Financial Review Debate — Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry

In the brief chance we get to speak on the financial review of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, I want to take the opportunity to put issues to the Minister in the chair, the new Minister of Agriculture, the Hon Jim Anderton. I want him to know that farmers throughout New Zealand have put him on notice that it is his job to represent the concerns of the industry. It has a lot of very significant concerns, particularly as we face a downturn in commodity prices—coming after what I do accept have been 4 or 5 very good years. The Minister’s appointment follows on from the reign of his predecessor, Jim Sutton, who, as Minister of Agriculture, can only be described as a total disaster. He failed, around the Cabinet table, to represent the concerns of farmers. He promoted issues like public access through privately owned farms in this country, and I certainly hope the new Minister will not continue with that sort of debate around the Cabinet table. Mr Sutton also promoted the infamous “fart tax”, which I am sure the new Minister will assure us is completely off the agenda. Is it little wonder, when a Minister like Mr Anderton’s predecessor promoted notions like that, that he lost the once-safe seat of Aoraki to our member, Jo Goodhew?

The farmers of New Zealand treated the appointment of Mr Anderson with absolute dismay, when that Minister was appointed. They took the opportunity to say to the Minister: “We accept that you don’t understand much about agriculture, but we understand that you’re prepared to listen.” I repeat the famous words of Mr Anderton: “I will represent you, because I’m No. 3 in Cabinet.” He said: “What part of No. 3 don’t you understand?”. I think those words are particularly relevant, considering the issue of the microchipping of farm dogs. Mr Anderton had gone to the farming community and said that that law was ludicrous and he would ensure that it was changed. He went to the Cabinet room, on the 10th floor of the Beehive, and he failed to deliver change, because he at No. 3 was rolled by the Minister at No. 18 in Cabinet.

So Mr Anderton to date has failed the first test as Minister of Agriculture. But there is now another issue, which we saw signs of on the front steps of Parliament today—the future biosecurity of New Zealand. Farmers, whether or not they are involved in the bee industry, are watching the Minister to make sure that that decision does not put the biosecurity of this country at risk.

Federated Farmers have presented to the Minister a list of 10 simple doable things they want him to achieve. I have addressed the first issue, which is microchipping. He failed on that account. The second issue is that the Department of Conservation and the Minister have the ability, within the Resource Management Act, to argue in more than an advocacy role. To date the Minister has failed, in accepting the decision that Chris Carter, the Minister of Conservation, made with regard to Whangamata. The third doable issue is for the Minister to achieve a way whereby the Department of Conservation will not continue to increase its landholding around the country, unless it has budgeted sufficiently to ensure adequate management of those lands. National waits to see whether the Minister of Agriculture achieves that one. The fourth doable thing is the funding of rural roads, which is a huge component of the rates that farmers throughout New Zealand pay. I remind the Minister that farmers alone, as an industry, pay more than 20 percent of all rates collected by territorial local authorities. Federated Farmers have said to the Minister that he should ensure there is a fair mechanism for paying for those roads, and that all the funds collected from roads end up being spent on roads.

I would like to congratulate the Hon Jim Anderton on his roles as Minister of Agriculture and Minister of Fisheries. When we were doing the financial reviews, I had an opportunity to go around and talk to farmers and a number of submitters. I looked at Landcorp and visited Asure New Zealand, and in talking to them and to AgriQuality and a number of those people, I was happily surprised at how much confidence they had in the new Minister of Agriculture. It was a delight to hear farmers saying that although they had a few misgivings about the new Minister in the beginning, because in their view he had probably had little to do with farming in the past, that had changed. I received very good reviews from a whole lot of these people during the financial reviews of all those Government entities.

Agriculture is the backbone of this country. We export over 90 percent of what we produce and we have to make sure we keep ahead of other countries in terms of research, increasing value for money, and increasing quality assurance. Particularly in terms of patents and adding value to our products, it is very important that we keep ahead of other nations to make sure that our income keeps coming from export markets.

I was delighted when I had the opportunity to visit Asure New Zealand and also to talk with AgriQuality board members. When we hear about the increase in productivity achieved in this country over a number of years, it is really tremendous. Some years ago about 90 percent of our meat was exported as carcasses, but now 90 percent is processed, which is added-value. That is great to see. I was very pleased to see that the meat industry and dairy industry are progressing and adding value to our export market.

Of particular interest to me is biosecurity. That is of very high importance. As an exporting nation, particularly in agriculture, it is very important to ensure that any products that come into the country do not present any biosecurity risk. We recall the false scare about foot-and-mouth on Waiheke Island last year. We have to act quickly and ensure such problems do not occur here.

