Estimates Debate — Votes Biosecurity

I wish to speak about Vote Agriculture and Forestry and the agriculture portfolio in general. I say that while many millions of dollars are appropriated for policy advice, administrative and legislative provisions, management of the forestry assets, the Sustainable Farming Fund, and many other issues, by far the most major issue is not written into the appropriations.

The biggest issue for agriculture, as all the people involved in it know—and I know that the Minister knows this—is the exchange value of the New Zealand dollar compared with the currency of the countries that we trade with. We have seen a rising New Zealand dollar and a consequent fall in our farmers’ incomes, but we have not seen any action—or even concern, dare I say it—from the Government. We know that we have a floating dollar and we do not intervene in those things, but it is outrageous that something else is being imposed upon the sector of the community that provides the major income for the people of New Zealand, and therefore sets the living standards of New Zealanders, that is not being imposed upon our competitors in Australia, in America, or in many other parts of the world. That is the cost of signing the Kyoto Protocol.

We know, because we listen intently to the Minister’s speeches, that the Government says we will ultimately be the net beneficiary of a carbon-tax regime. But to be a net beneficiary in the future is no use to our farmers, who are struggling with a high exchange rate for the dollar and a falling income today. So the heat that has been generated by protest—and there is more protest to come, as I understand it—from farmers in this country, something that has been unseen for many years, is not just about the $8.4 million they are being asked to contribute to research on methane emissions, but is indicative of wider concerns in the farming and productive community.

Those concerns are about where this Government is taking us. Is this Government concerned about primary production? Is it interested in encouraging exports from this country, or will we face what we have been facing over the last year or two: a completely false consumer-led prop-up of the economy by means of immigration? New Zealand First, for one, says that that is not what built this country. Immigration is not what built this country, and it will not take this country forward. This country will go forward only on the basis of the products of our labours, of our wonderful climate, of the ingenuity of our farmers, and of the hard work of farmers and their families. That is what will take New Zealand forward. Any cost imposed on our farmers that is not imposed on their competitors in other countries obviously makes them less competitive, and that is exactly what is happening in this country today.

I want to place on record the concern of New Zealand First, and, I believe, the concern of many of my colleagues on the Primary Production Committee at that. We know, and we should be able to expect, that any Government—be it a Labour-led Government, a National Government, a New Zealand First Government, or whatever else—should recognise the dominance of agriculture in this country and the need to have a very, very healthy export sector, for the benefit of us all.

I want to challenge the Minister in the chair, the Hon Jim Sutton, on a series of porkies that have been given by the Government in respect of the issue of climate change. We have seen—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): No, I am sorry but that term has been ruled out. Would the member please stand, withdraw, and apologise.

I withdraw and apologise. It is unusual to rule that out when we are dealing with agriculture—and pork. But I want to put some serious questions to the Minister of Agriculture.

Firstly, I want to ask how the Minister can stand up in the Chamber today and tell the very competent Hon David Carter that the Government has never proposed the “fart tax.” Well, I say to Mr Sutton that he would be the only person in New Zealand who believes that he has not done just that. So I ask him to explain that, when we have all the talk about it. Whether members want to call that tax by the flash name of an “animal emissions levy”, or the like, for New Zealanders it is a “fart tax”, and it is a stupid tax.

The second thing I want to challenge Mr Sutton on is that he told Parliament today that there is a global crisis over climate change. I have been to four of the conventions and discussions on climate change, going all the way back to 1992 and the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, and I say the Minister is the only person who is saying there is a crisis. Climate change is a very slow, long-term issue. There are significant uncertainties over the science, and I tell the Minister that he is just talking rubbish when he says that there is a global crisis.

Then Mr Sutton told Parliament today that he is not nationalising the forestry credits. Well, that is not what his officials are saying. I went to the consultative meeting in Christchurch, which was about exactly what the Minister is doing, and I ask what the Minister is doing if he is not nationalising the forestry credits and taking the credits for the Government against the commitments given by previous Ministers, notably Simon Upton, in terms of the Kyoto agreement. So I ask the Minister how he can honestly say to this Parliament that he is not nationalising the credits from forestry, when everybody knows that he is.

