PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) : I would like to continue my speech by giving thanks to those submitters to and members of the Primary Production Committee who worked with David Carter, our chairperson, and me on the Animal Products (Dairy Products and Other Matters) Bill. We had just a small number of submissions, but they were substantial, because this legislation affects a substantial industry in this country—the dairy industry. I acknowledge, in particular, the Dairy Companies Association of New Zealand, which was able to brief the select committee on the minutiae of this bill. Officials had covered that to some degree for us, but they had not foreseen some of the consequences of passing this legislation.

For example, the Dairy Companies Association of New Zealand pointed out an issue around the testing of operations inside dairy factories and dairy sheds. Regulation 8(3)(c) of new schedule 6, inserted by schedule 2, is: “(c) to enable a person to do whatever is necessary or desirable to respond to a finding that a residue in dairy material or product is unsafe or suspected to be so.” Members will recall that this bill is all about quality standards and food safety, not just in New Zealand but internationally, so for the bill to empower any person to do what is necessary or desirable to respond to a finding of a residue is quite an interesting point. The association was quite concerned that that is quite a broad power; it is a power that gives any individual huge responsibility. It was those types of submission that were of significant use to us.

This bill will come into force with the National Party’s support, because it updates the Dairy Industry Act of 1952 that currently regulates the dairy industry in relation to trade in dairy products and to food safety issues. Food safety administration in New Zealand, as it is overseas, has moved a long way since 1952, over half a century ago. International trends, international rules, and multilateral arrangements and agreements have to be adhered to. They were not foreseen in 1952, and we need to do something now. This bill facilitates the entry of the dairy industry into a climate of inter-country negotiations in relation not just to dairy products but to the offspring products that we do not necessarily equate with the dairy industry yet that originate from it.

The committee took great interest in the fact that there was a call from the industry to make sure that there is a legislative platform not only for Government to Government agreements but for access requirements across trade barriers, so that trade can occur between those seeking market access and those receiving goods from our country—that is to say, that official assurances can be given even if no Government to Government agreement exists. The reason for that is that traders, particularly those in the dairy industry, are often outstripping or moving well ahead of the bureaucrats. Those negotiating Government to Government agreements, or multilateral agreements where more than two Governments are involved, often take many, many years, whereas marketers—particularly those in the dairy industry, who are so proactive—are often well ahead in terms of marketing their products into countries where Governments have not reached agreement, at all. So there is in this bill the ability for a lower level agreement to be made through official Government assurances even when some formal multilateral arrangement is not in place.

There was a call from the industry, and we in the National Party acknowledge it, that the Director-General of Agriculture and Forestry should not be able to issue notices specifying the requirements to be met in relation to animal material or products that are to be exported—in other words, to make assurances to other countries that those goods are OK and that they have been given the thumbs up in terms of quality standards—and that those notices should not be put forward by any Government to another Government before there is consultation with the industry. We thought that that was a good call from the industry, because the industry, particularly dairy companies around New Zealand, could provide the checks and balances necessary to make sure that all market access requirements and food quality standards are met.

The bureaucrats may not necessarily have had that information. However, officials put to us that there are particular reasons why consultation at that level of detail is not necessary. The main reason is that the turnaround time for consultation with the industry every time a Government wants to make assurances to another country would prohibit trade and involve the industry in the minutiae of negotiations. We would have the issue of having to do a deal and close it because we are trading product—it is a competitive environment; we have to get on with the job—when the industry guys are demanding some sort of consultation procedure. The committee accepted, for the good of “New Zealand Incorporated” and for the dairy industry as a whole, that that should not happen.