I do not want to say a lot more. Suffice to say, I am delighted the financial reviews of these entities and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry show they are doing a great job.

I too would like to talk about the new Minister of Agriculture and Minister of Forestry, but I want to take a bit of a different tack and say that I think it is appropriate, believe it or not, that we have a Minister of Agriculture who does not have a long history in farming or in matters applying to land. The reason is that on two fronts we have some particular issues that need to be attended to and, with due respect, they need to be attended to by a person who is seen as being, for want of a better word, non-partisan.

The first issue—and I am surprised it is not mentioned more often by my colleagues these days in Parliament—is our huge balance of payments deficit. As everybody in this Chamber knows, or should know, there is only one real sector of the economy we can realistically look to for the sorts of numbers that will do anything about that balance of payment deficit—and I see the Minister in the chair, Mr Anderton, and my colleague Shane Ardern both nodding—and that is the pastoral farming and forestry sector. There is also fishing and tourism, but this discussion is on agriculture and forestry. We need somebody in the role of Minister who can look at all who are in those industries as being exporters, not just as farmers, as pastoral farmers, or as forestry or sector groups, because with any other area of exporting in this country the imports to fuel the exports—if that makes any sense—are so high that the net gain to New Zealand is infinitesimal. This sector is our major exporting area.

We have a Minister who is non-partisan, so, hopefully, he will look at these things in a holistic manner. I have read a couple of things he has written that indicate he will. I hope he thinks I am on the right track and that he sees things as we in New Zealand First do, because we do not accept that all economic activity is good. We believe in the old-fashioned way of earning more than one spends, and our country has not been doing that. We look to the Minister to make this thing right.

The other area is far more difficult, far more delicate, and it something that we all know about. Certainly when I was farming I shied away from it, and my brothers, who are still farming, shy away from it: the quality of our water in New Zealand. About 3 years ago Fonterra took the initiative to try to sort this problem out. It required farmers to fence streams and plant appropriate plantings besides streams. It was criticised at the time, but it is not being criticised now. In fact, I am pleased to be able to say—and I hope the Minister will confirm this—we are ahead of the targets in those areas, which just shows that if farmers are shown the need they will respond. Here I acknowledge my friend Shane Ardern, who I know personally got out there in his gumboots and planted thousands of trees on his properties, or on his numerous blocks of land, whatever he happens to own at this point in time. He is not a man to go along with whatever the current fashion is; he is doing it because the science tells him it needs to be done.

I have heard that from our Minister, as well, that if the science says it must be done, then it will be done. We need input from central government, we need local bodies to attend to the matter, and we need farmers to be involved. But I dare go one step further and say that we need other people downstream of them to be involved in the clean-up too, because clean-up is what it is all about. We in this country cannot have a situation, or accept a situation, where our rivers are being polluted and our lakes are dying—so they tell us.

I say to the Committee at the outset of my speech in this financial review debate that I do not agree entirely with my colleague who has just resumed his seat. There are very few issues on which we disagree, but on this one I do. I think the biggest risk to New Zealand’s economy is our Minister for Biosecurity. He is the single biggest risk. The second biggest risk to our New Zealand balance of payments is our Minister of Agriculture and Minister of Forestry, who is the same person. I shall tell members why I think that is so.

The New Zealand Institute of Economic Research, reporting to Biosecurity New Zealand, put the cost of the didymo incursion in New Zealand at $285 million. We know that that is probably on the conservative side, because its estimates in the past have always been conservative, as will be the estimates we are likely to get from the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry on this. We know they are probably on the light side. Yet after repeated questioning, the Minister, both through written questions and through questions in the House, has constantly said: “Unlike the member Mr Ardern, I do not believe we could have overcome this problem by treating didymo. There is nowhere in the world that knows anything about killing didymo.” Well, I just bring the Minister’s attention to some of the substantial work that has been done internationally that suggests that the two rivers where the incursion was first found could have, and should have, been chemically treated, which would have brought the situation under control for much less than the conservative estimate of $285 million. That is not to mention the further biodiversity loss that will come from the incursion, particularly when it spreads throughout New Zealand.

