Estimates Debate — Vote Agriculture and Forestry

In the dying days of this Labour Government, I hope the Minister of Agriculture, Jim Sutton, will take the opportunity to tell New Zealand what Labour’s position on public access is. What is Labour’s position on removing farmers’ rights to restrict public access to privately owned farms in New Zealand? Last Thursday Mr Chris Carter, the Minister of Conservation, said at a public meeting of his mates from the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society that the legislation was finalised, that the decisions had been made, and that as soon as a Labour Government was returned to power, the legislation would be frogmarched through this Parliament.

That contrasts completely with what Mr Sutton keeps saying. He has said to the farmers of New Zealand that the matter will now require further consultation, and that no decisions have been made. I ask the Minister in the chair, Mr Sutton, to take the opportunity to clarify who is telling the truth. Is the debate finalised? Is the legislation finalised? Is Mr Chris Carter, the Minister of Conservation, actually telling the truth, or is Jim Sutton to be believed when he says to Federated Farmers and the like that the Government is prepared to continue genuine consultation? I say to the Minister that he cannot have it both ways. New Zealanders are fed up with the trickery of this Government, which continues to prance around New Zealand saying one thing to one audience, and another thing to another audience.

That brings me to another point I want to know today: what has been the Department of Conservation’s role in the preparation of this public access policy? I ask that because during the examination we became aware of a number of consultants that the ministry had used in the preparation of reports. We asked for copies of those reports, and the Minister in the chair, Jim Sutton, agreed to give them to the select committee. He subsequently came back and changed his mind, saying that, in actual fact, there were no such reports, and that that money had been paid to staff. I became immediately suspicious when I saw that one Ann Vogle, who is a personal friend of the Prime Minister, received $35,000 for work on walking access policy. That lady, besides being a personal friend of the Prime Minister—and I acknowledge that that in itself is not a crime—had apparently been working for the Department of Conservation immediately prior to her secondment to the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry to collect $35,000 for this policy work.

But that is only part of it. Mr Sutton’s department spent, in total, nearly a quarter of a million dollars sourcing information from what we were told by members of that department were consultant assistants with specialist skills. When we looked more deeply at this stuff, we found that it was paid to groups like Careering Options Ltd and Wheeler Campbell Consulting Ltd, which I understand to be recruitment agencies. The Minister needs to tell the Committee how that could ever be considered consultation assistance to get specialist advice.

The Minister ought to tell us how much resource has been wasted on the development of the public access policy, how many man-hours the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry has put into this, and how many man-hours the Department of Conservation has put into it.

While he is at it, the Minister might want to tell us the relationship between the New Zealand Fish and Game Council and the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society in this regard, because I do not think New Zealand farmers have been told the truth. We certainly have not been told the truth when the Minister attempts to tell us that the policy is now back for genuine consultation. That is not the case, and the Minister hangs his head because he knows that is true.

This is the greatest issue worrying rural New Zealand. That is why rural New Zealand has completely lost confidence in the Minister of Agriculture. Never before in the history of New Zealand have Federated Farmers passed so many votes of no confidence in that Minister.

I have much pleasure in following the previous speaker. For the uninitiated out there in the real world, that was the would-be member for Banks Peninsula—the member who would like to take over from Ruth Dyson. He is the man who described the people and the area of Woolston as akin—and I will be careful what I say—to excrement. That is the technical term for a substance that the people of Woolston now realise he is full of. I invite David Carter to get on his soapbox and to go down to Woolston, to go into the footy club, to go into the Woolston Workingmen’s Club, and to use the same words that he used—I believe it was to Tracy Watkins—and to tell them to their face. To use another member’s term of reference, that member is a lion in the House and a lamb in Woolston, because he will not front up. That is the credibility that that member has. He is the—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member needs to come back to the estimates.

Indeed I will. He is the National spokesperson on agriculture. He is the man who represents a party whose leader said that we should cover up the foot-and-mouth scare—that was Dr Brash’s contribution—possibly with the substance the member talks about in respect of the people of Woolston. But Dr Brash said that we should cover it up.