As I say, there are four main reasons for that. The first is that there is often an urgent nature around the resolution of Government to Government agreements, so that access is gained to a particular market at a particular time through that short window of opportunity. That is the first reason. Secondly, minor or technical changes mean that the increased costs of consultation, not just in terms of time but in terms of money, resources, and people, make it completely unnecessary—where there is small detail around the fringes, why would anyone have to consult with a whole industry? The third reason is that many negotiations are restricted and confidential, and consultation would mean opening up those confidences to the wider industry. A Government to Government agreement that might involve just one particular dairy company, or strategy within that company, would be opened up to the view of competitors. That is often sensitive information and it would be inappropriate to do that. The fourth reason is that the New Zealand Food Safety Authority undertakes consultation with the industry on a continuing and regular basis, anyway. It knows where the expertise is, so why would it need to go back to the industry at every step of a Government to Government negotiation?

Those are the reasons why the National Party has supported the status quo in the bill—not to go back to the industry time and time again through a negotiation but rather to ensure that the industry is standing right beside Government officials during the period of the negotiation and that officials are well briefed beforehand. We support that view. If we recognise the ability of the dairy industry historically to get into markets overseas and to make a success of that, we must always include that industry when we are involved in marketing strategies, particularly at the higher level Government to Government agreements.

There are also issues around cost recovery in transition, whereby levies have been paid historically under the previous Act and are not necessarily rolled over into this bill, and around whether they should be refunded. We would like to address those issues during the Committee stage, because we have some concerns that levies will be charged twice from the industry and ask whether that is fair. I would be interested to hear members’ points of view on that matter during the Committee stage before the National Party presents any amendments. It is doubtful that we will do so, but that might possibly be the case. National commends this second reading of the bill to the House.

Hon MITA RIRINUI (Minister of State) : I stand very briefly to support the Animal Products (Dairy Products and Other Matters) Bill, and I thank the previous speaker for his supportive comments. I also congratulate all members of the Primary Production Committee on the important work they undertook in relation to this bill, by ensuring that it went through a thorough consideration and had an unimpeded return to the House.

I feel it necessary, though, to reiterate many of the points outlined in the bill. As the previous speaker has already detailed, the bill provides for the regulation of the dairy industry under the Animal Products Act of 1999, and it repeals the Dairy Industry Act of 1952.

The bill has two very important public policy objectives. The first is to manage risks to human and animal health from the consumption and use of dairy products, and the second is to facilitate the entry of dairy products to overseas markets. This bill is very important to this country and to the industry and, coming from a dairy farming background, I for one can quite clearly state the excitement of the industry out there.

As stated by the previous speaker, the bill is required because of the limitations of the Dairy Industry Act. That Act has increasingly presented difficulties for both the Government and the industry. The bill will also provide a flexible means of managing current and potential risks posed by dairy material and dairy products.

Finally, another important matter to keep in mind is that the dairy industry is New Zealand’s largest industry, worth $5.81 billion to this economy annually. I do not have too much more to say to the bill, but once again I congratulate the Minister, the select committee, and the parties on both sides of the House.

R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) : New Zealand First will support this bill. We commend it to the House and support its being passed into legislation.

The dairy industry provides 25 percent of New Zealand’s exports, which I think is a particularly relevant figure. I know that it is not fashionable to separate areas of financial activity, but we in New Zealand First happen to believe that exporting is vital to our country and that exporters should be helped in any way possible.

Hon Ken Shirley: In any way possible?

R DOUG WOOLERTON: In many ways possible, as well! When this bill was being considered, we thought about removing regulations, keeping the status quo, mending the Dairy Industry Act, or having a new Dairy Industry Act, but in the final analysis it was agreed that provisions about dairy products should be integrated into the Animal Products Act, and that is what this bill does.

On behalf of our farmers and our major exporters we spend a lot of time, and the bureaucrats and the people in the Government on whom we rely to facilitate such matters spend a huge amount of time, to ensure that access to other countries for our products is—to the degree it can be—guaranteed. That is not an easy task. We are constantly having to update Acts and to rejig the things we do in New Zealand in order to line them up with the restrictive regulations of other countries—regulations that are really no more or no less than non-tariff barriers.

