Annual Review Debate — Primary Sector

It is a pleasure to take a call on behalf of the biggest industry in New Zealand and to point out, I guess, a few facts about it and how important it is to us. This industry—and the sector that is run by primary industry and by the Ministers concerned, three of them—is very important in New Zealand. It is absolutely critical to our economy and to our prosperity. Its diversity is also critical to New Zealand’s future.

I want to make the point here that this whole sector is diversifying very quickly in New Zealand. Whilst we were a country of wool, meat, and dairy products, we are now a country of great diversity, and I want to make the point that the kiwifruit industry, wine, horticulture, forestry, and a number of industries are contributing significantly to the diversifying of our land use. They are helping with the challenges around the environment that our sector faces.

This sector’s growth is vital, and I want also to make the point very strongly that whilst the Government has a goal of doubling the value that this sector produces, by 2025, that in no way means the doubling of production. It is certainly not the Government’s intention, nor the sector’s intention, to double our production. It is all around the fact that we can double the value of what we do produce and diversify that production as well.

There are four critical sectors in this area: food safety, biosecurity, animal welfare, and the environmental sustainability that our sector is facing. These are the keys to the future of this sector, and they are the keys to the future of New Zealand. Whether we like it or not, we are very good at producing food and all those other—well, fibre, I guess, is the other part of that sector. So these things are very important to us. It is extremely important that we maintain very high levels and standards around our biosecurity, our animal welfare, and our food safety. We will hear, no doubt, the Minister talking much more about biosecurity as this debate progresses.

This year we heard from a couple of organisations that we have not heard from before during the course of the annual reviews. One of them was the Walking Access Commission. One of the things that really interested us, I think, about the Walking Access Commission was the fact that many of you will remember some significant challenges around the Walking Access Commission when it was first introduced to New Zealand some 8 or 9 years ago. It created quite a bit of controversy. One of the things it pointed out to us very strongly in the course of the time it spent with us was the great cooperation of New Zealand landowners and, in particular, interestingly, those from overseas who have acquired iconic pieces of New Zealand land, and their willingness to make that available for all New Zealanders to enjoy. I think it is a trend that is increasing in New Zealand, and one that I think is very important to most of us: that we do have access to some of the best parts of New Zealand and that we are able to walk or find our way around some very exciting and beautiful bits of New Zealand, many of which have, historically, been held by private landowners who are now making those available for other people to enjoy. I think that is particularly important to us.

I want to talk very briefly about Landcorp because Landcorp epitomises the challenges, I think, that our primary sector faces and the challenges that our farmers face. More, especially, it epitomises the challenges that corporate operations face farming in New Zealand. The reason for that is that, historically, this sector has been run by family farms: small operations, very successful operations that live and work the land and do it successfully. Landcorp has, in recent years, really shown the great challenge that the requirement for a commercial return to the Government shows in that sector.

The other issue I want to raise very quickly is irrigation and the extraordinary contribution that irrigation, if we manage it well, has got to make to our provincial economies. The really important thing for us in New Zealand is, I think, that we do not force people to urbanise; that we encourage and create opportunities for people to live in provincial New Zealand. Thank you.

Tēnā koe, Mr Chair, otirā, e ngā mema o Te Whare nei, tēnā tātau katoa. I am pleased to take a call on the 2015-16 annual review of the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI). Can I say that when I first came to this House, the Primary Production Committee was my first select committee, and I miss it dearly although I am no longer on it. Following on from the contribution from the chair, Ian McKelvie, of course New Zealand wants a primary production system that is fit for purpose. We want it to be progressive, we want it to be inclusive, and we want it to be prepared for the challenges that we face as a country now and going forward. I agree that primary production is a vital component of New Zealand’s economy. The primary sector earns around $30 billion a year for New Zealand’s economy, making it, by far, our largest export earner. So the question I pose in my contribution to this debate is: do we have a system that is fit for purpose?

I want to make a few comments, specifically because I was not there during the examination, using the select committee’s own report, to just highlight some concerns that I have in answering that question. I do want to acknowledge that it is a large ministry—you have got about 2,400 staff, Minister. Roughly $558 million was the total revenue for 2015-16. It went up by about $33 million, and that was mostly on border clearance levies that were contributed.

