiwifruit to Aussie—not generally. There is buttercup squash, through to very up-and-coming industries like truffles and tamarillos. Those have not adopted the full requirements to be export-licensed, because they are only just starting out. There is a wide range—we have got summer fruits in there as well—of horticultural product groups that are part of this Horticulture Export Authority regime. They are working together, and they have got their requirements in place. This bill is about them updating and providing a bit more flexibility in terms of what they might have to do to better compete and to better market their wonderful produce in the international market.

What are the amendments that we have considered? Primarily, there were three main substantive amendments. There have been a lot of technical amendments made, but the substantive issues that submitters were mainly focused on were around three things: an infringement regime that could be inserted into the bill; the requirement around the entry and the exit of a particular product group or an industry into or out of the export authority framework; and, the last one was an issue around fee exemptions. Those three areas mainly revolve around the powers of the export authority, and what it can or cannot do.

In relation to the first aspect, regarding an infringement regime, the export authority wanted to be able to impose fines—for non-compliance, particularly—these are like low-level fines on exporters who do not have an export licence or who are not playing by the rules. It was to send them a message. So the export authority asked whether there could be an infringement regime that they could basically carry out themselves. However, on consideration, it was felt that there are already quite heavy sanctions within the Act itself—and they are criminal offences—which is, obviously, quite a different level of offence. It was felt that to have two levels of offences with infringements being solely the responsibility of the export authority would be beyond the scope of what was required. So that was declined and it has not been put into the second reading version of this bill.

The other, more substantial, issue, which was quite interesting, was the entry and exit requirements. As currently drafted in the bill, it is like four out of four boxes had to be ticked for a particular product group to be included into the framework. Those four boxes were growers and exporters, and—[Interruption] Gosh. Sorry. So you have got the growers and exporters, and by number and value. It is quite confusing—but, if you can bear with me, it is about getting the support of 60 percent or more of the growers of that particular product group and the entities that are involved.

The whole purpose of getting that broad support was to ensure that no one section of an industry could influence the direction in which that industry wanted to go. It was felt by the industry participants themselves that having to tick all four boxes was maybe a bit too onerous, and a bit too restrictive on them—having to make future decisions as to whether they might want to exit from the regime or, indeed, enter the regime, or make changes. However, following close consideration of that particular issue, it was felt that having the four requirements in place was justified, for the very reason that the export authority was established, which was to make sure that there was, from the whole industry—small players and big players, growers and exporters—broad agreement and support. That is why there is a 60-plus percent threshold, from all of those different groups on the actual direction that that industry wanted to head in under the export authority’s framework. So that has been left in place.

They were two of the most significant issues that we had to consider, and I am sure that the members of particularly the product groups and the industries and the companies concerned are just looking forward to the passage of this legislation. It has been a long time in gestation, and I am pleased that we have been able to continue it on. I look forward to being able to complete this process, hopefully in the not too distant future, and I commend this bill to the House.

It gives me a great deal of pleasure to speak in the second reading of this bill and to follow Minister Lotu-Iiga from Maungakiekie. Only a couple of weeks ago we had Minister Finlayson introducing an agricultural bill from out of the middle of Rongotai—of course, he does have the Chatham Islands and there are a few farmers there. Maungakiekie has only—[Interruption] Yes, he does. He has only Cornwall Park in his electorate. Of course, Cornwall Park used to have a few cattle on it. Nowadays it is much more famous for the late Martin Crowe than for—

💬 Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Finlayson, like me, does not have an electorate.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): The member might be right, and one might not think it is debatable but, actually, if the member wants to assert it, someone else can tell him he is wrong during the debate.

💬 Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In fact, there are clear rulings from the Speaker that the descriptions that list members use to describe themselves, and that we can use to describe list members, must be approved by the Speaker, and that includes any representations around geography—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): The member will resume his seat. I, possibly unlike the member, was listening carefully to what was said. The Hon Chris Finlayson was not described as the member of Parliament for Rongotai.

💬 Hon David Parker: It was as “his electorate”.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): He said “he came from”.

An interesting sojourn. I was going to comment on the late Minister of Agriculture from the Labour Party, who was mentioned earlier, but I will not now.

💬 Grant Robertson: Not late; he’s alive.