In these appropriations, there are large amounts of money increased every year for biosecurity, to protect our borders—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Biosecurity is the next one.

Yes, in terms of agriculture. The money in these appropriations is to protect our farming communities, to protect livestock—and what is the greatest plank in the National Party agricultural policy? Don Brash’s original thought is to cover it up and to put our markets in jeopardy.

I want to look at the Sustainable Farming Fund and our achievements as represented in these appropriations. It was National that surrendered, waved the white flag, and sold out every rural area and region in this country. That is its legacy. Do we hear that member on the other side of the Chamber talk about that?

Half my electorate in Waimakariri is rural. I am really looking forward to standing up in places like Cust, Swannanoa, and Oxford, and talking about the heartland service centres that have been put back into rural areas by the appropriations of our Government. We did not sell them out. We got heartland services back in there—there are 13 or more of them. That member will stand up with me on the stump, and I invite him to tell people in rural areas that he was part of a Government that sold them out by withdrawing services and shutting them down.

Over the life of this Government, we have seen reforms through the Primary Production Committee that I sit on, in the dairy, pipfruit, kiwifruit, hops, wine, and meat industries. It is worth noting that those issues were brought to the Government by the industries concerned, and the Government then accepted that and facilitated the reform, as did the Minister of Agriculture. That is our legacy; that is what we have done. I always say not to trust politicians by what they say but to judge them by what they do—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: You’re gone!

CLAYTON COSGROVE:—and that member over there, the person with “Blumsky-itis”, Dr Nick Smith—“I cannot recall; I cannot remember.”—will be judged as well on his legacy when he was a Minister in a National Government.

We have returned services to rural areas with the Sustainable Farming Fund and with what we have done with apprenticeships, as noted in these appropriations. The rural sector is no different from any sector in this country. It has the positive problem that there is a shortage of skilled staff. It is a positive problem, because it is a problem related to expansion and growth in the industry. We have 9,000 apprentices on the go, many of whom will take up skilled positions in the rural and farming sector. So I say to the National Party that it should get up and tell us what its legacy is—tell us, through the Chair, what National as a party did for the rural sector. It should show us the reform it put through that was supported by the rural sector.

The member got it wrong on apples. Thanks to National, the apple industry was torn apart, because that party would not do what the industry wanted. National got it wrong on apples, but who fixed it? Labour did. We put the legislation through. I believe that the National member at that time, Mr Carter, the member from Woolston, was not even on the Primary Production Committee.

It is interesting for anybody listening to hear Labour and National members talk about the small things that are happening in agriculture. We are talking about the estimates for the agricultural portfolio, and I want people to think about a couple of things.

Firstly, I want them to think about the $9 billion deficit that was announced post-March this year, about how it happened, and about how it will be resolved. How did it happen? It happened because we have had a boom of consumerism in this country. Our exporters, who are mainly agricultural people, have been working away day and night, and they have been earning record prices for their produce, I must say. While that has been happening, consumers have been bringing untold produce into this country, mainly from China, and people have been spending up large. We have ended up with our overdraft—in normal people’s terms—growing to $9 billion.

In the meantime, what is the National Party talking about? It is talking about land access. Labour wants it; National does not, and neither does New Zealand First. I want to talk to members a little about land access. I was at a Federated Farmers conference last Tuesday in Hamilton, and that subject was not even mentioned. Well, it was mentioned but it was not an issue. One ACT party member, namely Gerrard Eckhoff, has been going all around this country for 6 months in a yellow bus, trying to drum up some enthusiasm by farmers for making that subject an election issue. The Minister of Agriculture was at the conference, so he knows that it was not an issue. National was—I do not think I can use the word I was thinking of—working in tandem with ACT, to make it the big issue of this election. Never mind the dollar, and never mind that the farmers will have to pay back that $9 billion! All that those members can do is run around the country trying to stir up this business of land access—for which we do not even have a bill, I might tell members. When we do, New Zealand First will oppose it, and everyone knows that.