Once again today a group of land-based, agricultural-based, hard-working New Zealanders protested on the steps of Parliament against this Government and its suggestion that the importation of honey does not present a biosecurity risk. That is what the Minister said—that it does not present a biosecurity risk. Quite frankly, it does. The Minister also said to the group of bee-keepers on the steps of Parliament that he, as the Minister, cannot, under the Biosecurity Act, intervene on matters that are in the realm of the director-general of Biosecurity New Zealand. I thought that was an interesting comment to make, so I went to the Parliamentary Library—our very good Parliamentary Library—for an explanation of which part of the 1993 Act excludes the Minister from being able to intervene when he is not convinced there is a potential biosecurity risk.

I have the library’s findings here, which are that it cannot find anything to suggest that the Minister is unable to intervene in a decision in terms of imports or potential biosecurity risks. The library, rather than just relying on its reading of the Act, went further and asked for Laws of New Zealand, a legal encyclopaedia, to have a look at whether that was so. The answer came back that it could not find any area in the 1993 Act that precludes the Minister from being able to intervene in this matter. So I say to the Minister—and I am sure he has his officials scurrying, as we speak, to find the relevant legislation—that I will be interested to hear from him on that. I am sure he will take a call and respond, and that will be good.

Also during this financial review debate, the Minister was asked whether he thought the biosecurity structure in New Zealand was adequately resourced, and I think what he said was: “Unlike the previous Government we have resourced this structure better than it has ever been resourced before.” Yet we found in the case of the foot-and-mouth hoax on Waiheke Island that Biosecurity New Zealand was in breach of section 4 of the Public Finance Act, because the Minister had to appropriate—or misappropriate, it could be suggested, because there was not enough money there—$886,000 under Vote Biosecurity to control what could have been a devastating incursion in this country. So members of the House, and anybody else who might be listening, can surely see by this that Minister Anderton is not on top of his portfolio, and therefore we have a major risk to this nation. A biosecurity breach in this country is the single greatest risk to our exports. If it is the case that heat treatment of honey can keep European foulbrood out, then why does the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry not say unequivocally that this is so? It does not.

I have to say the biggest threat to any of the portfolios I represent would be if the National Party—if it ever got into Government—ever made Mr Ardern responsible for any of them.

💬 Shane Ardern: Just answer the question.

I will answer one. This Government has increased resources. There has been an 80 percent increase in baselines for biosecurity since there was a National Government. [Interruption] What is it about an 80 percent increase that Mr Ardern does not understand? He clearly does not understand it, so he should look at the facts. If Mr Ardern thinks I can make the decisions on biosecurity matters, he should examine the Biosecurity Act and see who makes the decisions. It is the chief technical officer.

💬 Shane Ardern: I just told the Minister I have.

Well, I suggest that the member read it again.

💬 Shane Ardern: I got the library to do it.

Can the member not read?

I want to talk about the reality of accountability in this House. We were told by the first National Party speaker debating this report that I am on notice. Well, all Ministers are on notice. They are on notice from the Prime Minister, for a start, who appoints them. They are accountable to the Prime Minister, they are accountable to their Cabinet colleagues, and they are accountable to their constituency, which in this case is the agricultural and horticultural community. I suggest to Mr Ardern that he consult with that community sometimes. He has been railing about how I should not be here and how I should not do this or that, but I have not noticed Federated Farmers saying that. It is a funny thing that in the Dominion Post this morning, I read the headline: “Farmers back Anderton …”. When did I ever dream that I would see a headline like that in the Dominion Post—that well-known socialist newspaper in Wellington?

I know that Mr Ardern does not back Anderton, but he may contemplate why it might be that Federated Farmers do not agree with him. This is supposed to be Mr Ardern’s constituency. Last time I looked at the electoral roll, there was not one farmer in Wigram. But the farmers, who do not live in my electorate and who do not actually vote for me there, because they cannot—there are no farmers in Wigram—are supporting the existing Minister. They do not do so because they are all altruistic or will vote for a Labour-led Government this time or next time, but because they recognise that when I asked them to give me their agenda so I could see what I could do, I never said that I would fix everything. I did not say that; I said that I would give it my best shot, and I did. I took my best shot to a Cabinet that had already made a decision. I say to members that they should try doing that some time. They should try taking to one’s Cabinet colleagues an issue that those colleagues have already decided on, and try to get them to relitigate the issue and see how that goes.

Did I think this would be difficult? Yes, I did. Did I think that I did not want to take on something hard like that? No, I did not. I gave it a shot. Federated Farmers, to their credit, know that I did not promise anything. I said I would try, and I did, and they know that. The fact is that Federated Farmers have expressed their support for the style I am showing, because I am listening to them and I am going out there. I was surprised to be invited to practically every Federated Farmers annual meeting in the country. The meetings are all in May, so it is a bit hard. What I have said is that I will go to these ones this year and the other ones next year—in the 3 years I have this portfolio, I will visit every Federated Farmers AGM in the country. The National Party might like to look up in the library when the last National Minister of Agriculture visited, in one term of office, every single AGM of every Federated Farmers branch in the country and spoke to them. If National members can tell me when that last happened, then we will see. That may be the secret as to why Federated Farmers are saying that they will give me a go.

