Appropriation (2015/16 Estimates) Bill

Members, we come now to the votes in the primary sector—volume B.5, volume 9. The question is that Vote Lands and Vote Primary Industries and Food Safety stand part of the schedules.

What an interesting time to chair the Primary Production Committee and to lead the discussion in this estimates debate. The committee considered the estimates for Vote Lands and Vote Primary Industries and Food Safety, and, of course, those are the areas of Ministers Guy, Goodhew, and Upston. I think we need to look back a little to look forward at this time. Looking back at the ministries that merged to create the Ministry for Primary Industries, and the Ministry for Primary Industries as it has moved through that process in the last few years, there have been some very testing times faced, but there have been a couple of factors that I think have emphasised the value of that merger. The fruit fly outbreak in Auckland earlier in the year has been very successfully combatted by an extremely strong team. The 1080 contamination threat was also, in my view, very well handled in a very difficult environment by a very strong and capable ministry performing cohesively.

The recent Budget provided some $179 million for border control and domestic biosecurity risk matters, and $24.9 million more has been allocated to border security in increased dog and X-ray - based facilities. I myself witnessed this in action last Wednesday on returning through Auckland Airport with the New Zealand Special Olympics team from the Special Olympics World Summer Games, and a very successful team it was, too. But it was really quite impressive to watch the performance of the—[Interruption] thank you—biosecurity team at Auckland Airport and, in fact, the things that I suppose you could call hounds, really, and I guess that if you are a member of the hunting fraternity, they most certainly were hounds. But they were very impressive and I think the system is working really well.

The Animal Welfare Amendment Bill passed through this Parliament some 3 or 4 months ago, and more money has been provided for this critical leg of our productive sector. The money will ensure that the very high standards we have in this area are maintained and improved, which is a really important factor for New Zealand agriculture.

Food safety is the second critical leg of our No. 1 industry, and some $103 million will be spent on ensuring that this most important area remains secure. It is quite a challenging area for us, and, of course, when you think of our place in the world food industry, and our place in food supplies generally, it is absolutely critical that this sector of our economy is maintained and maintained very strongly.

The Minister in the chair, Nathan Guy, has faced some challenges in this role—some pretty significant challenges: the whey protein concentrate scare; the 1080 threat, which Minister Goodhew, of course, was very strongly a part of as well; and the fruit fly incursion, and the way they have handled those just shows the strength of our biosecurity system. The Rangitīkei, Wanganui, and South Taranaki flood event just recently is going to make a significant dent and cause some significant impact on our economy—our local economy in my electorate, particularly, and, of course, in Mr Chairperson Borrows’ electorate as well.

The downturn in dairy prices is certainly a testing issue for us, but not one that we in agriculture find unusual. We have gone through these things many times in my lifetime in farming, and we will go through many more of them. It is just the cycle we go through in agriculture and food supply, and I think it will always happen. It is very difficult to protect us from it. We have never achieved that in 150 years of farming in this country, and I do not suppose we will in the future.

Has not Fonterra, which is so often criticised in this House, done such a great job in the last few days of supporting its cooperative members, with its 50c announcement last week pointing very strongly to the value of a strong cooperative? It is something the kiwifruit industry is benefiting from right at this minute, and something that the Meat Industry Excellence group would dearly love the meat industry to achieve as well. It really does point to the strength of having a cooperative in a very small economy. I think it is most important that we have this kind of strength and that those cooperatives and the companies that operate in New Zealand have the confidence in the Ministry for Primary Industries—and in the various ministries, I guess—to ensure that our industry stays in the prime position it is in.

I want to touch on building capacity through investment in the Primary Growth Partnership and people, and three aspects of that in particular. I want to talk about the Precision Seafood Harvesting Primary Growth Partnership project, which is really, when you think about the potential it has got, going to achieve some hugely exciting opportunities for New Zealand and for the New Zealand fishing industry. If it can achieve what it certainly looks as though it will achieve, we are going to see our fishing industry restocked.

If ever there is an area of Government responsibility where there is failure, it has got to be in the primary industries. The farmers’ friend—that is the National Party, the farmers’ friend.

Well, well, well, let us have a look at what we have got facing the agricultural sectors at the moment. My colleague Stuart Nash will talk about forestry, but I will just focus on a few things. I welcomed the speech from the previous speaker, Ian McKelvie, because he has pointed out fruit fly and 1080 contamination, a $100 million tax on travellers to pay for biosecurity, WPC80, and failure after failure to carry out what the farmers would consider friendly policies.

We have a superministry that is responsible for so much it is failing in almost every single area of its responsibility. The dairy industry is a classic example of an outcome of a Government that has failed to lead as it should have. The Government facilitated the capital restructure of Fonterra because John Key wanted his mates in the stock exchange to have a few units to play around with. What that has done is left the company distracted, to the point where it has had its eye off the ball.

The National Government and its friends have been happy to trade in Fonterra units, and the company is now floundering around. Yes, there is an international challenge, but ask Tātua what it is doing and ask the suppliers of Fonterra in Australia what is happening with payment for their milk. They are being paid considerably more than poor old Fonterra and Westland Cooperative Dairy—dare I say it, as well—as suppliers.