Oh, he is still alive. Oh, my word; I will not comment on that! The process that this bill takes has been very well described by Rino Tirikatene. It really enables New Zealand’s horticulture industry, which is made up of numerous small operators right across the spectrum—whatever they grow, really—to remain internationally competitive. It allows those industries to operate under a framework that enables growers and exporters to deliver the produce most valued by diverse consumer groups in different markets while minimising our compliance costs. That is primarily what it sets out to do. The bill, I think, is a very good piece of legislation, and it enables, as I said, our small operators to combine and collectively get much more strength than they otherwise would have got.

I want to thank the Minister for Primary Industries and the Primary Production Committee. As was just mentioned, there were 10 submissions on the bill, and the select committee got through those pretty quickly. They were pretty much all in agreement as well. So although those submissions were basically in agreement, as usual the select committee deviated off from time to time on to glyphosate and country-of-origin labelling, which are two of our favourite topics that we cannot seem to get away from. None the less, we did get back to the bill.

This bill is one of the actions that this Government is taking to enable our export industries to grow significantly. It is a good example, really, of a Government intervention that does not create more production but creates a much better environment for that production to be marketed in. I think that is a fairly important part of any Government’s role, actually. The horticulture industry has a pretty significant target. It wants to grow itself to a turnover of $20 billion by 2020. That is a pretty significant industry by anyone’s standards, particularly in New Zealand.

This bill is also, to a large extent, about trade. Trade is the key to what we do in this country. It also, I guess, emphasises the importance of our free-trade agreements. The average horticultural exporter in New Zealand pays some $38,000 in foreign tariffs a year—in other words, tariffs to stay in the market place. That is a pretty significant bite out of anyone’s income. So it does point to the value of New Zealand’s free-trade agreement process that we have been engaged in for many years now, and will need to be engaged in in the future. One of the good examples of that is the benefit that kiwifruit and buttercup squash have got in the Korean market out of the very recently signed free-trade agreement with Korea. That market is worth about $55 million to New Zealand, and there will be a significant saving once those duties come off.

This bill, I think, has got great value to New Zealand. I am not going to go into the detail of it any further; that has been covered by both the Minister and by the first speaker from the Opposition. I have got a great deal of confidence in commending this bill to the House, and I look forward to the discussion in the Committee stage.

We are supporting this bill. We are very encouraged by the Government’s commitment to encouraging collaboration across the agricultural sector in question here, the horticulture sector. It is well known, of course, to all New Zealanders watching this debate that real benefits can come from industry members working together. Fonterra is the example that is put up time and again. On both sides of the House, efforts have been made to encourage members of an industry to work together in order to achieve higher prices and higher-value goods for export and to achieve market penetration, which can most easily be achieved by scale.

I can think of a local example. When I was in an economic development agency in the South Island—Otago Forward, it was called, and it was a mechanism rather than an agency. It was an economic development mechanism that accessed Government funding for projects involving collaboration between different councils and different local territorial authorities—territorial local authorities, I should say; TLA, a three-letter acronym. In the example I am thinking of, it was required that the different TLAs agreed a priority in order to access Government funding—the different TLAs agreed that there would be real merit in working on getting some Government funding and pulling the industry together to get a marketing strategy to sell apples at a premium.

It was a simple proposition. It turned out that absolutely nothing needed to happen to the apples, but they were able to be marketed as organic apples because a marketing strategy was put together, market research was conducted, and thereafter they achieved a 15 percent—I think it was—price surplus in markets. And that has happened ever since. It required collaboration within the industry to put forward the proposal, and agreement about how the apples were going to be supplied into which markets, and so forth, and the result was a price premium on those products that would not otherwise have been achieved. The simple thing was that where the apples were being grown, it was too cold for pests. The apples were not being sprayed, because they did not need to be sprayed, at all. They were being produced organically, and now, as a consequence of this collaboration, they were also being marketed organically and were attracting a price premium.

So when industry pulls together, when it pools its resources, it can achieve great things. We have seen this in New Zealand time and time again, so facilitating that collaboration is something to be commended. In fact, as a country we are far too dependent on far too few commodities, and anything we can do across the agricultural sector—where we have natural advantages—and, indeed, across any sector to encourage collaboration to achieve higher value in our exports is to be praised.