So that is the market where we are putting our product. It is not a friendly market; it is a hard-won market. We have thousands of people in New Zealand working hard to ensure that we remain in that market.

I will not go on about the details of the bill. I worked with a very wise gentleman for many years in the milk business. I was deputy chairman of the company.

Ian Ewen-Street: The milkman?

R DOUG WOOLERTON: No, I was not a milkman, but I might as well have been. At the time those people in the business were earning more than I was, actually.

He was a very wise gentleman, my chairman, and he always used to say to me—and it has stood me in good stead—“Doug, don’t worry about the figures. We pay people to do that. Doug, don’t worry about whether the grammar is right or whether the full stops are in the right place. We rely on their education to do all those things. What you have to look for is to make sure that what they are trying to achieve is what we as shareholders are trying to achieve, and to make sure that we are not working in their interests but that we are working in our shareholders’ interests.” I like to regard things that go through this Parliament in the same light, with the people of New Zealand—and particularly in this case the dairy farmers and the people employed by them upstream and downstream—being substituted for the shareholders.

It is important that we facilitate in any way we can the streamlining of regulations and those things that add costs to our industry participants, and this bill to a degree helps to do that. There is a clause that enables the Director-General of Agriculture and Forestry to give official assurances. Those things all used to be given in various degrees by a wonderful organisation called the Dairy Board, and I had a lot of time for the men and women who worked for that board.

They used to work at the cutting edge. The cutting edge was not technology; it was the law—international law. They used to work around it, up to it, and to all sides of it to get our products out. I admired those people for their entrepreneurial spirit and for the fact that they were able to push the boundaries to the absolute maximum, if sometimes a little too far. I would like to think that that spirit is still alive and well in Fonterra today.

Those people were the guys who used to sign off the sorts of things that we will now ask the director-general to sign off, and I think that with the entrepreneurial brains available in Fonterra, our major exporter, it is fine that the director-general takes over that role. I think it is quite right that a governmental person has that role rather than a quasi-Government body, or an industry body as the Dairy Board used to be.

We agree with the contents of this bill and we will support it, but I have to say that we must always be aware that we are here in this Parliament to try to make things easier for the people who produce for this country and for the people who export. By doing so, we can bring in the money that allows us to import what my father used to call luxury goods, and he used to frown on that as only a person who has been through the Depression could frown on things such as nice cars, nice lounge suites, and even nice food, I might say. I grew up in very hard and tough times, and I like to think that I still have empathy for those people. For that reason, New Zealand First will support this bill.

IAN EWEN-STREET (Green) : The Greens will support this bill, but I personally find myself with a degree of ambivalence about it. My head tells me that bringing dairy products into line with other food products makes sense. My head tells me that reducing risks to consumers from pathogens also makes sense. So my head tells me that supporting this bill makes sense.

But my ambivalence is due to a sense of loss—a loss of innocence or something. I cannot quite put my finger on it. It marks the passing of the time when food products in New Zealand were safe simply because they were grown in New Zealand.

Maybe it is a function of my age. After all, I am old enough to remember the “milko” coming to my parents’ home in a horse-drawn cart, if one can believe it, and ladling the milk from a steel can into a steel billy, on our back doorstep. In retrospect, of course, I know that that whole process was entirely unsanitary, and I am certainly not advocating a return to it.

Milk, as somebody said, is a bacterial soup that is just waiting to be an expert transmitter of all sorts of infections and diseases. It needs to be pasteurised, handled hygienically, and kept cold. So bringing all stages of milk production under a risk management programme—from the cow’s teat to the foreign consumer—makes a lot of sense.