I have to say that the Government has made lots of noise, but it has not done much. The Primary Growth Partnership, referred to by the previous speaker, has been a failure. The Office of the Auditor-General investigated six of the schemes and found no real economic benefit, and many of those schemes were over halfway through their completion—no real economic benefit. It said that it could not identify “additionality”, which was its polite word for saying: “This should have been business as usual, and the Government spent money, and we haven’t really seen any additional benefit.”

Biosecurity is the Minister’s No. 1 priority, and in the first year of the National Government it slashed funding and it has been playing catch up ever since. This year’s proposal is a tax of $100 million on New Zealanders and foreigners flying in and out of this country to pay for biosecurity because the Government does not want to commit real money to it.

Today we had some indication—but not a promise—that there will be 100 percent baggage screening, or a trial of it. We in Labour implemented 100 percent baggage screening, and we had no fruit fly incursions. The Government removed it, and we have had four incursions, with potentially huge and damaging results for our economy. If it was the Asian fruit fly, not the Queensland one, we would be in a desperate situation.

There has been no leadership in the meat sector. We have at the moment a temporary beneficial situation for the beef industry. The lamb and sheep industries are still floundering around. Meat Industry Excellence and the farmers themselves are asking for leadership from the Minister, and it is nowhere to be seen. Although the previous speaker talked of the cooperatives—and I support them too—the Alliance Group and Silver Fern Farms have not been serving the meat industry and all the players as they should have been, and indeed their suppliers have not been served that well, as well. They want leadership, they want vision, and they want a clear direction that will provide a better alternative than in the dairy industry, which, at the moment, is floundering around. Although people may say it is not a crisis, go and ask a farmer who is facing the banks and negotiating their way to a future.

It is a tough situation brought about by a Government that is laissez-faire and is prepared to accept market signals. The member at the back there, Todd Muller, the ex-Zespri employee, was nodding his head about the wonderful management from Government. Zespri is there because of the Labour Government and its legislation, discipline, and leadership, which we were prepared to show in Government, but this Government has not been prepared to show that.

The farmers out there want better leadership, they want some direction, and they want a vision. They have failed to get any from this Government from the expenditure that they have seen through the primary industry sector.

Well, there we heard a very interesting speech from Damien O’Connor. What we did not hear when he was talking about the border levy was that when he was the Minister of Tourism he proposed the exact same thing. He is nodding now. Did you see him nodding? He just said, for the Hansard record, that he did. So he did propose a border levy when he was the Minister of Tourism in the Labour Government. Now he stands up and says it is terrible that the National Government is indeed implementing, in part, what he was proposing. So he has forgotten what he was proposing in several speeches when, indeed, he was the Minister of Tourism.

I was so disappointed that that member would not support the border levy when we proposed it on the back of the Budget. In fact, we did not hear a squeak from that member. He could not get on a plane to the West Coast quickly enough and he hoped that no one would discover the fact that he proposed a border levy in the dying days of the Labour Government, and now he has forgotten. Looking at his face over there, we know that he proposed it—and look at that grin. It tells you a thousand words.

We should indeed be supporting the primary sector. We support the primary sector on this side of the Chamber. We celebrate the success of an industry and a sector that generates around $4 million an hour in terms of export earnings for this country. I am the first one to acknowledge it is tough times for the dairy industry right now. It is very tough times, but I will also acknowledge that the medium to long term outlook for the dairy industry is extremely bright, and our farmers know that. Our farmers know that this is a period of short-term volatility.

The doomsayers on that side of the Chamber just want to talk it down. Yet again we hear Andrew Little and Damien O’Connor and others saying: “It’s a crisis! It’s a crisis!”. Well, we had the manufacturing crisis the day that all the parties, pretty much, on the other side of the House proposed that. Actually, manufacturing has started to grow and has never looked back. So the dairy sector will get through this.

Of course, what is not acknowledged—and I was talking about it earlier in the House today—is that our red meat sector, particularly beef, is going incredibly well. That is also happening with our viticulture and our kiwifruit. Kiwifruit has, from memory, got up to $1.42 billion in export earnings. Zespri has blown through the high level of $1 billion and is almost back above pre-Psa returns, which is fantastic. Also, our forestry sector is starting to grow and is waiting for new opportunities in the US. I know that Minister Goodhew will make some comments about that.

What we also should not forget, importantly, is the future of seafood. It is great to see in the outlook for primary industries that seafood is forecast to grow to $1.8 billion by 2019 on the back of aquaculture growth. Not a lot happened in aquaculture when Labour was in Government. There is a lot of potential under this Government for aquaculture to grow and prosper, more so than under the Labour Government. So this Government has a focus on supporting our exporters through the tough times, and, actually, a big part of the primary sector is growing incredibly well.

The No. 1 priority for me is biosecurity. That is why we invested $27 million in this year’s Budget. We made an announcement just last week that there will be 20 more detector dog teams, more X-ray machines, more people on the front line, more auditing of in-country audits and import health standards, etc. There will be a real focus on biosecurity because you cannot grow exports unless you focus on the “protect” part, which is biosecurity—and food safety, where Minister Goodhew is doing an outstanding job.