It is not often I can stand on this side of the House and speak so heartily in favour of a Government bill, but I do so on this occasion and it does bring me pleasure. We like to be constructive on this side of the House, despite the fact that we think that, overall, the Government has lost its way—that it is getting a little bit out of touch on many issues.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): It’ll happen more next year.

But we hope—yes, I expect it will happen more next year—that the Government will be congratulated as it adopts our policies in the run-in to the election. We will see. We will see. But I expect that it is nice on this occasion to be able to do it without yet being in the run-up to the election. Good on it for running with a good idea. They do not always get it wrong on that side of the House—more often than we would like, but not always.

This bill does have the primary purpose to promote the effective export marketing of horticultural products. There is not much not to like with that. In fact, the industry itself, of course, has welcomed the progress of the bill. It is looking towards the opportunity. I hope that it does seize that opportunity. There are times, apparently, when legislation is put in place but, because of internal competition factors or personalities, that nettle is not seized. Of course, we know plenty of other industries that could benefit from greater collaboration. In the sheep and lamb export sector, we have got firms that have competed internally and have engaged in a race to the bottom, when greater collaboration could have attracted price premiums offshore.

It is a real struggle to get there, and we would encourage the Government to consider further how it can assist industries to work together and how incentives can be set up to encourage existing market players in New Zealand to work together to achieve the best value for New Zealand as a whole. Within New Zealand it is a small market, and where there is unfettered competition it will not necessarily yield the best results for us internationally. The Government has set the goal of growing exports as a proportion of GDP to 40 percent of our economy, and we know for a fact that during the time of this Government exports started around the 30 percent mark and have actually dropped. They have dropped, so, sadly, New Zealand is in a place where, as a proportion of our total economy, our exports have been dropping under this Government. I think that speaks to the overall lack of direction.

I think that here the Government has stumbled upon a good idea. Its promise, of course, as Mr Parker asked about, was to increase exports to 40 percent of GDP—

💬 Hon David Parker: And it’s gone backwards.

—and it has gone backwards. It has actually gone backwards and is now less than 30 percent. I think the member draws attention to a very important point, because that was a reasonable goal to have, I think. I think setting it at 40 percent was achievable when it was set, if the Government had adopted the right strategies—if it had consistently adopted strategies that looked to extract the maximum value out of New Zealand produce and New Zealand industry for the betterment of the country.

💬 Hon David Parker: New export industries.

But, unfortunately, it has neglected new export industries. It has failed to take advantage of our innovative industries here. I mean, I think of another example, the biofuels sales obligation brought in by the last Labour Government. I think the Hon David Parker was responsible for that one. It was a very forward-looking piece of legislation, and the Government lost the opportunity.

I will come back to the main purpose of the bill, which, of course, is about progress overall and the effective marketing of products. But that progress could be broadened, and that is the general point I was trying to make. We welcome it in this particular instance, but marketing our products appropriately is something that should be broadened and should be done more widely to ensure the best value for New Zealand through collaboration.

The regulatory impact statement is something that I have had a chance to have a quick look at. Some of the assumptions in the bill that have not been fully explored are drawn to attention in that document, and the one that sticks in my mind is the fact that the Government has not really canvassed the industry at a deep level to understand how widely this will be implemented. The Government has had some discussions, and I am encouraged by that. It has spoken with the industry and it has had positive feedback on this proposal. But it has not actually dug into the flexibility and efficiency as it will be applied. It has not actually dug in and done deeper market testing to see whether the industry will respond to the incentives set up and achieve the best possible outcomes—I think the industry will, and I think it has taken a good punt.

I do not want to be too critical of the Government here, because it is moving in the right direction. I congratulate it. I just wish that it would take more of these sensible steps in the House—not like the previous bill we debated, an eviscerated set of legislation that had been introduced to the House before it was ready, before it had been consulted on. Here we have some legislation that has been consulted on, that takes New Zealand forward, that adds value to our exports and, hopefully, moves us closer to that 40 percent target. We have got to get back over the start line, having gone backwards from 30 percent when this Government took office—30 percent of GDP being exports. Now we are below that and we have got to start moving up that ladder, up the value chain.