But I do note that there was a saving in this particular year of about $6.8 million. Of course, you could say “Congratulations; we made some savings.”, but as we have heard just recently with the outbreak of myrtle rust in Northland, it begs the question of whether we are saving at the expense of our border. That is a real, live issue, and many would have heard that for some of the people up in Northland, particularly the iwi, there were some concerns that perhaps there was a bit of a delay in information coming from MPI. So I just want to say that perhaps we need to look at that—the biosecurity systems of MPI—to ensure that we are notifying people in a timely manner.

I want to touch just briefly on the new initiatives that were raised in the report to the select committee. I want to talk particularly about the economic intelligence unit. It is a new initiative with MPI this year. When I look at the description of what this unit does, it says it investigates whether there are any market access issues for countries that New Zealand has a trade agreement with. I put the question: I actually thought that is what New Zealand Trade and Enterprise does. We have got a Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, and I would have thought that that was that particular agency’s role. But we got confirmed at the select committee that it is not, so I am just wondering where there is alignment between ensuring that MPI, in terms of trade agreements, is talking with our major agency, which is the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment.

I want to touch briefly on the future of fisheries and just note that there is the Future of our Fisheries programme. Its aim is to review the current regulatory and legislative systems for the fishing management system. We all know that there are as many hooks in the fish industry as there are actually fish. I just want to note that there was a commitment that Māori fishing rights would not be touched through this programme, so I want to go on the record on that. I also want to draw the Committee’s attention to the scientific research into fish stocks and just note that there has not been any investment in the scientific research for fish stocks. It has been stagnant for several years. Again, it goes towards whether we have got a primary production system that is fit for purpose if we have not invested in that area. Of course, the number of observer days in snapper trawler fishing has also reduced, so, again, there are some issues around that.

💬 Quickly: Primary Growth Partnership. I want to note that $727.9 million has gone into 19 programmes. It would be nice to know what the economy has gained from that investment from the Crown. In my closing 20 seconds, I do believe MPI has a role to play in leadership around our economy, particularly in fresh water, and in terms of trade emissions. I am just concerned that we are not at the table, leading with the information that we have got on behalf of all our sector groups that the primary industry works with, so that we do have a world-class primary production system.

I am pleased to rise and take a call in this annual review debate. I pick up on a couple of things that my colleague Meka Whaitiri has touched on and, perhaps, go a bit further with some of them. I am glad that Minister Nathan Guy is here in the chair, because he may be able to shed some light on one or two queries. I want to echo a couple of things that the chairman of the Primary Production Committee, Ian McKelvie, has said. We are probably the most collegial committee in Parliament. We agree on most things, and most of what we do, in fact, does not have a lot of controversy about it. But when we get down into the nitty-gritty of the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI), what its purpose is, and what it does—my colleague Meka Whaitiri echoed the call that we have to have a ministry that is absolutely fit for purpose.

When we look at, for example—fish stocks is one thing—the Primary Growth Partnership, we did not have an issue with that. We do have an issue with the fact that the taxpayer, who puts a lot of the funding into the Primary Growth Partnership, does not get the share of the intellectual property that comes out of it. So those are things that can be looked at in the future.

What I want to touch on, in possibly a little more detail, is the recent incursion of myrtle rust. It is another one in the long, seemingly endless chain of biosecurity upsets—incursions, disasters you can call them—all, of course, leading up to the big one. If we do not get biosecurity right, the day will come when we have to face foot-and-mouth disease. That is why it is vital that MPI and its systems are properly resourced and are properly focused on preventing these sorts of things from happening. I say “resourced to prevent them happening” because myrtle rust was something that was always going to happen, and, in fact, the Government was warned as long ago as 2010 that it was a risk that was coming. In this report from Scion, Briefing document on myrtle rust, a member of the guava rust complex, and the risk to New Zealand, there are a number of poignant comments made to do with the pathways by which this particular infestation could arrive here. Back in 2010 the risk was outlined as being a probability that related to several steps on an incursion pathway. It was already present in Australia at that time, and the warning was made that if the Australian authorities were not able to eradicate this particular rust, it was doubtful they would be able to contain it, because the spores are transportable by wind as well as on footwear and clothing, and so forth.