Also, trade is hugely important—new market access opportunities—and that is why we are very optimistic about the Trans-Pacific Partnership. It is going to be interesting when those negotiations land, just to see where political parties across the House actually fall. Who will actually support the Trans-Pacific Partnership? It will be very interesting to see whether Mr Little can support the Trans-Pacific Partnership. I imagine that Labour’s caucus is split. I imagine its caucus is split down the middle. You will have Sue Moroney there talking out of one side of her mouth. You will have David Shearer and Phil Goff and the guys like David Parker, who have a bit of an outward focus, realising that New Zealand is not going to grow our wealth unless we sell things to the world, and we sell 45 percent into those 11 countries that are involved in the Trans-Pacific Partnership. There are huge opportunities there. I am delighted that Minister Groser landed a free-trade agreement with Korea, and Taiwan is also proving to be a very important, new, and emerging market for us.

We should not forget about irrigation, particularly in North Canterbury, where they are still battling through very dry times. I know the local member will no doubt comment on that this evening, because he has been in touch. I am looking forward to visiting North Canterbury in the next week or so. It is going to be hugely exciting when stage one of Central Plains Water storage opens. That is a massive project on the outskirts of Christchurch City. Everyone is talking about the Christchurch rebuild; no one actually realises that just out there on the Canterbury Plains hundreds of millions of dollars are being invested in farming, improving water quality, improving the environment, improving productivity, and growing our exports. We should be backing water storage projects. This Government has a real focus on water storage. We collect and store only about 2 percent of the rain that falls in this country. The rest roars out to sea. There are huge opportunities to do more.

In the final couple of minutes I have got I also want to talk about the regional economy. We have got four studies under way in East Coast - Hawke’s Bay, Northland, the Bay of Plenty, and the one that was announced recently, Manawatū-Whanganui, which covers the whole Horizons Regional Council area. What these studies show is that there is a huge amount of potential and upside in these regional economies, particularly in the primary sector—particularly in red meat, sheep and beef production, dairy, and also horticulture expansion. So the Ministry for Primary Industries with the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment and Te Puni Kōkiri, will be working with regional leaders to lift the performance of these four regions. These four regions—Mr McKelvie talked about it before, and he is well in touch with the potential of his region, as is Chester Borrows, the other local MP there, and Jono Naylor—are all linked in with the opportunities of this regional growth study for the lower North Island.

Also, we have got a real focus on skills, because we know that we need to attract about another 50,000 into the primary sector over the next 10 years or so. About half of them will need to be tertiary qualified or have level 4 qualifications. So they will be your food safety scientists. They will be your robotic engineers. They will be your environmental planners. Agriculture is actually becoming a lot more sophisticated. So we have got to attract the youngest and brightest into a big part of the New Zealand economy. We have got to celebrate success. We have also got to retain and upskill our primary sector capability. Of course, we cannot do that here in Wellington, and the Government should not be doing it on its own, so we are reaching out to industry. And when I say “we”, we have got some work under way with the Ministry for Primary Industries and the Ministry of Education working closer together, looking at pilots in the likes of Ashburton, Picton, and Kerikeri.

There is huge potential in Ashburton for sheep and beef production, and also dairying and arable, and we are bringing in the local principals so that they understand that there are jobs in their local communities. In Picton it is about viticulture and it is about aquaculture. In Kerikeri it is about sheep and beef and dairying and horticulture. So it makes sense that we wrap our arms around industry and get in touch with the principals of those local schools to make sure that they understand there are jobs in their local economies.

Finally, we should be backing the primary sector. The Committee this evening should stand up and say that the primary sector matters. We back it, more so than the Opposition parties, because we know it is hugely important to the New Zealand economy.

Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. This year the 2015-16 appropriation for the Primary Growth Partnership was $69.8 million, almost $70 million. I want to discuss tonight a recipient of Primary Growth Partnership money, PGG Wrightson Seeds, and touch on the national policy statement on plantation forestry, which the Ministry for Primary Industries has been road-showing recently, and the very unfortunate direction that this Government appears to be heading in with agricultural research, biotechnology, and loss of community choice. As I point out the toxic direction of current AgResearch in New Zealand, we must be mindful that there is a fantastic opportunity in organic agriculture that can be very profitable for “New Zealand Inc.”, while mitigating much of our greenhouse gas emissions and reducing nutrient leaching. It will be hundreds of percent better than conventional methods in product value in dairy alone.

PGG Wrightson has said that it wants to compete with GE giant Monsanto, and it has been on that path since Dr Allan Freeth, the next chief executive of the Environmental Protection Authority, set it on that path when he was chief executive officer and managing director of PGG Wrightson. He also got PGG Wrightson to buy into Genesis, which was experimenting with GE grasses and was working with ArborGen on GE trees, an unusual appointment for the arbitrator of GE in our environment. PGG Wrightson developed herbicide-tolerant swedes with Dupont and a couple of failed GE scientists—scientists who had happily broken the important conditions of the previous GE field trials that the Environmental Protection Authority had set and had assured us that those conditions would deal with any risks. But those scientists happily broke those conditions.

PGG Wrightson and the scientists thought that they were really clever and used chemical mutagenesis instead of GE. They did both, actually, but they popped the other ones out in the market so that they could avoid regulatory oversight and avoid safety tests and the apparently irksome conditions of use. The unexpected happened, as can occur with GE and other DNA-disruptive technologies such as that chemical mutagenesis. Hundreds of cows and sheep died, and many more were sick because, in part, it appears that there was an unexpected increase of up to 16 times the natural toxin. A dangerous and unexpected result from a non-regulated technology that is based on the use of three herbicides and DNA disruption—nothing sustainable. That is PGG Wrightson’s direction, and this Government is funding Chinese-owned PGG Wrightson for more of the same, but funding almost zilch for the organics.