Of course it makes sense, but I am still a bit saddened by the process. I still mourn the passing of simpler times, when the quality of the product was paramount to the farmer. The idea of extracting maximum productivity from each blade of grass was still years away—even decades away for Mr Carter. Times were when cows grazed on the available pasture, and we did not force-feed grass with overdoses of nitrogen, superphosphate, and other chemicals. Times were when we did not have to transport irrigation water many kilometres in order to grow cows where they did not want to grow naturally. Times were when we did not need to generate more electricity to pump that water or to run the cowsheds.

These days, of course, it is the export of milk solids that is the imperative in the dairy industry. That industry is the only primary industry in New Zealand that provides a genuine commodity on the international scene. That commodity is the only thing about which we are genuinely internationally competitive, so it must have guaranteed production systems.

We must always be able to provide a product of the highest quality. We all know that. The production system must be verifiable and accountable, and exporters must know what they are getting. Any trace of pathogens or bad husbandry must be traceable back to individual herds, and once a herd is identified we can get back to individual cows.

My head knows those things, but my heart still grieves for the small operators whose doors now must always be open to bureaucracy, who face large compliance costs in maintaining their risk management programmes, and who always have to be aware that somebody will come knocking on their doors wanting to inspect what they are doing. I am sad for the solid Kiwi sharemilker who just wants to get out there and milk cows. Those sharemilkers have always done it well, always done it efficiently, and always done it in a way that ensures a safe product.

But the pressure to produce more has almost converted dairy cows into factories. We put in grass at one end and we get milk out at the other end. We put more and more chemicals on to our pasture, and we put more and more chemicals into our cows. One thing I think we overlook is that we are tending to specialise in grass species, as well. We are putting fewer and fewer grass species in front of the cows, so we are making the ecosystem consist of fewer and fewer elements, and it becomes less and less robust as we do that. Now, of course, some people also want to introduce genetic engineering—but let us not go down that road.

Yes, of course we need our risk management programmes. We need to have verifiability; we need to have accountability; we need to have traceability. We need to make sure that our food products are safe. My head says to vote for this bill, but I confess that my heart is not in it.

Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) : I was not going to take a call, but I found the previous contribution so interesting that I thought I would add to it. The ACT party, like, I think, every other party, will support this legislation, and that is why I do not wish to prolong the debate any longer than is necessary. But the Green spokesperson made some very interesting points. He made the observation that milk is actually a big bacterial soup—I think that was his language. He was dead right. It is also one of the most versatile products we have, after oil. An enormous array of products is made from milk and caseinates. Then the member had a romantic notion when he recalled how in his childhood the milkman used to arrive in his horse-drawn cart and ladle milk out into a billy. It makes one wonder what part of New Zealand he lived in and what decade that was.

Ian Ewen-Street: It was in Australia.

Hon KEN SHIRLEY: Was it in Australia? The member has just revealed the fact that he is an Australian; that may explain it.

There are issues of reality, if one wants to trade internationally: one has to maintain quality standards and have a standard product. Whether or not we like it, we should rejoice in the New Zealand milk industry—one of our biggest export earners, a major success story, and a key component of the New Zealand economy. But it is interesting to see the double standards. In order to trade into Europe we must maintain our standards; we must have pasteurised milk and everything in stainless steel. But the Swiss make wonderful cheeses, and they make them in old wooden boxes with non-pasteurised milk. In fact, they insist that the best cheeses need to be made in the wooden crates, because the bacteria live and thrive in the wood frame that produces the cheese. If one really wants to make that top-flavoured cheese, one would need to use the old techniques of wood and non-pasteurised milk. Of course, one would then run the risk of listeria and serious diseases like that. Hence, with our large factory production, we cannot take those risks, but must adopt standards that assure the purchasers of our products that there is minimal risk of pathogens—close to zero—and must give the assurances and have the systems in place to ensure that.

The ACT party supports this bill.

LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) : I stand on behalf of United Future to support the second reading of the Animal Products (Dairy Products and Other Matters) Bill. This bill is a worthy example of what can be done to ensure best industry practice, fairness, long-term sustainability, and added value. There is nothing in the report back from the Primary Production Committee that suggests that United Future should re-evaluate its position of support for this legislation. It is a common-sense bill that will greatly benefit the dairy industry in this country. The introduction of reforms pursuant to this bill has been long awaited, and is absolutely necessary to help ensure that New Zealand’s valuable dairy industry remains in good order.

The bill is, in large part, a mechanism to bring the industry up to date, and to ensure that standards of best practice and efficiency are firmly put in place. The bill before the House rescinds the antiquated Dairy Industry Act, which is 51 years old, and consolidates a mix of legislation, some of which can be traced back to 1892. The Act is unyielding and prescriptive. The time has indeed come to put that Act out to pasture.

Because all parties in the House will support this legislation, United Future will keep its contribution brief at this stage. We will make further comments at the third reading, which we hope will occur later this week so that this useful and very common-sense legislation can be put into law for the benefit of the dairying industry.

Hon DAVID CARTER (National) : It is a pleasure to take a call on the Animal Products (Dairy Products and Other Matters) Bill. I say at the outset that my colleague on the Primary Production Committee Phil Heatley has excellently analysed the technicalities of the bill, so I will confine my comments more to some of the politics of it.

Firstly, the fact that the bill received very few submissions—there were four submissions on the bill itself and two submissions on the Supplementary Order Paper—in no way decreases the importance of this legislation to our dairy industry.

The second point I want to make was touched on by my parliamentary and select committee colleague the New Zealand First member Doug Woolerton. He reminded the House in his contribution that dairy products now make up 25 percent of New Zealand’s exports. That means that this economy is vitally dependent on the future of the dairy industry. Doug Woolerton made the interesting comment that it is no longer fashionable to talk about New Zealand’s dependence on the dairy industry. I take grave issue with that view. I think it should be entirely fashionable to talk about the importance of the dairy industry to this country. [Interruption] Dianne Yates now has something to say. She had nothing to say earlier, but she is totally agreeing with me that, yes, it is fashionable to talk about the importance of the dairy industry to New Zealand.

We are now so dependent on dairying as the major contribution to export earnings that no other industry in New Zealand comes anywhere near to matching its importance. Therefore, New Zealanders ought to take note of what happens to commodity prices in that industry. To the benefit of the current Labour Government, those prices are at an all-time high, not because of any action taken by the Labour Government but because of world markets. So I take the opportunity to remind all New Zealanders of the importance of the agricultural economy, and particularly the dairy industry, to New Zealand.

The third point I want to make concerns the rather unusual occurrence whereby the bill and a Supplementary Order Paper were presented to the select committee at exactly the same time. That shows particularly unsatisfactory drafting by the Minister. My first reaction when I heard in the middle of last year that this legislation was coming to the House was again to think that Jim Sutton—“Silent Sutton”, as he is now known throughout New Zealand—had been particularly sloppy with it. But I was prepared to excuse him because, after 5½ long years of “Silent Sutton” looking after the agriculture portfolio, it appeared that he had finally had the initiative to bring into the House some legislation that might be helpful to the agriculture industry. Surprise, surprise, when we actually got to see the bill when it was brought into the House for its first reading, we found that it was not in the name of the Hon Jim Sutton, at all; it was in the name of the Hon Annette King, the Minister for Food Safety.

The point I make is that Mr Sutton finally had the opportunity to do something creditable for the farming community—to do something that could have ruined the very bad track record he has established over 5½ long years of giving nothing back to the agricultural sector—with this particular legislation, but that opportunity has now passed Minister Sutton by. He still has the unenviable record of not having promoted any piece of legislation that he can claim to have initiated, and that he can claim has made things easier for New Zealand farmers.

