Estimates Debate — Vote Agriculture and Forestry

I want to raise two questions in my brief contribution to Vote Agriculture and Forestry and acknowledge that with regards to the Minister Jim Anderton I am also addressing an issue that probably traverses biosecurity. I want to comment on the recent discovery of the varroa bee mite in the South Island and on an incredible report in the Christchurch Press yesterday stating that the Minister of Agriculture, who is also the Minister for Biosecurity, has on his desk a report about the feasibility of whether it is possible to eradicate the varroa bee mite from the South Island. The report went on to state that the Minister was not able to read that report and make a decision, because he was embarking on a week-long trip to South America. I want to say to Mr Anderton that the issue of the varroa bee mite is far more important than his jaunt to South America.

The Government should have learnt from when the varroa bee mite was first discovered in the North Island that we need to act quickly on biosecurity incursions. In that particular case the hapless Marian Hobbs was the Minister for Biosecurity. I believe strongly that there was an opportunity to eradicate the mite from the North Island, but for 13 weeks Marian Hobbs kept calling for report after report, and by the time the final report came forward 3 months later it was, of course, too late to do anything. We are probably now getting into the same position with regard to the varroa bee mite in the South Island. Mr Anderton should have stayed in New Zealand, had a look at the report, and made a decision. There may then have been a chance to eradicate the mite from the South Island.

Secondly, I want to find out from the Minister of Agriculture what is going on with the public access debate in this country. Prior to the last election, we had Helen Clark with her agenda saying that Labour was going to open up private property to public access. There was outrage, not only from the farmers of New Zealand but from private landowners throughout the country. Helen Clark quickly backtracked on that issue and hid it as we went into the 2005 election. Now, with the election over, a series of meetings on the access issue is taking place around the country with John Acland, John Aspinall, Bryce Johnson, and other members of the access panel, and the debate is alive and well.

Last week, I attended a meeting in Christchurch and though the panel members may well stand there and say there is no risk to private property rights, they have no ability to say that, because all they are doing is conducting a series of public meetings. The actual agenda still lies in the hands of Helen Clark—and we well know how much respect she has for private property rights; she has no respect for private property rights at all.

I want the Minister to tell us today what is going on with this debate, and what the process will be once the access panel has reported on the meetings it is holding throughout New Zealand. I know what the conclusions will be. There will be a general “touchy-feely” conclusion amongst property owners and those recreationists wanting better access rights. But guaranteeing better access rights to waterways and to the public lands of this country must, by necessity, impinge on the private property rights of New Zealand landowners. If that is Helen Clark’s agenda, if that is Jim Anderton’s agenda, if that is Damien O’Connor’s agenda, then I ask them to be honest and have a debate and not to hide behind the sham meetings that John Acland is conducting around the country at the moment.

Those are the questions I raise. New Zealand farmers have had a gutsful of the Labour Government and policies such as “fart-taxes”, public access on to their private land, and the microchipping of farm dogs. The farmers of New Zealand have won every debate so far. We thought we had the security of knowing the public access debate was off the agenda, but we are now very suspicious that Helen Clark has rekindled her agenda and it is back for debate.

It was interesting to see in the last week that the Labour Party has started refreshing its caucus. I am sad to see that Mr Sutton is giving his valedictory speech next week, and is to be replaced in early August by another MP. I say this because who now in the Labour Party represents the rural sector. Who on its list actually represents the farmers of New Zealand? Mr O’Connor, as we all know, is a washed-up tourism operator from the West Coast. Now that Mr Sutton is heading off to greener pastures, who has Labour got to represent rural New Zealand? The answer is it has no one. There is no one on the Labour list with rural credentials. That is why the primary sector does not trust this Government.

Mr Anderton had to go out and buy a pair of gumboots when he got elevated to the portfolios of agriculture and forestry. I will touch on Mr Anderton for a wee while, if I may, because the rural sector—after the last 9 months—has given up on him. There have been several occasions when he could have shown strong leadership for the primary sector and he has failed. When the Gisborne cropping farmers got badly hit by flooding on two consecutive occasions over Labour weekend last year, Mr Anderton said the Government were just formatting policy and he was sorry but the farmers would miss out. Then it came to the microchipping of farm dogs. He worked hard with Federated Farmers. He said one thing and then delivered another way. He let them down. So the rural sector does not trust this Government; it does not trust it one iota.

Mr Anderton has hit out with a glossy Primary News delivered to every rural letterbox, but the newsletter does not touch on the core issues. It does not touch on the impact that rates are having on rural people. All the legislation that has been passed in this House is flowing down into local government with no monetary cheque from this Government. So the rural ratepayers are propping up district councils all over the countryside. That is a huge issue for the rural and primary production sector of this country.

It is also worth touching on the forestry sector. It has given up on Mr Anderton. Talks have broken down and the sector’s relationship with Mr Anderton is in turmoil. That is because this Government—under the Kyoto Protocol agreement that it has signed—wants to rob all the carbon credits from the forestry sector. This is a huge issue for people in the forestry sector. What are we seeing now throughout New Zealand? Very few pine trees are actually being planted. Nurseries have stopped putting them in their pots because they do not know where this industry is heading. This Government is giving very poor signals to those people. On one hand, we know climate change is happening and we want to plant more trees. But the Labour Government wants to steal the carbon credits. So forestry is another sector that does not trust Mr Anderton, and that relationship is in turmoil.