I want to touch on the National Environmental Standard for Plantation Forestry. I note that somehow the Government wants, through the National Environmental Standard for Plantation Forestry, to bring in GE trees if the Environmental Protection Authority, headed by PGG Wrightson, a promoter of GE trees and grasses—it wants to allow GE trees to be decided by only that arbitrator, the Environmental Protection Authority, and it has made loads of mistakes in the past. I can go through every one of them, if necessary. In every field trial that the Environmental Risk Management Authority, now the Environmental Protection Authority, has done in recent years, the major condition of consent for approval has been breached, and yet this Government says, through that national environment standard, that local councils and local communities will not be able to decide for their own region whether the Environmental Protection Authority should grant genetically engineered trees. It looks like a cook-up.

Our communities want to be able to sell top-notch product overseas as GM-free and from areas such as Hawke’s Bay. Pure Hawke’s Bay reckons that $100 billion—sorry, $1 billion—[Interruption] Yes, yes, I am getting my figures. One of the producers is working on $100 million on its own, but $1 billion of product from the Hawke’s Bay is going out as being from GM-free Hawke’s Bay. How can that carry on if this Government—

What an extraordinary speech from the Minister for Primary Industries, Nathan Guy. Is there a Minister in this House who is more out of touch with his portfolio and heartland New Zealand—[Bell rung] Mr Chair—second call, Mr Chair? Can I start again?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): No.

OK. Is there a Minister more out of touch? First of all, he stands up and talks about the value of the regional economy. Well, those of us who are regional MPs know this. I am sick to death about hearing that the regions are failing, because they are not. Regions like Hawke’s Bay are doing well in spite of this Government. In fact, you have got two mayors who are saying: “Where is the plan? Where is the strategy from this Government around regional economic development?”. The Government has not got one. Then we get a Minister who stands up and says: “You’ve got to concentrate on primary industries.” Really? There are three major variables for success in the primary industries: one, climate; two, exchange rate; three, commodity prices. And do you know what? We have no ability to control any of those three.

So why should we concentrate on an area where we have no ability to control? Sure, we are the first to admit that primary industries are the backbone of the Hawke’s Bay economy. They provide around about 45 percent of the revenue into Hawke’s Bay. It is an incredibly important part of our local economy. But let me inform the Minister: there is more to primary industries than red meat and dairy, especially in Hawke’s Bay. There is the wine industry, which the Minister for Economic Development had the nerve to stand up and tell this House is doing really well, as the Government whacks an excise tax on it. The wineries are so annoyed with this Government because it taxes them more. These guys cannot get a break.

The apple industry is finally doing really, really well in Hawke’s Bay. But do you know what? We do have a problem with labour supply in the regions, and the Government’s response to this is Recognised Seasonal Employer (RSE) scheme workers. I have a philosophical problem with the RSE scheme, because what we are doing is we are bringing workers in from overseas when there are a whole lot of unemployed people in Hawke’s Bay. The problem with it is that we actually need them at this point in time. We need them because getting these unemployed people off the dole and into work is proving close to impossible.

What we really would like this Government to do, what the industry would like this Government to do, is come up with solutions. It has not had a solution in 7 years, so, yet again, it is up to Labour to provide solutions for the RSE scheme, and we have got solutions. Meka Whaitiri and I have been working with the industry. We have the answers. All we need is to get into Government and implement these, and what we will do is drive the sort of growth that we need to see in Hawke’s Bay.

In terms of the Primary Growth Partnership—I will tell you, this is a very interesting thing. I am hearing more and more as I go around. It is a little surprising, actually, but the, sort of, catchcry is out there. What I hear is: “We don’t bother with the Primary Growth Partnership—this is just a Minister giving money to his mates.” And I have heard—even the Chair is nodding. Even the Chair is nodding in agreement—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Order! Do not bring me into that in the way that you have. You have been here long enough; you know how this place operates. Do not muck around like that with the Chair. Thank you very much.

I was at a conference just yesterday, and a speaker stood up—we were talking about the Primary Growth Partnership—and this speaker said: “We don’t even bother. It is the Minister and his mates.” We were at our regional economic caucus. Our economic caucus did a Hawke’s Bay visit last Tuesday. One of the largest employers in the Bay said exactly the same thing: “Oh, we don’t even bother these days. It’s corporate welfare. It is money for the Minister’s mates.”

Then there is forestry—a very, very important part of this local economy. There was a policy workshop for the New Zealand Institute of Forestry yesterday, and the Minister did not even turn up. Not only that, the Minister did not even send anyone along at all, and the word from the forestry sector is that this Government does not care about the forestry sector—this Government does not care about the forestry sector. It does not understand the forestry sector and, as a consequence, the New Zealand Institute of Forestry is trying to develop policy on its own because this Government is not providing anything for it at all. Minister, if you had been there, you would have heard exactly the same as I said.

So when I hear this Government talk about the primary industries, all it talks about is dairy—which it has done nothing about—and red meat. What I would love the Minister to do is to start coming up with a strategy around the wine sector, around the apple sector and employment opportunities, around the forestry sector—

I am pleased to rise to take a call in this Committee of the whole House as we debate the Appropriation (2015/16 Estimates) Bill. Before I start berating the Government and the Minister in the chair, the Hon Nathan Guy, I would like to just take the opportunity to hand out a bit of a bouquet along with the brickbats.