Actually, this paper from 2010 makes a point that apart from being windborne—long-distance dispersal—there are other means by which this disease could have arrived in New Zealand. Obviously, we knew that it had arrived in the Kermadecs and that there was a possibility it could arrive by wind from Australia or by other means. The paper from 2010 says that the importation of infected plant material could be one pathway. It also says that deliberate introduction of spores or “infected material by persons of questionable character” could possibly be a pathway. It is interesting because, when we look at the Kerikeri infestation, had the spores arrived by wind from Australia the most likely pathway is that they would have made landfall first in Taranaki, because that is the first part of the country to intercept those prevailing winds. But for them to have arrived in Northland, a long way away from that and on the wrong coast, and to have turned up in two nurseries, tends to point in the direction of a human-introduced pathway as opposed to a natural one. So the indication there is that there is a strong possibility it could have been brought in on infected plant material that was not detected, or, in fact, that it could have been deliberately introduced.

It is all very well and good saying—and I know the Minister has said on a number of occasions that biosecurity is his No. 1 priority, and I do believe him when he says that. I really feel for the Minister in that he cannot seem to persuade his Cabinet colleagues that this aspect of the nation’s defence is utterly critical—that adequate resourcing really does have to go into biosecurity and into border control in all shapes and forms, because the immediate, most pressing urgency about myrtle rust is that it can infect mānuka. That means that the entire mānuka honey industry is at risk, and I think we cannot discount the possibility that international competitors in what is an extremely lucrative and growing mānuka honey industry might possibly be looking at ways in which New Zealand could be compromised in terms of its production and its competitiveness, simply through the mechanism of introducing pathogens that could put us on the back foot.

So in the few seconds I have left I would just like to ask the Minister in the chair to respond to some of those and, hopefully, put our minds at rest. I hope you can do that.

Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. I was waiting for the Minister for Primary Industries to respond to the invitation by my colleague Richard Prosser to comment. He obviously was not going to do that. I am not a member of the Primary Production Committee but did sit in on it for the review of the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI). As the chair of the Primary Production Committee noted, MPI is a major agency. It has got more than 2,400 people across New Zealand and it had revenue of $458 million in 2015-16. In my comments I will focus both on agriculture and fisheries.

Farming is one of our most important activities. It is responsible for 77 percent of our merchandise exports and yet in the primary sector, in its oversight of MPI, this Government has been as tired as it has in every other sector. It has missed a lot of opportunities and it has failed to implement the new initiatives that are needed. It is just doing the bare minimum that it needs to do to get it through to the next media cycle.

One of MPI’s desired outcomes is that the primary sector is resilient to adverse climatic events. The primary sector has obviously got much more to lose than many other sectors of the economy from catastrophic climate change, and that is because it relies on a stable climate. Weather is changeable, but where you have an unstable climate there is an increased likelihood of drought, increased and more intense storm events, a greater risk of severe fire, more tropical cyclones tracking south to New Zealand, and a greater risk of pests and weeds spreading into areas where they are not currently found. We know that the costs of this are huge. Just in June 2015 when those storms hit the Taranaki, Whanganui, and Rangitīkei areas, that cost farmers there over $270 million. Where you have got droughts, that puts enormous stress on farmers having to get rid of stock, often at the worst and least profitable time.

So climate change is a major threat to the stability of the primary sector, but the National Government fails to realise the need for urgent action. In MPI’s annual report for 2015-16, there is only one progress indicator in relation to climate and that is reducing greenhouse gas emissions per unit of production. There is no indicator about bringing down agricultural emissions generally. It has certainly been the case that because of the increase in production—and now I notice Government members are saying “Well, it’s not our aim to double primary exports;”, which is what it has been saying, “the aim is to double the value rather than the volume.” That is not what we have heard previously.

So when we have had a major increase in agricultural production in the last 15 or so years, we have also seen our agricultural emissions increase quite significantly. So while that progress indicator is showing that the rate of increase per unit of production has slowed because of efficiencies in the sector, it is still going up. It is MPI that is responsible, with the Ministry for the Environment, for the implementation of the emissions trading scheme (ETS). When, in the select committee, we asked whether MPI had provided any advice to the Minister about including agriculture in the emissions trading scheme so that it would have to take account of its greenhouse gas emissions, the answer we got was that there were discussions but they were confidential.