New Zealand deserves a prosperous future. New Zealanders deserve a prosperous future. We have got the imaginative business people, we have got the entrepreneurs, but they are being held back by a Government that too seldom supports the industries it purports to represent. Labour will support this bill. We do want this industry to get ahead. We want to see a more prosperous New Zealand. We want to see the efforts of our exporters rewarded appropriately and we want, of course, the benefits that go with that for all of our country. So, without further ado, I do recommend this bill be supported. I am happy to add my voice to that plea and look forward to the further progress of this bill through the House.

Well, as has already been said, the New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Amendment Bill—what is not to like about it—is an enabling piece of legislation. It enables an industry that is already doing very well, despite the lower dairy prices. I am pleased to see the dairy prices moving in the right direction, but, despite that, this industry in particular has been one of the industries that has done some of the heavy lifting. Exports have gone up tremendously.

I think one of the key things in this particular industry and this legislation is that it is about scale. It is about industries being able to aggregate, or producers being able to aggregate, their products and sell them in a market. When the exporter attempts to sell their goods overseas in the export market, the first thing the purchasers are going to look at is the quality of the goods; they will look at the price, they will look at the ability to supply, and they will look at scale. If you do not tick all those boxes, then it is very difficult to sell to a producer.

So although on a small scale at the local market the producer of avocados can sell quite easily beside another avocado producer, going into an export market simply will not work, because the purchaser does not want to buy New Zealand avocados from 10 different suppliers; they would like that volume from one. So this legislation enables that very thing to happen. It is not just that supply issue; it is about a more integrated system for the quality of the goods, the size—all of those issues. That sort of thing is what a purchaser wants. There is no doubt about it that this legislation, in fact, deals with all of that.

We had 10 submitters who came before the committee. It was fantastic. They were all absolutely wanting this bill across the line as quickly as possible, because they see the benefits of it. Rino Tirikatene mentioned this before in his very good speech about the boxes that had to be ticked. Having had quite a bit of experience in this area myself, I say that the fact that you have to get 60 percent of the producers—and those votes have to represent at least 60 percent of the goods produced both from the producer and the exporter—is quite a high bar to get across. But if you have not got that level of support, then perhaps you should not really be doing it. So I support that. There was some angst, I guess, in that, and the committee considered that and, I think, made, quite rightly, the right decision.

I also think that before a regulation, an Order in Council, is passed, having the Minister take into account and consider all of the evidence before him—and it is all documented—is a very good step and very sound. This is a great bill, its time has come, and it is a great pleasure for me to commend it to the House. Thank you.

I rise on behalf of Richard Prosser to take a call on the New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Amendment Bill’s second reading. You can just picture it—it is like the industry came to a Government representative and said: “We want to tidy this up, we want to fix a few things up, we need to modernise it, and we need to elevate our game, but we’re going to need your help in legislation.” You can imagine one of those MPs on that side of the House there going: “So what do you want?”. “Well, what we need”—they would tell the Government—“is we want to be able to, effectively, charge higher prices, increase yield through an integrated approach, and we need legislation to do it.” You can just picture the MP on that side of the House going “OK, OK, but it is going to take quite a long time to make it happen.”, and the industry rep says: “No, we need you to do it now. It’s critical. We need it to happen.” The National MP goes “Well, OK, we’ll help you out. We’ll do it now, but what if we add this to it and this to it?”, and the industry rep goes: “No, leave it alone. Don’t touch it. It’s good as it is, and this will work just how we want it to.”, and the National MP goes “Well, OK, OK, we won’t do that, but what if we add this?”. You can just picture the industry rep looking them in the eye, saying: “Leave it alone. Do it.”

I take that creative licence in the House today because this is a good piece of legislation that does what it seeks to do in a simple, eloquent, straightforward way, so it made me think that those on that side of the House did not write it. They could not have, is basically the summation there. New Zealand First is supporting this bill because we do believe it will achieve its written objective, and I will take some of the time of the House this evening just to enunciate why we think that is the case.

You will forgive me for using some script here for specific detail, but what we are doing is amending the 1987 Act to provide more flexibility, which is what the industry—they did come to the Government to say they needed this flexibility for the growers and exporters of horticultural products so they can target their marketing strategies to meet the needs of specific markets. Originally, the group was achieving its goals but, as they said and as the contributions noted, they need the update, and I think my little skit illustrated what that conversation looked like.