But land access is not an issue for farmers, because the things that concern them are things like the dollar—the comparative worth of the dollar with the US dollar. The things that concern farmers are the inputs they need. The price of land is a concern to farmers, and the Kyoto Protocol is a concern to farmers. The Kyoto agreement was signed by the National Government in the early days, and was continued by this Labour Government. We are not allowed to use coal in our electricity generation. We are not allowed even to use coal in our homes, so the rumour is going up home. But we are allowed to export coal to countries that are not bound by the Kyoto Protocol.

I am talking about that because it is yet another burden for our farmers to overcome. They will have to claw back $9 billion, plus some more. That money will not come from computer software. It will not come even from wine exports, although they will be a contributor. It will come from the same industries that have set the standard of living for this country for years past, and will for years into the future. New Zealand First is concerned to talk about the real issues for farmers, which are the dollar, input costs, and the prices for their commodities.

It is a pleasure to be here today to talk on the Appropriation (2005/06 Estimates) Bill, and particularly to talk about the primary production sector with regard to the agriculture and forestry estimates we are doing. I am a member of the Primary Production Committee, and it has been a vastly more interesting committee to be on, I have to say, than I had ever imagined it would be. Coming from Taranaki, an area where agriculture is a very important part of the region’s make-up—some would say it is the backbone of the province’s income—it is certainly pleasing to me to see that record prices have been enjoyed for primary products for some time. New Zealand is doing well, but I do know that those things are dependent on the value of the New Zealand dollar and on what the markets do.

I think that it is very worthwhile to consider the work we have had before the Primary Production Committee for some time, because it shows the legislative change that the Government has been involved in. I think that by any measure the select committee has been busy. It has had some very good members working very hard on issues, and when we look at the major reforms that have occurred in the dairy industry, the pipfruit industry, the kiwifruit industry, the wine, wool, and meat industries, and even in hops, we see that we have done a lot of work on that committee in responding to the needs of the agricultural and rural constituents of New Zealand. They have made their needs and views very clear.The committee has also done, of course, a lot of work in the aquacultural area, on fisheries, and has looked into some very interesting issues. The Sustainable Farming Fund has, I think, been a really good Government initiative. I am sure other speakers will talk in detail about that, but I want to say that that fund is aimed at helping to tackle obstacles to economic, social, and environmental sustainability in rural communities. I think we would all agree that the fund has been of great benefit to the rural sector.

It seems to me that a lot of issues come into this portfolio area. So far in this debate we have heard about communication, apprenticeships, prices, the value of the New Zealand dollar, land access issues, Kyoto Protocol credits, and transport—all sorts of things come into this area. Let us just start on a few of those issues. Let us look at apprenticeships. They are something I, as a member of Parliament, have been on about, to the point of being like a needle in a cracked record, for many, many years. I am delighted to see that the rural sector, particularly, has picked up on apprenticeships.

Just this week in Parliament the 4,000th Modern Apprentice in the motor trades was presented by the Hon Trevor Mallard with a plaque to celebrate being the 4,000th young person to get a Modern Apprenticeship in the automotive trades. He is from a small rural business. As an automotive electrician from the town of Matamata, he is not a city dweller but a rural person whose company has been in business for many years and absolutely depends on a successful rural policy to remain in business—a successful agricultural policy that actually delivers for rural communities. Without the farming sector doing well, small rural businesses close—it is as simple as that. That particular case was a very good sign. The young man concerned was able to talk about the others he knew of in rural businesses, and he looks forward, no doubt, to owning a rural business one day himself. His employer had bought the business from the gentleman who had owned it when he had worked there as an apprentice himself. So that sort of generational change is going on in rural districts.

How does access to broadband fit into that? We need to have good communications, in an increasingly technological world. In the select committee we have often talked about the need for good communications and access to broadband.