The National Government has explicitly ruled out including agriculture in the ETS. It excluded it from the review and all we are seeing is an investment in research through the Global Research Alliance on Agricultural Greenhouse Gases, and through the Sustainable Land Management and Climate Change Plan of Action with a couple of million dollars in there. The National Government seems to be assuming, as a former Prime Minister did, that science is going to provide some magic bullet to reduce emissions: a methane vaccine, low-emission animal feed, or improved breeding that reduces the ruminant emissions.

That is doing a disservice to farmers because it is not providing a signal that they need, and we need to start having a discussion now about how and when farmers should be exposed to an economic instrument to an emissions price so that they can start to work out what changes in land use and land management and agricultural practice are needed to bring emissions down. There seems to be the assumption by this Government that farmers are unable to reduce their level of emissions. That assumption is wrong, because there is a growing body of research and practice that shows that farm profits can be maintained or even increased with fewer animals. The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment in her 2016 report on biological gas emissions highlighted Lake View Farm near Hamilton, which in 2009 had 530 cows. It reduced that to 350 by 2014, it cut its greenhouse gas emissions, it cut its nitrate leaching, and it increased its profitability.

We have got Landcorp, our largest farmer. It has got a goal of being carbon-neutral within a decade, and it—as the select committee heard—is diversifying into sheep milk and into more forestry as part of its push to reduce emissions. Yet by failing to bring agriculture within the ETS, the Government is simply kicking it down the road for future generations, and it means that agriculture is not getting the same price signals as the rest of the economy, and that is amounting to really an implicit subsidy for the sector. The Greens in Government would ensure that there was a price signal for agriculture, and that it did come within the ETS, because we want to lead on climate because New Zealanders want the Government to do more to protect our climate.

Just going on to fisheries—another major part of MPI’s responsibilities is to ensure that New Zealand fisheries are sustainably managed in accordance with our legislation in the Fisheries Act. This is a really important responsibility, particularly given the popularity of recreational fishing. But 2015-16 has been a pretty dire year for the Ministry for Primary Industries and its Minister in terms of fisheries. There are big questions over the integrity and independence of fisheries management in New Zealand and the over-reliance on the industry to monitor itself, so there have been pretty major dents in the claims that the quota system is world leading.

We saw in May last year a major report by academics from three universities that showed that our commercial fishing vessels were dumping around 20 percent of their catch, on average, and that foreign-flag vessels were dumping around 50 percent of their catch. That means that the amount of fish that is reported internationally as having been caught in New Zealand’s waters is actually substantially larger than the statistics going through to international agencies like the Food and Agriculture Organization. The dumping is occurring because it is often small fish, which have a lesser value in the market, or the fish are under the minimum size, or the fisher has no quota. So what did MPI do? It went into denial mode. It rubbished a comprehensive independent report from leading universities, but it provided no evidence to the contrary that that dumping was not happening.

Then, of course, we had the Heron investigation into Operation Achilles and Operation Hippocamp—two investigations that showed that fishers in the trawl and set-net fisheries were dumping catch overboard near Timaru and Ōāmaru—and MPI had clear evidence that substantial dumping was occurring, but it did not prosecute. The Queen’s Counsel Michael Heron found that that decision was flawed. MPI says it is reviewing its fisheries compliance functions with the aim of providing clearer national leadership, but we have yet to see evidence of that. There are 30,000 inspections of recreational fishers each year, and MPI is really proud of that and that needs to happen, but we have not seen the same focus on ensuring that the commercial fishing industry complies with its legal responsibilities not to dump.

We also have an issue around at least 11 fish stocks being below the hard limit in terms of their biomass—that is a euphemism for the fact that the stock has been overfished and has collapsed—and we need an urgent plan to rebuild. As Meka Whaitiri mentioned, the investment in research has been static, at around $22 million. This is a $1.8 billion industry that supports hundreds of jobs, and yet under this Government we spend only $22 million annually on the fisheries research needed to better understand the ocean ecosystem, fish stocks, and everything else that is required to ensure that fisheries management is sustainable. That is typical of this Government. It is failing to invest in protecting the natural systems that are the basis of major industries like fisheries and agriculture.