There are some administrative processes that were cleaned up. There was clarification around the requirements for the product groups to enter—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! I am going to ask the member to resume his seat. All members have in front of them the explanatory note of the bill, and reading the explanatory note of the bill—even with a few insertions—does not add anything to the House. I will say at the same time that I realise the member is not the member who is familiar with it, but unless someone is a member, including a Minister, in charge of a bill, or asking a question for another member, or is replying for another Minister or member, one does not do it on a member’s behalf. The member is speaking and the requirements are the same. Can I ask him, if he has got something to say, to say it, but not just to read out the front page of the bill. Thank you.

My apologies, Mr Assistant Speaker. My notes were such that I thought that I was speaking words to the effect of the front page but not the front page itself, so I apologise to you.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): I can read it.

The administrative update, which I apologise for reading in the exact detail—in terms of the unavailability of that person and conflicts of interest, and making that a notifiable process for the group. But what I think is important from my perspective and from New Zealand First’s perspective are the changes to the tiers of the licence. What we had was an inability to be responsive. The industry came forward and said it had a 2-year process and it was probably taking too long, and I think that comes back to the flexibility noted in contributions earlier today—including from myself, actually. What it would do is we would have a 2-year turnover, and that was actually holding back some of the industry players who were wanting to be a bit more responsive to the needs of the market or, in fact, potential markets, and so it moved to the 1-year process. Those concerns were raised and they were dealt with.

In fact, the Persimmon Industry Council agreed that the flexibility would provide practical options for exporters who wished to use that second-tier process, which was and is important, as we note. Assistant Speaker Mallard is being quite strict on me in terms of detail, and perhaps I might acknowledge a bit of repetition, and I do not want to waste the House’s time, but I do want to add and conclude, though—and I think it was spoken of before by one of the previous speakers from Labour—by noting the goals for the New Zealand export market set by that Government over there, the National Party members over there. It was at the time what looked like a very sensible and achievable goal with regard to growing exports as a percentage of GDP to that 40 percent mark.

What we have here is almost a fluke, because industry players actually have come to the members opposite and said that they wanted this legislation—and what do you know? Actually, we have got legislation that we believe will enable a growth in quantity and an increase in yield from that quantity, which is just as important in New Zealand First’s position on exports. We do want that value added and we support efforts that make that happen. We do want to support the growth of volume and yield. This is a win-win for industry and New Zealand, and there is no reason, when you read the legislation in detail, to oppose it.

We hope it achieves what the industry set out to do, but we do note, again, that the buy-in is optional and the measure of participation going forward has yet to be established. So we do watch, and we hope that the industry, having set that support through legislation, uses it, and it does achieve the goals for which it is intended. Thank you for your patience, Mr Assistant Speaker.

It is my pleasure to speak to the second reading of this bill. The Green Party supports the bill. My colleagues on the Primary Production Committee have engaged in the select committee stage and we welcome the improvements that have been made. We appreciate that different grade standards have now been included in export marketing strategies, and we agree, also, with the changes to the tiers of the licence. We also think that the bill will contribute to a number of Green Party policies that support farmer- and industry-led initiatives. It helps diversify our primary production away from dairy products. It supports value-added activity, and potentially leverages our clean, green reputation.

We note the variety of products that are included—avocados, blackcurrants, boysenberries, buttercup squash, nashi pears, summer fruit, and tamarillos—and we recognise that these are only some of the fruits and veges that New Zealand produces that are suitable for export. We welcome the fact there has been a huge increase in revenues from the Horticulture Export Authority, from $50 million to almost $300 million in 2015—that is a mark of the progress that has been made.

We would say that it is about time that this bill has been introduced. The latest report from the New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority notes that five previous annual reports have highlighted the need for an amended New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Act to provide more flexibility to the sector and appeal to a broader range of sector groups. Given the potential contribution of this sector to boosting primary sector exports, we think it is a wasted opportunity that the Government has not moved faster to introduce this bill, especially since, as has already been pointed out, the Government has been failing to meet its export targets. We note that a review of the Act—

I apologise for interrupting the member. This debate is interrupted and is set down for resumption on the next sitting day.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.