I want to say a word in support of the Primary Growth Partnership scheme. It is a bit of an anomaly. I really cannot understand why colleagues on this side of the Chamber are so opposed to the Primary Growth Partnership scheme. It is pure socialism. It is absolutely wonderful venture capital from the Government into the primary sector. There is certainly more that can be done with it, and, over time, I have no doubt that there will be more that is done with it, and the Primary Growth Partnership will be extended through other schemes. But notwithstanding Mr Nash’s passion, I do not accept that criticism of the Primary Growth Partnership. I think we have barely scratched the surface of what we can do with it.

But I do want to pick on a couple of areas, a couple of line items, in the estimates. The first is in the multi-category section of the appropriations for primary industries, which includes safety, and it is the appropriation allocated to border and domestic biosecurity risk management. That stands at just under $179 million. As we examined through the Border Processing (Arrivals and Departures) Levy Bill, which was one of the enabling pieces of legislation for the appropriations for the primary sector in this Budget, we discovered through that process that that amount includes the revenue forecast to be collected from international passengers arriving in New Zealand on airlines and cruise ships. And I say “forecast” because it will take a while for the levy to be designed and a while longer for it to be instituted, and then a while after that for the money to start coming in. Then over a period of time that money from the levy will replace the funding that is currently allocated to biosecurity from general taxation.

We know this because the Minister very slowly and grudgingly admitted, quite tortuously over a period of some time, through gritted teeth—he finally admitted that this new levy was not actually going to amount to any increase in funding for biosecurity, but in fact was only ever going to be a replacement for the current funding arrangements.

So this appropriation is not actually doing any favours for biosecurity. We are not going to see a return to 100 percent screening of all incoming passengers, we are not going to see the implementation of 100 percent screening of incoming mail and freight, and we are not going to see an improvement on the present rate of about 25 percent, as far as the inspection of shipping containers is concerned. We are not going to see an increase in resourcing for border security officers so that the green lane can be done away with. In fact, this Government is increasing the number of SmartGate entry points rather than reducing them. So we have no more money for boots on the ground, no more money for additional sets of human eyes, and the brains and intuition that goes with them, but we do have more robots—and SmartGate is not a clever robot; it is just a passport reader. It is quite a dumb robot, in fact. This robot is not the “Six Million Dollar Man”.

So we do not have the “Six Million Dollar Man”, but we do have the $3 million possum. I say that because there is a line item in the non-departmental output expenses column of the appropriation for primary industries that relates to TB vector control. TB vectors are animals that can carry and spread bovine tuberculosis. We need to eradicate bovine TB and keep it out of our cattle and deer herds, and that is a good thing, and the single most important TB vector, we are told, is the possum. Feral deer can carry and spread bovine TB as well, of course, and so can ferrets and pigs and hedgehogs. No one in officialdom seems all that worried about hedgehogs just yet. Rather, it is the humble possum that is tarred with being the single most important TB vector, and this appropriation allocates $30 million to controlling it.

Well, we know from answers that the Minister has given in reply to written questions that over the past 10 years TBfree New Zealand has autopsied more than 124,000 possums in its search for bovine TB. Of those more than 140,000 possums, 54 were found to have TB, so that is 54 out of more than 124,000—0.04 percent—or to put it another way, an average of five and a half possums per year. So going by the averages of the last 10 years we can reasonably expect that this year there might be another five or maybe six possums out there with TB. And they are not the only vector, as I mentioned—TBfree New Zealand has autopsied a number of feral deer as well. Since 2007 it has autopsied a total of 1,751 deer and found that 34 of them had TB.

So we have had 54 possums over 10 years and 34 deer over 8 years. That works out to an average of a little under 10 wild animals a year that we might expect to be carrying TB, and this Government has allocated a nice, round $30 million in order to control them. That is $3 million per animal. We cannot have our shipping containers inspected, but we can go chasing the $3 million possum. I am sure—I am absolutely certain—that if the Government were to announce a bounty of $3 million a head on any possum, dead or alive, found to be carrying TB, it would get knocked over in the rush of trappers and ground control operators wanting to take on the job. Instead, we are going to carpet bomb thousands of hectares of bush with airdrops of 1080 and kill thousands of native birds and insects and pollinators and lizards and snails—

It is great to rise and speak on Vote Primary Industries and Food Safety. In particular, I want to cover off on my responsibility for forestry, and also for food safety, within this sector, which is so important to New Zealand. We would not necessarily know it from some of the comments that are coming from the Opposition, but it is.

Let us start with our $4.5 billion forestry sector. This is a sector that is attracting capital from within New Zealand and from overseas at the moment, because if we think about engineered timber, this is the way that this sector can grow to what it has set as a lofty target of $12 billion by 2022. The sector is going to be able to do that only if the much more valuable products are, in fact, put together, and engineered timber is the way for that. What the Government is doing to support this sector is we are getting in place plans for skills development and for the review of New Zealand standard 3603, which allows engineered timber to be used in a standard measure, in a standard fashion, by the sector. It is getting those barriers out of the way that will see that sector continue to grow and reach towards its potential.