It is a great opportunity to take a call in the annual review debate for 2015-16, and I want to thank the Parliament for the contributions that we have heard this afternoon. I will be specifically talking about the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI), as the lead Minister, and I do not necessarily agree with some of the contributions that I have heard across the Chamber, but that is not to say that we do not all agree in this House all of the time. So I want to myth-bust some of the comments that I have heard this afternoon, but, importantly, what I want to say is that the primary sector is in really good shape. Export earnings are at about $37.5 billion and are forecast to be $40 billion next year, which is fantastic, is it not—and I see a few members nodding around the Chamber—because that is—

💬 Phil Twyford: They’re falling asleep, Nathan.

—73 to 75 percent of our merchandise exports. Mr Twyford might want to learn a little bit about the primary sector, being an Auckland urbanite, and he probably would not even understand where his food comes from. His food, which he consumes in those flash Auckland restaurants that he is a regular visitor to, comes from our hard-working farmers, fishers, and growers up and down the country. But I happen to have a very proud—

💬 Phil Twyford: I take offence at that!

Ha, ha! I am very proud of the efforts that they make in actually taking premium products not only to the top restaurants in Auckland but to about 150 markets around the world.

There have been a few discussions this afternoon about a few areas that I want to touch on. It is interesting that Meka Whaitiri talked about saving at the expense of the border. I disagree with that. What she may not realise is that the biosecurity investment made by this Government is at an all-time high. What that member may not even realise is that it was quite embarrassing when I brought urgent Budget legislation through the Parliament about 18 months ago to introduce a border clearance levy, which meant that instead of the taxpayer funding the costs at the border for customs and MPI, it would, in fact, be recovered by those who used the services, and that is, of course, about 60 percent foreigners and about 40 percent New Zealanders who come across the border.

Instead of me as Minister having to go cap in hand in every Budget round, back for more money for ports and for airports, it means that as tourism numbers continue to grow, we have more money to invest at the border. Labour and New Zealand First, unfortunately, voted against that, and because they have done that, they do not have any credibility, in my view, to stand up in the House and say that the Government should be investing more in biosecurity. They could not back the legislation that went through the Parliament that even the Greens had the good sense to support, because the Greens are focused on biodiversity—

💬 Richard Prosser: It’s just shifting the revenue stream from one place to another.

—and yet New Zealand First and Labour stood up in the House—I remember their speeches. Actually, to give Mr Prosser some credit, he wanted to support it, but he got rolled. He got rolled by the leadership within New Zealand First. So for New Zealand First and Labour to stand up and say that we need to be doing more at the border—they could not bring themselves to vote for a border clearance levy. So as we have increased tourism numbers coming across the border, we are seeing more investment being made at the border, which is fantastic.

What New Zealand First and Labour also do not give us any credit for is that we have also increased the number of dog detector teams. We have put more people on the front line, more dog detector teams—that is, the dog and the handler. Those numbers have increased. We have now got more modern X-ray machines, which we can move around the country—some of them are portable, particularly for the cruise liner industry.

What our opponents also do not want to acknowledge is that we are making a sizable investment in Wallaceville, just up the road here in the Hutt Valley—$87 million is being invested in a biocontainment facility. That is basically an insurance premium for our animal industries, if we do ever have an exotic animal disease scare. Hopefully, we can keep our international market access open, because we have got a lab that we can our do world-leading testing in. So there is a huge amount happening in the biosecurity space.

Also, right now, specifically talking about myrtle rust, because it is quite a serious issue, particularly for Northland and for the country. We have found two areas with myrtle rust: one nursery and one area very close to that nursery. The 0800 number—there are a lot of calls coming through there. There is a huge amount of awareness. People are ringing up for further advice. We put in a restricted place notice when we do find an area with myrtle rust. We have got over a hundred officials working in the Kerikeri area, and Department of Conservation staff as well, looking at high-risk surveillance sites in Northland. There are over 300 of them. Thankfully, they have not found anything on all of their inspections so far on those conservation estate sites.

The public play a very important part in a biosecurity system, and when I was up there on Friday, I thanked this nursery owner and his staff for the great work that they did on identifying that it was, indeed, myrtle rust, which was backed up by the scientists at the lab. Those people did the right thing.