I was at a public meeting in Feilding yesterday amongst many, many farmers. One of the people at that meeting stood up and suggested that the Hon “Silent” Jim Sutton was responsible for the dairy reform that had taken place—the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act of, I think, 2000. “Wrong again!”, I had to say to that person. Jim Sutton only tidied up what had been initiated by the previous National Government. It was John Luxton, as the Minister responsible for agriculture, who in around 1998 staked his career on making sure that we deregulated our dairy industry. It was he and he alone who was at the forefront of the formation of Fonterra, which to date has been a remarkably successful enterprise for the New Zealand dairy industry. Mr Sutton came along after all the work had been done, and happened to be in the position to attach his name to the legislation, but I remind the House that he can take little or no credit for it.

As Mr Phil Heatley outlined very well, the Animal Products (Dairy Products and Other Matters) Bill facilitates trade. Of course the National Party supports anything that facilitates trade. In that regard, this legislation is particularly helpful. But it gives me the opportunity to think about the fact that already, because of the Labour Government, the dairy farmer in Australia has a significant advantage over the dairy farmer in New Zealand. I am referring, of course, to the free-trade agreement that Australia has negotiated with the United States of America—something that should have been available to New Zealand but was not, because the American Government quite rightly became fed up with the insults that were being tossed at it by our current Prime Minister, Helen Clark.

Ian Ewen-Street: Jolly good!

Hon DAVID CARTER: The Green member interjects. He says it is “jolly good” that Helen Clark has taken every opportunity to insult the Americans to the extent that the Americans will not allow New Zealanders to have a free-trade agreement with them although the Australians have one. Ian Ewen-Street goes on record tonight as saying that that is good for New Zealand. I say to the member that that is crazy. In every international market for our dairy products we compete with the Australians. In every market, Australia either has the lion’s share of the market with us a close second, or we have the lion’s share of the market with Australia a close second. But we are cut out of the one important market—the United States of America, which is still the biggest economy in the world—because the Australians now have a very significant advantage. And Ian Ewen-Street and Labour say that that is good for New Zealand. Well, I say that that is absolute rubbish. We are now light years behind the Australians in that regard, because of the insults of the Prime Minister to the American administration.

The important thing about this legislation is that it facilitates trade. We as a nation, particularly as we are so dependent on the dairy industry, must grab every trade opportunity that exists. The attitude expressed in this House tonight by Labour and by the Green Party is that one particular market—the United States of America—does not matter. It does. While this legislation is a step in the right direction to facilitate trade, we have another important opportunity: to seize every chance we get to negotiate a free-trade agreement with America.

In my closing comments I want to reiterate that Mr Sutton can take no credit at all for this legislation. It was handled very well by the select committee. It was put before the select committee by the Hon Annette King, the Minister for Food Safety. I still hope to see Mr Jim Sutton, before he loses his job as the Minister of Agriculture after the general election, at least take the opportunity to introduce some legislation that he can claim makes things easier for New Zealand farmers.

Hon Rick Barker: That member will never get it.

Hon DAVID CARTER: I say to the member interjecting that if Mr Sutton were to do that, we might see an end to the motions of no confidence in the Minister of Agriculture that have been moved round New Zealand—something that I have never seen before in my time in New Zealand politics.

SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) : I wish to take a short call to wind up the discussion on the Animal Products (Dairy Products and Other Matters) Bill. Much of the detail has been canvassed by my very able and competent colleagues from the Primary Production Committee, the Hon David Carter and Phil Heatley, both here and in the work they did with the committee.

Essentially, this legislation grapples with the complex issue of food safety and, in particular, with how that issue relates to global marketplaces. Until now, the particular regulation of the dairy industry has been dealt with by the Dairy Industry Act of 1952, legislation that, if I am correct, came in at about the time Harry Truman was President of the United States.

Hon Ken Shirley: I remember it well.