I want to touch on the Afforestation Grants Scheme, which was a Budget 2015 announcement—$22.5 million over 6 years. That will see an extra 15,000 hectares planted—but, you know, every week I hear about more businesses going out and planting more. I believe that the tide has turned, and there is much more confidence in the sector.

Let me address some of the ill-informed comments from the member from Labour who was on his feet before, Stuart Nash. You see, yes, there was an Institute of Forestry conference yesterday, followed by the DANA Ltd forestry conference this evening. I have just left from the dinner at the DANA conference, and I have been hearing about the Institute of Forestry’s conference yesterday. Back in 2013 the Institute of Forestry asked the Government to put together a forestry sector policy, and I said to it: “Why doesn’t the forestry sector put it together? Get the politics out of it.” And that is what it has decided to do. Had I been able to attend yesterday, had I not already committed to doing other things yesterday, I would have done so, but instead, in fact, I sent three Ministry for Primary Industries people rather than, as Stuart Nash said, no one. So, in fact, the Opposition members are out of touch on forestry, and they are out of touch on food safety and many other aspects of the primary industries sector as well.

You see, the Recognised Season Employer scheme was mentioned before. Well, the onions do not get packed and the apples do not get picked in my district, in the Rangitata electorate, unless we have workers under the scheme, so that would be millions of dollars out of New Zealand’s primary production sector because we have low unemployment in South Canterbury and cannot get people to pick those particular products. So the scheme is doing a particularly important job down there.

The wine industry—well, apparently, it needs help! It is going better than ever before, at $1.42 billion in the last year, and is getting really excited about getting geographic indicators from this Government, which will be very important for that sector. The wine industry is having one of its best years, as is kiwifruit. There are great prices for beef—actually, there are lots of things going well, but you would not know it if you talked to the Opposition.

I want to briefly mention a trip that I had to Viet Nam, because from this Government’s perspective not only are we trying to get free-trade agreements and understand the benefit that they would be to New Zealand—the Green members could well listen to this—but at the same time we know there are non-tariff barriers that we also need to be out there trying to reduce. On the forestry, and also food safety, front, which was the reason for my visit to Viet Nam last week—it was the week before, in fact—those sorts of non-tariff barriers going into a market that is for the very first time seeing $1 billion of two-way trade will put money into the pockets of New Zealanders. So New Zealand needs to reach out and work out what these non-tariff barriers are, work on them with the politicians and with the officials in the countries like Viet Nam, because, far from just $443 million worth of export produce into Viet Nam, we can do so much better. People in Viet Nam trust us. They trust our food safety systems. They trust our honesty and integrity in exporting products to their nation. They want our technology transferred. They appreciate the fact that we have supported them in aid projects, as well.

Tēnā koe, Mr Chairman. Tēnā tātou katoa. I am happy to take a call on the Appropriation (2015/16 Estimates) Bill on primary industries. Before I do that can I please acknowledge the passing of the last 28th Māori Battalion veteran from Awatere Valley of Te Wairoa, Te Hei Mauroa Ben Hook; e te rangatira o te Pakānga Tuarua, haere, haere, haere atu rā.

I come from a long line of freezing workers and it is from that perspective that I am going to contribute to this vote that we are discussing today. Can I acknowledge Rose White, an auntie of mine, who, after 40 years and 328 days, has finally hung up her apron and knives after working for Silver Fern Farms in Whakatū. I want to acknowledge my auntie and wish her all the very best in her retirement.

As a product of our being freezing workers, my auntie often told me that freezing workers were the backbone of our economy, and I will work with anybody in this Chamber in fit for purpose primary policies that enable opportunities for all New Zealanders. I am happy to be a member of the very hard-working Primary Production Committee, and I want to acknowledge both our chair and the Minister for Primary Industries for coming to the select committee when we examined his vote—and it was a very big vote that we had to examine. But my contribution tonight is going to be on the Primary Growth Partnership and there have been a lot of speakers speaking about that tonight.

For the benefit of those who may not have been there, I will just quickly remind members that the Primary Growth Partnership was established in 2009. Its purpose is to increase investment and innovation, and to achieve economic growth and sustainability for multiple industries in the primary sector. It is responsibly administered by the Ministry for Primary Industries. The partnership meets equally or exceeds the investment made by the Crown with private investors, and it has an investment advisory panel that assesses all the proposals and business plans before it makes a recommendation.

In the last Parliament the Primary Production Committee requested that the Office of the Auditor-General examine the Primary Growth Partnership. The committee was specifically interested in the transparency and management of the programme—hence my reason for making this contribution. On 30 November 2014 the Crown committed $322 million to 18 programmes, of which just under $120 million has been spent. The Auditor-General’s office undertook a performance audit of the Primary Growth Partnership and it reviewed six programmes with a combined investment of $491.3 million.

So what were the findings of the office? Basically, the Auditor-General said that the Primary Growth Partnership was set up too quickly. It encountered some challenges in its early stages—for example, the definition of funding, conditions, and criteria in the early funding rounds appeared to be “loose”. The office expressed concern about the concept of additionality—which my colleague Damien O’Connor talked about—to ensure that the Crown was not just paying for something that should have been just part of the normal process of some of these larger industries.