We have got the best opportunity ever because of the public awareness and the public’s involvement in trying to eradicate this, but it will be incredibly challenging to do because it is a wind-borne fungal disease. It is going to be incredibly challenging to eradicate it. No one has ever eradicated it before. And I have seen numerous reports. These reports talk about 20 occasions a year when it could be wind-blown in from Australia.

We have been getting prepared for this since 2010. We have done a huge amount of work, whether it is diagnostics—we can turn around these samples a lot quicker than we could before—whether it is germ plasm, whether it is surveillance, or whether it is planning. So we are prepared for this, but it is going to be really challenging, meaning we are doing a hell of a lot, but it might be that if we have more finds in the Northland area that we need to move to a long-term management plan, like we have for kauri dieback. So we are doing everything possible, and the Northland community is being hugely supportive, and I thank them for that.

In terms of iwi engagement—because Meka Whaitiri talked about that—there was one example, I think, on RNZ this morning. The member might be interested to know that MPI and other officials are visiting marae in Northland. When Minister Barry and I were welcomed on to the Department of Conservation office, which is the main site in Kerikeri where we will be running the response from, we were welcomed by local iwi. Iwi leaders were briefed on Friday at Hopuhopu about this particular find. They are on board with what we are doing. So there is a huge amount happening in terms of iwi engagement. Just yesterday my officials were engaging with the Māori biosecurity capability network, and there has been another science forum this week. So there is a lot of engagement happening to do with myrtle rust.

Can I touch on a couple of other areas that were mentioned by—I think it was the member Eugenie Sage, and also Meka Whaitiri about fishing. We have the Future of our Fisheries under way, and we are actually getting close to rolling out the first stage of the electronic reporting. That is going to be tablets on boats and it is going to be VMS—which I commonly call GPS—vessel monitoring systems, so we will know exactly where any vessel is 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. They will be reporting on a tablet, so we will know exactly how much they are catching. That all starts to roll out in October this year. Then we move to the next stage of cameras on these vessels. So the eyes and ears are looking across the in-trawl and deep-water fleet.

And we know there is a cost for the fishing industry to comply, but most fishers who I have talked to are up for it. They want to lift their social licence to operate. They catch a premium product worth about $1.8 billion of export revenue, when we bring in aquaculture as well. So yes, they have got some issues to do with social licence, and the way that we can move the debate is by having more transparency.

What has also been talked about is to do with the Primary Growth Partnership. The Primary Growth Partnership is where the Government co-invests with industry about not only looking at new market opportunities, but more innovation. And when you have a look at the 19 programmes that are currently running, which has a significant investment of over $700 million co-invested by the Government and industry—it is really starting to hit its straps in return and starting to grow those exports. We only need to look at the Precision Seafood Harvesting. That is a wonderful net design where fish are selected for size at sea, come on board the vessel—new vessels are being built with holding tanks. It is all about freshness and premium products into market and, ultimately, lifting the sustainability of our fishing stocks. Then, if you think about the Steepland Harvesting PGP Programme where, ultimately, you will have no one sitting in the cab of a digger felling trees on steep slopes—that is all about lifting productivity, but also health and safety performances as well, and lifting that as well.

I can go on and give you other examples—whether it is the Lifestyle Wines, whereby you have lower alcohol and less sugar in the wine and, of course, benefits with healthy lifestyles and benefits for those who want to consume wine and not get under the weather like some do. I could go on and talk about red meat—significant programmes under way there.

So I guess I want to summarise now by saying that the primary sector is in a good space. MPI’s goals are all about growing and protecting. The largest ever biosecurity investment made by any Government has been made by the National Government. We will always be at risk of bugs or diseases flying in or swimming in here, even if we close down all of our people-to-people contact and got rid of all of our trade—and no one would want to do that, because we would sink. We would be a little country in the South Pacific that could not earn its way in the world. So we need to be mindful that we have a multilayered biosecurity system. We will do everything we can to deal with myrtle rust, but it is going to be challenging, and our officials do a good job of protecting us, whether it is in food safety—and I know Minister David Bennett is going to talk about that as well.