Then we have what I thought was one of the great daddies of them all. That was the Minister saying that the Government had a duty to provide a stable climate. That is a rather grand statement. I have looked at the issue of climate change in the world over the last 2,000 years, and have seen there have been periods in the last mini - ice age when temperatures were 2 or 3 degrees lower than they are at present. We know there were times in the 1200s when we had a warm period, and temperatures were 2 or 3 degrees higher than at present. What does the Minister believe about this Government that means he can suddenly change the climate trends of hundreds of years, and can be like the king who stopped the tide—that Jim Sutton can stop the climate-change trend and guarantee farmers a stable climate? I say that he is kidding himself.

I now want to challenge the Minister on another point, and this was one of the most appalling cons that I have seen. When we went to the farmers’ consultation meetings on the “fart tax”, the officials had the gall to say to farmers that they were not there to consult them about whether the farmers had to pay the tax; the officials said they were only there to consult farmers about how to collect it. What sort of a farce is that, in terms of a consultation process? I want to know from the Minister whether that was what he told his officials to consult farmers on. Did this Minister tell farmers they were to get the “fart tax”, like it or not, and the only thing the Government wanted to talk about was how to collect it? What sort of a fiasco is that sort of consultation process?

Let me make it plain to this Committee that David Carter and Bill English have made an unequivocal commitment that the “fart tax”, under National, will go. I want the Minister—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: What a 3-year-old!

Does Trevor Mallard support the “fart tax”? He is pretty much into hot air, so I suspect that he does.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: See you in court.

Oh, we see. He does not want to talk about it, does he? He does not want to stand up for free speech; he does not want to talk about the “fart tax” because it is an embarrassment to the Government. I ask Mr Mallard whether the Government will back down on the “fart tax.” I ask Mr Sutton whether he will back down on it, because it is a silly tax. It makes New Zealand a laughing stock. I say to Government members that they should listen to the farming sector, to David Carter, and to our farming leaders. They should stop calling those people whingers, because they are right when they say that tax is silly.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I am sitting here patiently, waiting for the debate on Votes Biosecurity, but I have not heard you call that yet.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Votes Biosecurity have been called. They are in this debate.

I am dismayed that there has not been a substantial increase in the spending on biosecurity in this Budget. We as a country simply cannot afford not to spend substantially more money on biosecurity. Alien species pose a huge threat to the economy of New Zealand. As I have asked the House before, how long would it take for the economy of New Zealand to go into free fall if we had foot-and-mouth come into this country? Would it be a week? It would probably be a day.

R Doug Woolerton: Two days.

Two days. That is not very long, at all. Spending on biosecurity is not a cost to this country; it is an investment. How much would we have saved if we had not had the painted apple moth infestation in Auckland? On the surface we would have saved $90 million, but that excludes the externalities of all the costs that individuals have picked up in looking after their own personal health.

When we consider that thousands of people in west Auckland were blanket-sprayed with poison in relation to the painted apple moth incursion, we must ask how much we would have saved had there been no infestation of New Zealand by the varroa bee mite, the southern saltmarsh mosquito, the guava moth, the gum leaf skeletoniser moth, the tropical grass web worm, or by many, many other species. I will not even mention the glassy-winged sharpshooter. What would happen if we went back further in history and looked at some of the firmly established biosecurity infestations that we have, like rabbits, gorse, broom, possums, deer, and stoats? How much have they cost us?

We need to spend more on biosecurity, and we need to spend it very wisely. I am pleased to note that our border control inspections for aircraft arrivals and international mail arrivals are now very good—and I say well done to the Government for that. The risks associated with tourists coming into this country are worth taking. There is a balance between the risk that we take and the benefit that the country derives. I do not mind taking necessary risk, but I do object to taking risks that unnecessarily put our economy at risk. Those risks are stupid, because we can avoid them.

As I have said in this House before, the main problem I have with our biosecurity inspections at the moment concerns the inspection of sea containers. That is the most glaring pathway for allowing alien species into our environment. It almost beggars belief that we presently inspect only 24 percent of the 400,000 containers that come into this country every year. I know that our biosecurity people in the front corner of the Chamber will be saying they target those containers, and I think the officials do a good job, given the money they have to spend. But what we really need is to have a 100-percent inspection rate. I know we cannot get 100 percent inspection on the wharves, and there is a reasonable argument against that, because there is insufficient physical space on the wharves for that.