I have touched a little on the demands on ratepayers out there in the district councils. Those people are propping up all the legislation being passed through Parliament. The Building Act, as a result of leaking buildings, costs 1 percent on the general rate. We know there are other issues flowing through from this Government in respect of food safety, drinking water standards, and the costly long-term council community plan process that is estimated to have cost $100 million. Where does that funding come from? It comes from all the ratepayers throughout New Zealand and is generally being propped up by the rural sector, particularly out in the provinces.

Just recently, I was horrified to hear that Mr Mallard was out signalling to State-owned enterprises that they could loosen up a bit, spend a bit more, and diversify their portfolios. The rural sector is particularly worried about Landcorp. The sector does not want to see the corporation setting up a milk plant and to be in competition with Fonterra. The sector is concerned that Landcorp commands a higher premium than the average cocky can get right now. So I think fundamentally that policy is flawed. State-owned enterprises should stick to the knitting and drive productivity and profits back for the whole of the rural ratepayers for New Zealand.

It is indeed an honour to respond to a few of the accusations that have been made in the Chamber today. I acknowledge Jim Sutton, firstly, and the role he has played in agriculture for a large number of years and the incredible contribution he has made through this Parliament, and the good work that the current Minister, Jim Anderton, is doing.

I will answer a couple of questions that have been put up by Mr Carter. I will clarify a couple of things on public access, which is an area I am responsible for. There is no agenda, there is no time line, and John Acland is someone who is respected by the agricultural sector, unlike Mr Carter or Mr Guy. John Acland has respect, and people do acknowledge him. He has stated quite clearly that he has undertaken a consultation process around the whole country, with a huge amount of effort.

💬 Nathan Guy: When’s the deadline?

There is no deadline at all. Mr Guy is asking about that. Mr Carter raised the issue of property rights.

💬 Hon Bill English: Quite right.

Quite right. He is absolutely right. There are property rights issues involved here—absolutely—private property rights and public property rights. Mr English might understand one of the issues that has come to a head in a couple of the forums. I have been reading very closely about it and occasionally I get a report back; that has been very positive. One issue is the dilemma of unformed legal roads. The fact is that there is quite an amount of public property out there that has been captured by a number farmers at different times, and through history they have utilised those unformed legal roads. There is nothing wrong with that, but the reality is that the roads are public property. It is one of the dilemmas that I think the Committee will bring back to the Government.

It will not be an easy solution, and it is not one we have set a time line on, but wise farmers—as they have realised in going to the forums—have acknowledged that it is a bit of a dilemma. Perhaps we should sort through it, because the harsh reality at the moment is that an unformed legal road provides a right of access for someone in a 4-wheel drive or on a motorbike, with a gun, or whatever. Of course, there are many situations where that would be a real problem for farmers, and farmers acknowledge that. I think that for the most part recreationalists also acknowledge that.

So one of the things that has arisen, and on which I think people will come back to the Government and seek assistance on, is a resolution that tries to counter, on the one hand, the private property rights of the individual farmer and, on the other hand, the public property rights of the taxpayers and ratepayers who own those unformed legal roads. I look forward to the advice from the panel. It does not have an agenda, and there is no time line, but I think it would help us to resolve that issue.

In relation to the issue of the varroa mite, I have to acknowledge the good work being undertaken at the moment by Biosecurity New Zealand. The discovery in the South Island of the varroa mite is obviously quite a dilemma and something we had hoped to prevent. However, it is there, and that agency is working very quickly through a process of assessment in order to bring back some advice to the Government. I am sure we will make a quick decision about what to do next—whether that will be eradication or management. I have every faith that we will handle that issue in the best interests of agriculture, horticulture, and the whole rural sector, because beekeeping is about more than just beekeepers. It is in fact about basic biological production throughout this whole country.

I will finish off by saying I think Mr Guy probably needs to go back to talk to rural constituents to really understand the problem with forestry at the moment. It is facing some fairly big economic challenges, which are nothing to do with the whole issue of the Kyoto Protocol—keeping in mind the fact that it was Simon Upton, and the National Government, who first committed to Kyoto. We are, as a nation, committed to trying to reduce over time carbon dioxide emissions and some of the gases that, unfortunately, all indications say are contributing to global warming.

I would like to clarify one other thing that was raised—that is, the question of how many rural advocates are in the Labour Government. I would like to run through a few of them. Parekura Horomia is himself a farmer, unlike Mr English or Mr Carter. Mr Ashraf Choudhary is, of course, a highly respected agricultural engineering scientist and expert, and we welcome his contribution.

💬 Hon David Carter: Who? Champagne Charlie?

No. I tell Mr Carter that Ashraf Choudhary worked at Massey University, so perhaps the member should do his homework. My colleague Pete Hodgson is a vet. That is reasonably rural and agricultural, I would have thought, but maybe Mr Carter does not know what happens to a cow or a sheep. I would like to say that Mr Parker has been a big contributor through agricultural industries. I am quite happy to say that we in the Labour Government fully understand and advocate for rural, agricultural industries; I wish the same could be said of Opposition parties.

We have had an outstanding year. The dollar has been high, and agricultural industries have been challenged, but I think they have come through a challenging period and now can be very, very optimistic under this Government. The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry has done an outstanding job to help guide them—not to tell them where to go, but to guide them when necessary, and to step up and help them in situations such as that with the varroa mite. The ministry will give guidance as to how we will move forward. I am very happy with its performance and with where we will head with agriculture and forestry. I acknowledge the outstanding efforts of Jim Sutton in the past, and the great efforts of Jim Anderton at present, as Ministers of Agriculture.