Appendix A: Submissions
(1) Summary of Submissions
Producer Perspective:
- Positive support for the continuation of the New Zealand Hop Marketing Board structure to handle domestic and overseas sales on behalf of all growers. Fear that deregulation will lead to fragmentation and disintegration of the hop industry. The Apple and Pear Board demonstrates a successful example of single desk selling while the Australian hop industry shows fragmentation since deregulation.
- The Board provides a structure to allow growers to band together and communicate with one voice when dealing with international companies. A disciplined marketing organisation is essential to allow the New Zealand hop industry to grow and prosper in the international market place. Current practices undertaken by the Board of development of specialist market niches and long term contracted opportunities are important to industry impetus.
- Voting for elected members of the Board should be weighted towards production, in line with finances that support its operations.
- Key reason for entry into the hop industry was the industry's reputation as a producer of hops. Therefore, if there are plans to relax import controls on hops or hop products, must ensure adequate plant health and quarantine standards - this is to guarantee the New Zealand industry is protected from any imported hop diseases.
- Accept the industry has a responsibility to encourage new entrants to the industry to fully participate.
- Orderly industry development depends on production guarantees and assignment to individuals of term contract opportunities.
- Expect deregulation to be detrimental to current New Zealand hop growers, especially the smaller ones. Believe there is adequate production to meet New Zealand Quota - new growers should be accommodated under the export quota.
- Funding of Research and Development through levies is likely to be impaired if the industry is fragmented.
Brewer Perspective
- Both hop variety ownership and the ongoing function of the Hop Research Committee require further discussion to satisfy DB Breweries. Other suggestions have already been noted.
- The New Zealand Independent Brewers Guild would like to see the statutory monopoly on the growing and sale of hops in New Zealand, abolished. Prefer to see "no bar" placed on any person wishing to grow and market hops (let the market decide). The introduction of a more competitive situation in the hop industry would provide net benefit in terms of pricing and quality. See huge growth potential, particularly in the export market.
- Anticipate significant increase in hop demand in the years ahead due to new brewing technology and better understanding of hops. New technology requires hops from overseas (New Zealand hops poisoned with excess phosphorus) and therefore hop importation necessary.
- Time for the regulatory structure of old to go and be replaced by a more competitive one. If a New Zealand brewer can give proof of disease free status of imported hops without the need to destroy hop quality by the imposed sterilisation regime, then there is no need for the Hop Marketing Regulations to continue. Would then expect grower co-operatives to develop.
Other Hop Industry Group Perspectives
- Changes to the way science is funded by the Crown has produced a strong incentive for close collaboration between the CRIs and industry sectors.
- Important that industry sectors, to maximise their competitive advantage, have the following:
- a recognised and effective structure for collection of levies applied fairly across the who]e sector;
- a mechanism for prioritising industry wide R&D needs;
- a procedure for rapidly disseminating information, technology, and new cultivars to growers.
- Under the present Hop Marketing Board structure, levies for R&D are applied on each kilogram of hops produced. A Hop Research Committee comprises representatives of the different sectors of the hop industry and is responsible for identifying, discussing and prioritising R&D needs. This arrangement has worked extremely well in the past, providing industry collaboration, stability, security of R&D programme and evidence to FoRST of good industry co-operation. If collection of the present levy becomes difficult, then application for a commodity levy should be encouraged.
- The present industry structure has made it possible to retain top quality New Zealand bred cultivars in New Zealand. In addition the structure will allow the industry to maximise opportunities resulting from this range of cultivars; look at overseas licensing possibilities and protect against unauthorised propagation and sale.
- The unity of growers is of paramount importance for continuing the marketing drive established by the current Board. It is this foundation on which the New Zealand hop industry has grown substantially in the past. Open competition on the domestic market between growers is likely to erode the unity between growers and lead to fragmentation of the Industry.
- The Board consider that a competitive domestic market is not essential to foster innovation and international competitiveness. From a controlled marketing base, the Board has developed export markets to the point where they now account for 80% of total sales.
- The Australian hop industry has recently gone through a process of deregulation resulting in the industry now being dominated by an American company called Haas. Brewers are worse off with inflated costs and Australian growers with lower prices. The view of a major Australian hop grower is that New Zealand should seek to protect their hop industry based on the Australian experience.
- Back in 1990, a proposal was developed by a number of players in the Australian hop industry. The proposal was to prevent a monopoly situation developing (assure competition); protect hop farmers fighting for their survival; safeguard future Australian hop export potential and guarantee the domestic brewing industry an adequate supply of quality hops at reasonable prices.
- The proposed Australian Federal Statutory Marketing Authority for hops suggested:
- A Governing Body, the Australian Hop Administrative Board (AHAB) to be established, with grower, brewer and Government representation
- A non transferable Quota system for domestic sales; opportunity for new~growers to obtain quotas and marketing through brokers
- Prices to be fixed yearly by the AHAB
- AHAB responsible for statistics and inspection AHAB responsible for new varieties
- AHAB have authority to decide on a levy.
(ii) List of Persons and Organisations making Submissions
| Person | Organisation | Address | |
| Producers | |||
| 1. | Tom Inglis | Inglis Estates | State Highway 60, Riwaka |
| 2. | Nick Patterson | Hinetai Hops Ltd | P0 Box 3178, Richmond |
| 3. | B J Francois | Grower | R D3, Motueka |
| 4. | P J & L A Heine | Grower | Main Rd, Upper Moutere |
| 5. | P H Bensemann | Grower | R D2, Upper Moutere |
| Brewers | |||
| 1. | D J Banks Technical |
DB Breweries Ltd Brewing Division |
P0 Box 22 043, Auckland |
| Manager | |||
| 2. | W Jameson Executive Director |
NZ Independent Brewers Guild, c/- Anchor Brewing Co (New Zealand) Ltd |
P0 Box 50477, Porirua |
| Other hop industry groups | |||
| 1. | Paul Glucha General Manager |
Hort Research Private Bag 92 169 |
Mt Albert Research Centre |
| Auckland | |||
| 2. | Mieke van Drunen Board Secretary |
New Zealand Hop Marketing Board | P0 Box 3205, Richmond |
| 3. | Ken W Evans | Bry-Anston Park | R M B 1570, Myrrhee |
| Hop Grower Pelleter |
Victoria 3732 Australia |
||
| Marketer | |||
Contact for Enquiries
Rural Affairs Coordinator
Sector Performance Policy
MAF Policy
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
PO Box 2526
Wellington
NEW ZEALAND
Phone: +64 4 894 0675
Fax: +64 4 4 894 0745
Contact this person