Just recently, we have seen the very successful work done by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry in the containment exercise in relation to the foot-and-mouth scare on Waiheke Island. We saw a report in Parliament earlier on the very good exercise that occurred prior to that in the Wairarapa, looking at how we can prepare for any major disastrous incursion of a disease like foot-and-mouth, or perhaps an outbreak of tuberculosis amongst cattle, etc. Those preparations can only be made when there is funding to do so. Funding depends on taxation, and National has not told us where its tax reduction would come from.

I want to raise this afternoon some very serious issues in respect of the forest industry, which depends on the Government to regulate properly the treatment of timber and to ensure that New Zealanders can have confidence in timber products. That matters because thousands and thousands of New Zealanders have investments in the forestry sector.

I draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that on 11 July, after being approached by a number of players in the timber industry, the Government’s Department of Building and Housing approved a timber product, quite fraudulently and quite wrongly, that is causing huge disruption within the timber industry. My concerns at the time were threefold. The first was the way in which the T1.2 timber was being quite wrongly marketed as the equivalent of H—

💬 Simon Power: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I apologise to the member for interrupting him, but the Hon David Cunliffe has, while out of his seat, been volleying a barrage at my colleague during the course of his contribution. I ask you to consider the fact that, although this is a robust debate, Ministers who shift their seats to advantage themselves—and we are used to Mr Cunliffe doing that—should be careful when interjecting on members who are trying to make a valid contribution to the debate.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I thank the member, but I would just point out that there has been a fair degree of constant barraging from the Opposition side on many—

💬 Simon Power: Out of their seats?

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Mr Power, I am ruling on this point of order. I ask the member to continue.

I raised three serious concerns about the T1.2 product. The first was that it was being grossly mismarketed as being identical to fully treated timber—timber that has been treated all the way through. My second concern was that the product had not been properly tested. My third concern was that the conditions put on the use of T1.2 timber were totally impractical—this idea that when a builder cut the timber, he would have a paintbrush handy with which to paint over the surface, to make sure the timber was properly treated.

When I raised those concerns the Government came out with a number of statements. The first thing it said was that this was the very first it had heard of this problem. In fact, five times on the Close Up programme the Government said that this was the first it had ever heard of this problem. Well, I have a letter in my hand from the New Zealand Institute of Building Surveyors, dated 3 June last year, which states: “This product in its accreditation, with only a light covering of boron to the outer timber, has been given the same status and standing as a fully core-penetrated timber product, and this is obvious nonsense.” Greg O’Sullivan said: “I am very concerned about the situation of this envelope treatment of timber. It is going to lead to a future disaster.” That is what they wrote to the Government and said.

Later in that interview the Government’s Minister said: “Don’t worry, the timber has been extensively tested.”, and that is where I want to take things a step further today. The testing was done by a Dr Mick Hedley of Scion, which was formerly the Forest Research Institute. He is the person whom the Government is relying on in backing the T1.2 product. Let me quote what this email stated: “T1.2 is a misnomer invented by Tenon which is totally misleading, mischievous, and which I disagree with entirely.” That is from the scientist whom the Government is relying on in backing this timber product. [Interruption] Mr Cunliffe says it does not matter; I tell him it does. It matters because 10,000 homes out there are being built of this timber, and the scientist whom the Government is relying on in backing it says that.

Let me tell members what else the scientist stated: “We tested the active ingredient as a brush-on formulation. We were never asked to test the commercial product.” Thousands of homes around New Zealand are being built with this timber nicknamed “Agent Orange”, and it has never ever been tested. What is worse is that after the billion-dollar leaky home scandal the Government had a duty to ensure that in future timber was properly treated and safe, and it is not doing that. Again I quote Dr Mick Hedley: “I believe the real issue is that the conditions of use, of which I was not consulted at any stage, are impractical from a building perspective, and are probably incompatible with conditions that prevail on many building sites. This is where the Government probably got it wrong.” So the scientist behind this product is saying that it is all very well for him to do the testing, but if we set conditions that are totally inappropriate for the average building site, his testing proves nothing. Members should remember that builders, on cutting this product, are meant to open a tin of paint and paint over the areas they have cut, and that the timber is not meant to get wet. Well, a building about 100 metres from here is made of this “Agent Orange” timber, it is getting wet as we speak, and this Government does nothing.