The other thing about it is that I am trying to make sure that city people—and there are more of them than country people—understand the points that Doug Woolerton was making. Here is an industry—including fishing in there, which is not in today’s debate—that collectively earns 65 percent of our entire exchange-rate earnings. We are the country—developed or undeveloped—that is most dependent on our exports and their success in the world. The only global scale industry we have is our primary sector industry. The only globally competitive industry we have is our primary base sector industries, and we depend on those for our economic and social well-being. If we do not have a First World economy, it will be because those industries have not succeeded. If those industries do not succeed, we will not have a First World health system, we will not have a First World education system, and we will not have a First World infrastructure—we will not have a First World anything. So it is critical that those industries succeed, and we should not take that for granted. I say to members that it is no use thinking that because the sun shines, the rain falls, and the wind blows occasionally we will be OK on the night. We will not be.

If one goes around the world one will understand. I have the privilege of being thrown out of the country occasionally by the Prime Minister to have a look—as I did recently, although I do not like to travel much. The image that most New Zealanders have of, say, French agriculture is of an over-subsidised, bloated, peasant-type industry. But a combination of all of the event centres in New Zealand put together with most of our largest malls would look something like the International Agricultural Show in Paris. The elite agriculture of France is on display—the highest technology, the highest science-based research, the highest productivity, and all the rest of it. It is true that it is more costly than ours, because of all the grain-fed animals, but nevertheless it is highly competent, highly efficient, and very productive. So we have some real competition out there, and that does not include the emerging Eastern European nations and everything else that is coming at us.

The world does not owe us a living in those areas, and one of the things that New Zealanders have to acknowledge is that we are good at it because we have invested a lot of money in scientific research into the development of our pastoral farming, animal husbandry, and all the rest of it. So scientific research and development is crucial. This is a real challenge for New Zealand, and I do not see the ministry as being partisan, because the whole of New Zealand depends on its success. I do not think urban communities fully comprehend this, because in many ways urban communities are now much more separate than they once were from rural communities in terms of the activities of rural communities.

Almost at the bottom of the Western Springs street I used to live in was a dairy farm. Western Springs is now a close inner-city suburb of Auckland. It was on the outskirts of Auckland when I lived there in the 1940s.

💬 Hon Judith Tizard: There are still six farms in Auckland Central, though.

Now it is part of Auckland Central, but then there were dairy farms down the road. People did not think milk came from the supermarket; they saw the dairy farm and orchards, and they went and picked up their fruit in the summertime. So we knew where fruit came from, we knew where agriculture was done, we knew how cows were milked, and we all had uncles, cousins, and aunties who lived on farms and whom we visited in the holidays.

Those days are well and truly over. Basically, we have to get a synergy between city dwellers and our urban communities, because we are interdependent on each other. The urban communities have to succeed, and so do the rural communities. I think one of the reasons that the Prime Minister has asked me to do the job is to get someone from the city who can actually talk to people from the country and to get some understanding between the two. I am very proud to do this job. I admit readily that I was very comfortable as the Minister for Economic Development and the Minister for Industry and Regional Development. I think I was making a reasonable fist of those portfolios, and because I invented them, in a sense, I was very comfortable there. But the Prime Minister has taken me out of my comfort zone. She said: “I’ve got some news for you. You’re going to be the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Fisheries, the Minister of Forestry, and the Minister for Biosecurity.” I said: “Run that past me again!”. But anyway, there it is. The challenge is there. It is exciting. It is interesting to deal with new people whom one has not had to relate to before.

I think we can all be proud of what we have achieved in the agricultural and horticultural community. We are world-class, but we have to be creative and innovative. There is a new era of technology here. If one thinks of forestry, one thinks of trees and what one can do to trees. But actually, the new technology is fibre technology. People can grow soya beans in Brazil and make wood products out of those soya beans, because they can rearrange the fibre. Basically, this is the kind of challenge that our industries face at a primary level. We have to start thinking of materials, of technology input, and of high-class, quality products with added value at the top end of the value market, because that is where our future lies. So I look forward to the cooperation of parliamentarians in achieving those objectives.

Report noted.

Ministry of Education