SIMON POWER: The Hon Ken Shirley remembers it well. I wish I could, but I say to him that it was probably a bit before my time. However, when put in those terms, it is clear just how old the industry’s dominant and governing piece of legislation is. It was necessary legislation for the Primary Production Committee to consider. It was important that regulation around food safety and dairy products was updated not only to the 1960s but, more particularly, to a new century. Of course, at the time the original legislation governing the dairy industry was enacted we lived in a very different and protectionist period. I see Ian Ewen-Street looking back on those days fondly, wishing that Harry Truman was still President of the United States and that it was still 1952. But time moves on.

This legislation is designed to capture broadly the global perspective that is necessary for those markets to operate efficiently and, more particularly, to recognise that some legislation and regulation around food safety is necessary. I must say that I found the Green member’s head versus heart contribution to the debate—

Phil Heatley: Moving.

SIMON POWER: I would not go quite as far as that. I think that the Green member knows what is right, and I would be very surprised indeed if the Greens did not vote for this legislation, given their particular—and I choose a kind word—“obsession” with food safety. One had only to tune into question time today to see exactly how concerned the Greens are about these issues.

The fact that the dairy industry will now have its produce covered by legislation such as this means that it is important legislation for the House to recognise. Although it is worth noting in the commentary, as my colleague Phil Heatley pointed out, that “while consultation would provide checks and balances” to the New Zealand Food Safety Authority, we consider, perhaps, that it is not practical to consult on all market access requirements. Part of that is because the turn-round time on that consultation may result in lags and hold-ups. In a truly global market, taking advantage of those offshore markets in a quick and efficient way would not be possible with those levels of consultation holding matters up. In fact, it could be seen—I guess in a miniature way—as a sort of Resource Management Act of the dairy industry. Part of this is important, but being fleet of foot and being able to access those international markets at short notice is perhaps even more important. This legislation, whilst referring to the consultation as checks and balances, I think provides the necessary framework for that market agility to occur at the point at which we want to access those markets. We would find ourselves in some difficulty, frankly, if we did not have a bit of flexibility around those types of hurdles before accessing the markets where negotiations were otherwise confidential, or restricted.

I do not have a great deal more to add other than to reiterate my main point, which is that the previous legislation governing the dairy industry in 1952 was current when Harry Truman was President, and it is time to move on. It is time for a new legislative framework—

Hon David Carter: A great man.

SIMON POWER: He was a great man in many ways—even for a Democrat. In fact, history has remembered him better than his contemporaries have. But this is not a discussion about Harry Truman; it is a discussion about this dairy industry legislation. I just say this: the time is right, and I believe that this House will support this legislation in a way that shows that every party in this Parliament understands the importance of international markets, global access, and being able to be fleet of foot when making decisions, meeting the food safety requirements, and getting our goods into those markets to benefit this economy.

JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui) : There have been some very positive speeches tonight. I think that that speaks volumes, and it speaks significantly about the recognition by this House of the importance of the Animal Products (Dairy Products and Other Matters) Bill, and of the importance of agriculture to this country’s economy.

There are occasionally times in this House when we all rise together in support of legislation that is in the country’s best interest. I am pleased to take this very brief opportunity to congratulate colleagues who have spoken well, and to support the bill.

SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) : I was not expecting to take a call on the Animal Products (Dairy Products and Other Matters) Bill tonight, but I am pleased that I have the opportunity. It is interesting to note that there is confusion between myself and the whip, but I will talk to him about that later.

This is very important legislation that we are debating here tonight, because it is for an industry that contributes 25 percent of this country’s export earnings. It is the largest single industry in New Zealand, and I will never let this Parliament forget it. It is the biggest industry in New Zealand, and it is made up of 13,500 hard-working New Zealanders—the mums and dads that this Government purports to represent but never has. The Prime Minister has never mentioned them once in her opening speeches to Parliament—there has not been one single mention of the dairy industry or of agriculture.