Now I raise the most serious concern, which is the scientist’s last quote: “I also have concerns that the Government was empowered to approve alternate solutions for preserving timber when there are perfectly adequate standards available. I have a particular concern that there was no public consultation on this action, which is a requirement of all New Zealand standards. It undermines the purpose and the status of standards.” The very scientist whom the Government is relying on in approving a product involved in 50 percent of houses constructed in the last 12 months is saying that this product undermines the standard of treatment in New Zealand. I say “What a disgrace!”.

Three weeks ago the Minister said that the department would have a review of how that product got accredited, and that the review would be completed within a fortnight. Well, that was a week ago; why have we heard nothing? I will tell people why. It is because the Government wants to wait until after Parliament has risen before it fesses up. What is wrong with that is that builders and homeowners are again being left in the lurch by Government members, because they will not come clean and say “We cocked up.” The reality is that the Government cocked up. We have an “Agent Orange” timber out there that is totally inappropriate and is not supported by even the scientist whom the Minister quotes to back it. It is a disgrace!

The Government should come clean today, say it got it wrong, stop this product from being used, and de-accredit it, so that the industry can move forward. We also need an independent inquiry into how it is possible for a timber product to be approved in breach of the new New Zealand standard for treated timber, and when the scientist who supposedly did the treatment work has no confidence in the naming of the product or in the conditions under which it is meant to be used.

This is a very serious issue. Thousands of builders and homeowners want to know the answer. The Government has let the side down. That email is absolutely damning, and it is time for the Government to come clean, to admit that it got it awfully wrong, and to provide some security for those homeowners.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: Who deregulated the industry?

Well, I ask whether Mr Cunliffe can tell me why this product was approved. I ask whether anyone on the Government benches can tell me why the Government approved this product. Those members cannot tell me; they do not care. The department is having hula parties, kava drinking, and Cowboys and Indians theme parties while people’s homes rot, and, most seriously, the Government has not even ensured that future homes are built to a proper standard. I look forward to a Government member providing an explanation as to why it approved a product in breach of the New Zealand standard, which was adopted only in 2003. Why has the Government ignored the scientist who investigated this product, who has such serious concerns about it?

I seek leave to table an email from Scion, which was formerly the Forest Research Institute, in which the scientist whom the Government has quoted as evidence for it backing the product expresses very serious concerns about this product.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

I will deal first with the issue raised at great length by the member who has just resumed his seat. He spoke about the leaky buildings issue, and there is one thing that seems to have escaped his attention: properly designed and properly constructed buildings do not leak. Now it is all very well for Dr Smith and his colleagues to try to make excuses for the jerry-builders of Auckland, the sloppy architects, and the sloppy building inspectors who have not done their jobs properly, and blame it all on the wood, but it does not wash. Those people, including Dr Smith, whose Government was in power when most of these buildings were constructed, should reflect on their own performances instead of trying to pass the blame on to others. Wood is wood, and if it is allowed to get wet and dry, and wet and dry, and be left in a wall full of water, it is going to rot sooner or later. The member should realise that.

Now I go back to members who raised issues concerning rural New Zealand. Harry Duynhoven pointed out the value of training, education, and economic development policies to rural New Zealand. He hit the nail right on the head there. I am proud when I go through my own electorate. The towns of Timaru, Geraldine, Temuka, Waimate, and Twizel have never looked better. They are looking in great shape. They have had 5 years of booming prosperity on the basis of the policies of this Labour Government. They have done well because farming has been doing well, because tourism is doing well, because niche manufacturing is doing well, because industries adding value to the products of our land are doing well, and they are doing well with the enthusiastic and energetic assistance and partnership of this Labour-Progressive coalition Government, and long may that continue.