The primary sector is the engine room of the New Zealand economy, and when I hear Opposition politicians attack it, it really disappoints me. It just goes to show that on this side of the House we are very focused on growing exports and protecting the New Zealand economy in things to do with biosecurity and food safety and animal welfare and, actually, we are doing more to do with swimmability.

On the other side of the House they do not seem to care about exports. They do not care about actually giving positive speeches in the House and saying that, actually, the primary sector is the engine room of the New Zealand economy. We do not hear from the Greens or Labour about the importance of water storage projects. We just do not hear from them. Occasionally, we hear about it from New Zealand First, because it knows that the odd drought turns up in Northland. But we do not hear anything about the importance of water storage projects not only for economic growth but for the environment because you can maintain summer water flows. We do not hear the Greens or Labour, because Labour, actually, is quite confused on the Ruataniwha and whether it supports it or not. It is quite confused whether it supports water storage projects or not. The Greens are just completely opposed. But on this side of the House we know that water storage projects are important for economic growth and they are important for the environment. Just look at the Ōpuha Dam—when that nearly ran dry it was still feeding the Ōpihi stream, and we had Fish and Game out there a few years ago collecting trout species in nearby tributaries and releasing them into that river that was fed by the dam.

And what is not well understood about water storage projects is that, often, the water flows into local towns or cities. Hunter Downs is going to get across the line shortly. That is going to put water into Waimate and Timaru. The Ōpuha puts water into Timaru. The Wairarapa water storage project is going to feed some of those towns. So there are numerous examples where water storage is hugely important for New Zealand because of the economic, because of the social, and because of the environmental factors as well.

So the primary sector is in good heart. We are doing all that we can to support our fishers, foresters, growers, and farmers. We are opening up new market access opportunities. Recently we had a wonderful trade announcement by our Prime Minister and Minister of Trade—$90 million invested. That means more people, new market opportunities, getting on and dealing with non-tariff barriers, and opening up new embassies around the world. And, actually, we have got some challenges in this space, but if anyone is going to deal with them, it is going to be the National Government. Thank you very much.

Just following on from the series of speeches from the Minister, he is doing an excellent job as the Minister for Primary Industries, and it is a pleasure to work with you, Nathan Guy. You have been very helpful, as a new Minister coming into food safety. So I appreciate your guidance and your strength in this area, as well, and your knowledge and understanding of the industry.

In the food safety industry, it is so important for New Zealand, as well, that we have that strong Government support through the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI). MPI has an important role to make sure that New Zealanders can trust the food they eat, but also that the markets that we send products to can also have that trust in the security of our food supply. That investment that you see from the Government in a wide range of areas is so important. Whether it is on farms with MPI, or whether it is within the processing sites with MPI, or whether you look at our trade facilities with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and MPI and other connections that we have throughout the world, there are so many links in which New Zealand relies on our primary industries and also the sales, the marketing, and the production of the products that they deliver on the world stage.

We are very fortunate to have the best farmers in the world in New Zealand, who are committed to making the best products in the world. We have the best companies in the world, which work to make sure that we have the highest standards of food quality. When you look at what can go wrong around the world, it is really important that you have those standards that are Government supported and Government backed, to actually ensure that we do not cut corners around food production—that we actually make sure that we can have that confidence in Brand New Zealand. MPI has got an important role in that area through its compliance role and also its verification role. It is vital to how we can perform as different industries. I would just like to take, for example, the meat industry, which is so reliant on having the higher standards not only of the production of the actual meat but also of the cleanliness and of the processing capacity that you see within our plants.

If you even take the importance of the Government in there, in making sure that we have those high standards, it is so crucial to their sales. But, also, you can see that the Government has worked hard through trade agreements, especially the chilled meat going into China. I think that is a great initiative that we have worked through in trade and on farm and also in processing and production, to make sure that we can access that market. That is a huge market going forward and really shows the importance of different parts of Government working together to make sure that we actually have the strongest primary sector and take advantage of those opportunities around the world.

The New Zealand primary sector may be able to feed 40 million people, but the market out there is huge. The Asian market, for example, would be 4 billion people. So even if we get just 1 percent of that market, then we are actually really achieving a lot for New Zealand, and that can be a real win for us as an exporting country. We actually face a lot of challenges also in that area. The Minister spoke about myrtle rust, which is one of those types of challenges that can come along.