But what is to stop us from taking the containers off the ships, giving them a six-sided external decontamination, putting a seal on their doors, and sending them off to the warehouses—the devanning sites? When they are there, the seal should be broken only by somebody who is an expert in biosecurity. That is where I come to grief with what the Government is planning. It wants the owners of the warehouses to do the biosecurity inspection of containers. That creates another unnecessary risk because for all their goodwill, those people have a perverse motivation.

It is deeply disappointing to me that the chair of the Primary Production Committee has not deigned to make a contribution to this debate. He did turn up, but his whip sent him away again, and I suppose that was prudent.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member cannot refer to a member’s absence.

I will just think of him as being present. The member Doug Woolerton said that the biggest issue facing agriculture, forestry, and biosecurity is the value of the dollar. There is no doubt that changes in the value of the dollar do make a big difference to an exporting sector like agriculture or forestry, and the fact that our dollar has now reverted to the level that was the norm for many years, until about 1998 or 1999, is extremely uncomfortable. I can assure the member that if I knew of a way to bring the dollar down, and to keep it at an exporter-friendly level, I would certainly do that for him.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: That’s not what you said in Opposition.

Indeed, that is the sort of thing I have consistently said when the dollar has been too high. We are fortunate that we had a few years where the dollar was down at a very exporter-friendly level—although not really a consumer-friendly level.

The member Nick Smith’s speech was memorable for the fact that he found a way in which he could use the word “fart” in Parliament, and he used it about 25 times. It really showed what sort of member he is. He is stuck in the fourth form, and cannot get promoted out of it. I predict that that is the way he will continue to be. He forgets that it was a National Party Minister in a National Government who signed the Kyoto Protocol for New Zealand. He sang a different song then. This member wants to run with the hares and hunt with the hounds. Of course, when he is addressing “greenies” he is all for the Kyoto Protocol, but when he is addressing farmers who might have to pay a few dollars a week to help mitigate their greenhouse gas emissions he sings a different song. He is the man of the short memory.

I have some respect for Ian Ewen-Street—I could not recognise him for a while, but I finally worked it out. He expressed his dismay that there has been no increase in biosecurity. I suggest to the member that he should go back and look at the Budget tables for the last few years, because during the term of this Government—being the last 3 years and a bit—baseline biosecurity expenditure has gone up by $50 million a year. That money is being well spent.

He went on to come out with the classic Opposition stunt: he found out what the Government is doing, and demanded that it be done. Well, good for him; at least he could not get anything wrong except the timing. He called for some action on the biosecurity of sea freight containers. He would well know that a new import health standard for sea freight containers is out for consultation. That has been completed, and the analysis of that input—which followed a million-dollar research programme conducted over a couple of years under this Government—is pretty close to being at the point where the Government can sign it off. Provided that my colleagues support the necessary funding, New Zealand will then be the world leader in the biosecurity of sea freight containers.

We are already the world leader in biosecurity in respect of the handling of incoming passengers and aircrew, and I am proud to say that. However, I have been far from satisfied with the sea freight container situation. I am now satisfied that we are heading in the right direction. We will have every sea freight container unpacked under the supervision of a trained Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry person who knows what to do if a cloud of insects appears, or if a snake starts to slither out, or if something of that nature should occur. The thing will be done methodically. An elaborate paper or electronic trail will follow every container coming into the country. We will be able to gauge the degree of caution that needs to be exercised when each container is opened. Where it is opened, and under whose supervision, will depend upon the history of not only the container and the manifest of its cargo but also the performance of all the people who have been involved in importing, exporting, and packing the container, in filling out the forms, and so on.

We will have the most biosecure border in the world as far as sea freight containers are concerned, as we do at present as far as travellers are concerned. But that does not mean that we will not occasionally get incursions of pests and diseases. We will need to keep a very high standard of preparedness for dealing with such incursions, recognising them as quickly as possible, and eradicating them, if possible, as well.

I thank members who have been very supportive of biosecurity matters over the past year, and I urge members on all sides of the House to continue to support the splendid work being done by the MAF Quarantine Service and other parts of the Government in ensuring that we preserve a high level of biosecurity in New Zealand.