If members do not believe that they are doing well—because one can probably always find a farmer who has some complaint to make, whether it is about having to pay ACC insurance levies, pay his or her income tax, or fill out his or her GST form, and all those things that make compliance such a chore doing business in the modern world—they should note that according to the statistics derived from the monitor farm survey, the average pastoral farmer in New Zealand has increased his or her net worth over the last 5 years by something closely approaching $400,000 a year. Whoops, $400,000 per year almost, each, per farmer, tax-free capital gain! That is not doing badly, and that is a vote of confidence in the future of farming by the people who are investing their savings, and their profits, in expanding their investment in that industry.

They are not taking the money and running. They are bidding the prices up and up because they know how great the future is looking under the policies that are at present in place. It is a pretty exciting future for provincial and rural New Zealand as a result.

I want to say this in respect of Clayton Cosgrove’s question. He asked a very serious question, and I sat back and waited for someone to answer it, and nobody did. So I will give it a go.

💬 Clayton Cosgrove: Good on you.

I have had reports, you know! He asked what National’s legacy to rural New Zealand was. I think National sort of answered that in its agricultural policy this year. National’s policy does not mention agriculture. Everything in its policy comes from other portfolios. There is nothing about agriculture in it. It is a nothing policy, and its legacy is nothing. We inherited a neglected mess and we have been trying to fix it up. When we get to biosecurity I will deal with that part of it, and biosecurity is a pretty important part for agriculture in New Zealand. But we will have another go at that, and we will not miss that opportunity.

Doug Woolerton asked how New Zealand’s balance of payments deficit—pretty dramatic in its size—would be resolved. He said New Zealand has been spending up large, and there is some truth in that. New Zealanders have been spending up large. New Zealanders are not great savers, I have to say, although the present Government is prudently setting aside money to ensure that the bare essentials will be there for the member and myself, and others, when we reach retirement age. It will be possible to continue New Zealand superannuation at present real levels through the bulge of the retirement of the baby boomers, because we are being prudent and investing now. If individual New Zealanders are also doing that, it will be great, but the Government is making sure it is underwriting the efforts of individual New Zealanders, and so we will do it. As I said, the farmers’ net worth has been going up. So farmers are keeping their investment in their properties, obviously with a high state of confidence that they will increase their incomes accordingly as a result.

The Budget 2005 is great news for agriculture. It builds on a great foundation that has been laid over the previous 5 years. It allocates a further $31 million over 4 years to complete trade agreement negotiations, and that is extremely important to rural New Zealand, because rural New Zealand produces most of New Zealand’s export products, and earns most of New Zealand’s export income, and farmers know the value of getting those markets opened up to creative opportunities.

The Sustainable Farming Fund is now part of mainstream and core Vote Agriculture and Forestry funding. The Sustainable Farming Fund is one of the aspects of Government policy that I am most proud of in connection with agriculture because it backs the innovation, the energy, and the brains of rural New Zealanders when they have good ideas. It provides a bit of seed money to get them started and to give them an opportunity to put together community-based programmes, to do a bit of relevant research, to make use of the information gained or the information that already exists but has not been translated in a form readily accessible to farmers, and it supports sustainable environmental management and sustainable and thriving rural communities.

I think that is great and I want to mention that an independent assessment of the Sustainable Farming Fund that analysed a sample of the more than 300 projects that have been funded throughout New Zealand estimates that those projects potentially will contribute between $350 million and $500 million a year extra to the New Zealand economy. That, of course, will not happen unless further investments are made by the people in a position to make them, or who are motivated to do so, but it does indicate the value of well-targeted research money, even in the relatively modest amounts we have made available in that particular programme so far, the value of that, and how that can multiply for the benefit of all New Zealanders.

It was great news in this year’s Budget that that was baseline. It will be there unless the Nats get back in and cancel it the way they cancelled its predecessor programme, the farm partnership, which the National Party, when trying to get into office, had promised that it would keep going. However, in its first Budget, the “mother of all Budgets”, it cancelled the funding. The programme was kept going on a purely voluntary basis, with no funding, and, of course, the inevitable happened. So much for National Party promises! Rural New Zealanders should remember that history when they vote next month.