💬 Phil Twyford: Don’t talk about Maggie like that.

I am afraid the member over the other side should withdraw and apologise if he is going to make comments like that about our colleagues in the House.

Myrtle rust is something that, as the Minister said, always had the potential to come to New Zealand, and it is something that nobody wishes to see here. The vigilance of those in the North who identified it and made it known to the authorities really shows the trust that New Zealanders have in their system. This is a system they believe in. They are willing to work with it. That can give not only us, as parliamentarians, a lot of trust in the officials who work within the agricultural and horticultural sector, but also those international consumers whom we rely on for our exports can validly have that trust in our sector going forward.

I just wanted to begin by acknowledging the Minister for Primary Industries, the Hon Nathan Guy, the Minister for Food Safety, the Hon David Bennett, and the chair of our committee, Ian McKelvie. I acknowledge you, Mr McKelvie, with great admiration, but with one point of hesitation, because I saw a tweet by you the other day where you mentioned that the Rangitīkei electorate produces half of New Zealand’s lamb, and the best half at that. I would beg to differ on that—

💬 Hon David Bennett: Waikato.

—small point there. Ha, ha! Well, Southland, actually. I just wanted to speak on this particular debate because the primary sector, as has been outlined by the Minister, is incredibly important to the New Zealand economy. It is also incredibly important to my electorate. As the primary sector grows, expands, and does well, then my electorate does well. That filters through the 34 towns and communities that we have; all of which, with the exception of Queenstown, are service towns to the primary sector. Everybody in the electorate that I represent has either a direct or indirect relationship and reliance on our primary sector.

That is why it is incredibly important that, as a Parliament, we give credit to the success of the thousands of people who are working day to day in that industry, who are holding up our economy. As the Minister has pointed out, the primary sector is the backbone of our economy. Our new figures forecasting primary sector growth are that it will reach $37.5 billion for the year ending June 2017, which is up $0.8 billion on the previous forecast. But, interestingly, next year’s overall primary sector exports are expected to grow by 9.7 percent, to over $41 billion. That just highlights the significance of that sector to our economy.

Down south we are seeing that level of investment going into the primary sector in order to support that growth. Just at the end of last year, there was a $220 million investment into the Mataura Valley Milk plant, which is a collaboration between some local investors and a Chinese animal husbandry group. The investment that has taken place, and the construction—well under way now, as we speak—is an incredible mark of our positive backing of the sector both down south and also nationally as well.

As Mr McKelvie pointed out before, prices have increased for milk solids. The interesting thing about this investment is that it is their largest investment in a single initiative in Southland’s history. It will employ over 65 people directly when the plant opens. But, interestingly, between now and when the plant opens, there is going to be over 500 contractors and other workers working on that plant, and the contribution that that is going to make to the eastern Southland economy, in particular, is going to be absolutely huge. We talk about Auckland house prices; Gore house prices are actually increasing at the moment, Mr Twyford. It is as a direct result of this investment, which is fantastic, and we welcome that.

But if you look at some of the wider Government support in order to support the growth of our primary sector, the Minister has been a huge champion of the Primary Growth Partnership (PGP), which has seen Government and industry co-invest over $759 million over time into 21 PGP programmes spread right across the primary sector. So for people to say that the Government is not doing enough to support the primary sector, actually, we are doing a lot to support the primary sector. But the primary sector is doing a lot to support itself. Through that almost $800 million investment into science, research, and development right across all of the sectors within the primary industries, there is going to be some really interesting and fascinating and exciting results coming out of many of those projects.

On biosecurity—the point the Minister was talking about predominantly before—we had the velvetleaf scare down in Southland last year. I wanted to remark to the Minister and MPI on the huge level of support that our community has for the robust response that MPI, in conjunction with Environment Southland, put into that. They were incredibly swift to come in and support our local farmers to get on top of that issue in the way that they did. So it is incredibly important, and I wanted to just, basically, highlight that, and as the Minister says, biosecurity is so important to the stability and integrity of our exporting system. So, for a response in action as we saw it, it was great.

Reports noted.

Social Development and Housing Sector