This legislation will help that industry to get on with what it is good at, which is trading internationally. As previous speakers have said, this bill updates the 1952 Dairy Industry Act, which of course has fallen by the way, as it were, in a number of ways because it is so old. This industry is a very modern one and trades now in a wide range of different products. Because of that, legislation needs to be updated to assist the industry with its trade. The dairy industry not only exports products commonly known as commodities but has also gone into products now like pharmaceuticals and nutraceuticals. In fact, the biggest growth in the industry is in that value-added end, and that is why this legislation has been recommended by the industry to tidy up some of the loose ends that have occurred as a result of some of that sophistication.

This bill was considered by the Primary Production Committee. I know that that is a very, very good select committee, and that those who are on it would have given due consideration to some of the issues raised by various submitters from the industry. It is my understanding that all of those who submitted to the committee were in favour of this legislation. It is very seldom—and the member for Whanganui touched on this—that we have total support for legislation in this Parliament. But when we have all submitters in favour, right across all sectors, then we will of course always have a much more supportive House in relation to getting the legislation passed. The legislation upgrades a number of areas within the dairy industry’s trading arms, and for that reason the industry came forward and asked for it to be passed.

I have been a part of this industry all my life. It has been much maligned at times by political commentators and other economic experts—Treasurers and the like—who purport to have some knowledge in this area. But I say to them that they should front up with some facts at times, instead of being sideline critics and taking cheap shots at what has been a remarkable growth industry over the last 10 years. In fact, the industry has grown faster than any other industry in New Zealand, so I say to critics to front up with some facts about how it could have done better.

There was much debate in the House not that long ago about the structure of the industry, and whether Parliament should be involved in the formation of Fonterra. I think history has proved the critics wrong. The industry has gone forward, overwhelmingly, and it is still growing strongly. I will be interested to hear contributions from others, though, because I know that they may have a different view.

This industry is still growing strongly and I wish it well with its current negotiations in Australia, because yet again that will be another major frontier from where we can push forward into a market of 19 million people, then have leverage off that into the South-east Asian area. I say to the industry: “Good luck with your negotiations in that regard.” I will not add too much detail to that because I know that some of it is still confidential, and I know that plenty out there will be taking cheap shots at it, as well.

I say as well that this industry is not only very good in its marketing structures but it is also very good in its manufacturing structures. The dairy company site in my area in the south of Taranaki—in the member for Whanganui’s electorate, I hasten to add—is still the largest single manufacturing site for dairy products in the world. Where else can we put our finger on an industry that has singularly been so successful? Not only is that dairy company the largest; it also manufactures over 2,000 different product ranges, from the very high-end, sophisticated pharmaceuticals and nutraceuticals to the basic commodities of skim-milk powder and suchlike.

The industry itself has gone through some growing pains, and there have been various times when parochialism and politics have had too much of an influence over it. But I guess the fact that we are now in a position where the dairy industry came to this Parliament to have a bill such as the one before us tonight tidied up, demonstrates to us that the industry is on top of the issues that concern it.

I was not a member of the select committee so I do not know exactly what was discussed or debated with regard to the number of issues that were raised in submissions, but I do know that those submissions were overwhelmingly in support of this change. So I recommend the bill to the House tonight, and I know that the House will support it. This is a very good day for the dairy industry.

Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) : I rise to support the Animal Products (Dairy Products and Other Matters) Bill, and I note that it is the Labour-Progressive Government that has introduced this legislation. It is the Labour-Progressive Government that has taken the concerns of the dairy industry on board. Despite the protestations of Opposition members, who normally just oppose, oppose, and oppose, we have put forward a very progressive bill that will protect the interests of the dairy industry in the long term.

We are very concerned about the dairy industry’s well-being. The progress of the dairy industry is vital to the health of the New Zealand economy, and this Government takes its obligations very seriously indeed. I think that Opposition parties have been churlish in their criticism of the Government when trying to claim that it does not take the interests of dairy farmers to heart. This bill is ample demonstration that it does. This Government is about action: there was an issue; we have dealt with it; and we will continue to deal with other issues in the future.

• Bill read a second time.