The Auditor-General’s report also identified that given that the size of our country of New Zealand is quite small, there were going to be times that you could have conflict in terms of having limited core expertise in the primary sector. The Auditor-General noted, however, that the limited scope of the audit did not determine whether the investment advisory panel or the programme steering groups had a potential conflict of interest that should have been declared. That is not saying that a conflict of interest was not there; it was just not part of the scope of the investigation.

What were the overall findings in relation to the Primary Growth Partnership according to the Auditor-General? Clearly, transparency and accountability issues were identified, and that was something that the select committee took on board and we are undertaking to investigate it again in about 6 months’ time. I want to just make sure, for my colleagues on the committee, that we uphold the findings of the Auditor-General, ensuring that all Crown money is going to what is intended.

I know that this is rushed because we have got only a few minutes, but I want to turn your attention now to Crown Irrigation Investments. I want to acknowledge the Minister again for coming to the select committee and for his commitment that we will not be investing—

The Green Party supports forestry, particularly permanent canopy, sustainable production. We need very good forestry, rather than—as we are seeing—conversions to unsustainable and intensive dairying. But forestry must be located without impact on the indigenous habitats and it must be done right, and, at the moment, in too many cases, it is not.

We are very concerned about the direction of the National Environmental Standard for Plantation Forestry, which the Ministry for Primary Industries has been driving. It will not protect our indigenous habitats, our streams, and erosion-prone land from the impacts of forestry, as we have been seeing lately. In my own area, the estuary was seen as the worst of 32 in the country. The Marlborough Sounds has just been shown to have had an area of habitat the size of Blenheim destroyed by either dredging or forestry sediments, and it was only a fraction of the Sounds that was measured. So we are worried about it.

I went to seven of the consultations, or hui, around the country about this. I am optimistic that the Ministry for Primary Industries will tweak the National Environmental Standard for Plantation Forestry a bit, but I am not confident that it will go far enough to protect our fisheries, fish nurseries, and habitats from more sediment, because this national environmental standard is for industry. Councils have been submitting—submissions finished today—because they realise that they cannot protect their local environments adequately under this national environmental standard. Once it is finalised and gazetted, it will replace councils’ existing district and regional plan provisions for managing plantation forestry across New Zealand, unless the national environmental standard specifically says otherwise. When it is a permitted activity there is no chance for further public comment. People will not even be able to comment ahead of a forestry harvesting that will destroy and wreck their water supply for a period of time.

The Ministry for Primary Industries said: “Hey, you can use the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management, and you can get in the collaborative process and deal with things.”, but even just 2 weeks ago, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment was talking about that process and said that there are gaping holes. One of the biggest ones is that estuaries are not covered, and so our fisheries are still at risk. And that collaborative process is often not quite as effective, being dominated by industry all too often, with a result that is an increase in pollution rather than a decrease. So we need major changes to the National Environmental Standard for Plantation Forestry.

I will go back to the issue I spoke of earlier around genetic engineering. This national environmental standard is being used not only as a Trojan Horse to take communities out of looking out for erosion and looking after their fisheries, their awa, and their kai moana—it is a Trojan Horse to get GE trees in, because the Government lost its ability to do so through Resource Management Act reforms. The Environmental Protection Authority, which the Ministry for Primary Industries is saying should be the arbitrator, has consistently failed. It has a long history of failure and shortcomings in relation to genetic modification, and this Government carries on giving money to those fiddling with it. Crop and Food Research’s brassicas were planted and illegally flowering even when the decision to allow the field trial was being appealed to the High Court. It was ultimately stopped and a foot-deep of soil was removed from across that site and deep-buried at Kate Valley because of potential contamination. Crown research institute AgResearch has GE animals—it has breached its conditions. The Environmental Protection Authority can do nothing about that.

I would really like to start by refuting some of the comments made by one of the earlier speakers about getting in and managing all sorts of industries. I can say, as a former leader of the wine industry, which was one of the industries that he spoke about, that the last thing we would have wanted as an industry when I was in charge—and I am sure it is the same today—was to have the Government get in and try to run the industry. What industries want is a Government that runs efficient services, that minimises the tax burden as much as possible, and, most important, that runs a good framework and, particularly, takes care of trade by negotiating really good trade agreements and free-trade agreements. I am really delighted to be a part of a Government that is supporting the Trans-Pacific Partnership at the moment, which will be such a fantastic opportunity for this country. It was disappointing, I would have to say—although perhaps not surprising—to hear the uninformed comments coming from the other side of the Chamber.

I want to move on to talk about the drought in North Canterbury, which the Minister for Primary Industries alluded to. The drought is a really significant drought, particularly around the Cheviot-Hawarden area. It seems to be a horseshoe of land on the east coast of the South Island that is missing out on the rain that comes from the north, and missing out on the rain that comes from the south and the west. It is unfortunate; this drought has been biting really hard for quite some time. There are reports of about 100,000 breeding stock that have been shifted out of the area to go for grazing, some of which will not come back on to the farms to lamb because there simply will not be the feed there. Although it looks green to the uninitiated as you drive by, it is what is known as a “green drought”. There is a green tinge with, really, no feed underneath it, and not many root reserves to really kick anything away. The soil moisture is so low at the moment that it will need significant rainfall to really turn that round.

I really want to acknowledge the $200,000 of additional funding that has gone to the rural support trusts. That will make a big difference. It is gratefully received by those people who are affected—and also the $500,000 that was announced at the Fieldays by Minister Guy and Minister Coleman. That was a great initiative—it really is. That is where Governments can get in and make a big difference with, actually, a relatively small amount of money, and I want to acknowledge that. I also want to acknowledge the team that is doing a great job in North Canterbury—Winton Dalley in particular, the mayor of Hurunui, who is heading up the drought committee along with Doug Archbold, the rural support guy for that area, who is doing a fantastic job. Sometimes it is a pretty tough job to get out there and do that, and I want to acknowledge him tonight. I think that we should really all encourage those people and the job that they are doing.

These things will improve. It will rain again. All those things happen, and people will adapt their systems to deal with it as best they can. But that segues quite well into my next point, which is irrigation. I acknowledge the $25 million towards the Irrigation Acceleration Fund. There has been a lot of talk about funding from the Government and Vote Primary Industries and Food Safety towards irrigation and what that amounts to. But that money is to fund storage, and storage is about, actually, the community benefiting and the environmental benefits from irrigation.

The Ōpuha scheme in South Canterbury is, I think, a wonderful example of how the whole community and the environment benefits from storage. At Ōpuha Dam the irrigators voluntarily reduced their take as the drought really started to bite hard in that area, to allow more water to flow and to keep the instream values up in the Ōpihi River, which flows out of the Ōpuha Dam. That enabled Fish and Game, which was a very vociferous opponent of the irrigation scheme, to capture the fish that were in the streams that were drying up and take them and put them into the Ōpihi, and then, when that finally got to the point where it was drying up, to take the fish and put them in the Ōpuha Dam.

So we have now, certainly, a group of people from Fish and Game in South Canterbury who were opponents of the scheme, but now very much fans of the scheme, because they can see the benefits to the environment from storage for irrigation. So I think the Irrigation Acceleration Fund is very important. Thank you.

It is a pleasure to be speaking in the Chamber and taking a call tonight. I am very proud of the primary industries, and the expectation for the year to June 2015 is that $35.2 billion would be brought in by primary industries. I know that at this point in time we are looking at a volatile situation in the dairy industry, and I just want to shout out to my fellow farmers tonight. The falling dairy prices have been a concern, but they are temporary. They will come through, and we do know that we are looking for a bright future in this industry.

I also want to mention, and my colleague here, Stuart Smith, talked about it, the funding that is going out to help farmers at this time—the $500,000 that was actually delivered at Fieldays, which has been used to train more people. There are going to be another 100 people out there working with DairyNZ and working with Beef and Lamb and encouraging those farmers to come forward. Although the industry itself is very resilient, we just want to be quite careful about talking too much about individual farmers being resilient, because we want them to stand up and ask for help when they need it—and they will. If they do that, if they work with their banks, they will be resilient and they will come through.

But I want to also acknowledge that there is a whole lot more to the primary industries. We focus on dairy, and I am very proud of it, but over recent weeks I have had the opportunity to visit Zespri with the Primary Production Committee. You know, that is an industry that has come through some very tough times. It had the disease Psa unexpectedly come in with the gold kiwifruit variety that it had at the time. It put in a huge effort around getting people through, and now that is an industry that is really thriving.

What was impressive to me was when we talked to those horticulturalists about what they were growing in their kiwifruit, they were talking about the dry matter content, the sugar content—everything, to those people, was important about the taste of that kiwifruit and the experience of that kiwifruit from the time it left the farm until it went to the pack-house. The people at the pack-house we visited were absolutely focused on keeping that quality all the way through to the market, so that they knew that the person who picked up that kiwifruit and had it at the end of the day on their plate was having a fantastic experience and will continue to buy the kiwifruit.

I have also been to Tegel, which is a fast-growing chicken industry in Taranaki. What is really interesting for me, and I also note, is that in our estimates there is another $10 million going towards animal welfare. Often the chicken people get targeted when it comes to animal welfare. Well, actually, I can tell you that there are no meat chickens kept in cages. There are no hormones used. There are a whole lot of rumours out in our society about what goes on with chickens, and I can tell you that when I was in one of those newly developed sheds on that particular day, with 35,000 13-day-old chickens, it was 27 degrees Celsius inside that chicken shed, and it was actually 10 degrees outside. If I was a chicken I know where I would make the choice to go—because it was very hard to go back out into the cold.

I also want to acknowledge that if you come into Taranaki - King Country on the way from Taumarunui—which is our esteemed select committee chair’s electorate—across in Te Kūiti, just after you leave Taumarunui, there is a wonderful little alpaca shop. We do not often think a lot about alpacas when we think about primary industries, but these people have very, very selective breeding. They have white ones, they have black ones, and they have brown ones, keeping them very pure. They are selling the products in their shops. The wool that actually comes off these alpacas is of a very, very high quality. So there it is a combination of the primary industries combining with the tourism industry and providing a product that people want to see. I can tell you that those alpacas are very, very cute. They do spit, but they are very, very cute.

I am also very impressed with the extra $7.5 million over 2 years that is being put into developing key skills and systems. I was very pleased when the Minister for Primary Industries talked before about the Ministry for Primary Industries and the Ministry of Education working together. Prior to coming into Parliament, I was involved with a group called the Primary Industry Capability Alliance. As part of that group—its role is to encourage new talent to come into our industries. Thank you.