Estimates Debate — Primary Sector

Members, we come now to the votes in the primary sector, B.5, Volume 9. The question is that Vote Agriculture, Biosecurity, Fisheries and Food Safety, Vote Forestry, and Vote Lands stand part of the schedules.

Thank you, Mr Chair. It’s great to be able to take a call on Vote Agriculture, Biosecurity, Fisheries and Food Safety, because it is primary industry that leads the New Zealand economy. I’d just like to acknowledge the members of the Primary Production Committee that were on there from other parties as well. It’s a very bipartisan committee, actually, that works together on many issues because there are many people that have an interest in agriculture on that committee and it is part of the fabric of the New Zealand identity and community.

💬 Mark Patterson: Where did this diplomatic David Bennett come from?

It is, it’s very good.

Of course, the main issue that was a focus was the Mycoplasma bovis outbreak that has been something that has been, through New Zealand over the last six to nine months, a very important part of the Ministry for Primary Industries’ (MPI’s) work. I’d just like to, first of all, acknowledge the good people from MPI that have given so much of their time and effort to try and control and eradicate that cattle disease. I’d just like to also acknowledge the Minister that’s here, Damien O’Connor. I think the Minister made the right call earlier this year. That was a good call that was welcomed by the farming sector, and the question will now be whether there is the ability for the Government to carry that through and to make sure that that wasn’t just a false call that was made.

💬 Kieran McAnulty: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. It’s my understanding that the chair of the select committee has a very specific role in presenting the report of the select committee, not to wonder aloud about personal opinions.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Are you kidding?

💬 Kieran McAnulty: No.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): There’s nothing to rule on there.

The report focused heavily on Mycoplasma bovis, and one of the big issues there is how that actually works out, because what we’ve seen from the Government is an estimation of their expenditure going forward. That is in a number of years, and it will depend on whether that actually happens in each particular year. I was raising the point, for that member, that there is the difficulty that if the Government moves away from the commitment it’s already made, there would be ill feeling within the rural community as to whether that actually has been a commitment that was followed through in earnest in the first sense. That’s an $886 million commitment over 10 years, which was a huge part of the investment by this Government in biosecurity, and to take that away would be a major issue.

It is not something that’s set in stone, because there are a lot of issues around the eradication—namely, whether any diseases were found outside of the initial area of contact, and requirements around what MPI actually can do in managing the outbreak. So it is not something that we necessarily know will be carried through, and it is something where there needs to be that security given to farmers, should there be any breach outside the conditions that were laid out for the Government’s investment in dealing with the disease. If those conditions are not met, then farmers would also need to see some security from the Government, especially when Estimates are done, because you’ve just had the movement of cattle—1 June has been a very important part of the agricultural sector—and so there would be some issues around the future movement of cattle, as well, going through the year from calf clubs to cattle sales and on to next year’s farm movement on 1 June.

There’s also some talk around the National Animal Identification and Tracing system, the NAIT system. I understand that the Minister’s got some plans in that area as well, and we’d welcome a call from the Minister to identify where he thinks that should transition in the future, because that’s part of actually being able to provide that safety and security to the primary sector, especially in regard to something like the M. bovis issue.

Another issue that was raised was around the brown marmorated stink bug. This is another issue where there is a real risk to the New Zealand horticulture sector. We know that there have been some bugs found in New Zealand. The numbers are significant, with 52 of them found alive, and that presents a real risk to our primary sector as well. So it would be good to hear what the Minister is intending to do in the near future to deal with that issue as well.

Some other issues that were raised included protecting kauri trees, and around fisheries and OVERSEER, but the main issue was M. bovis. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr Chair. It is a great pleasure to take a call on this, the discussion on the agriculture appropriations. Of course, as I do not hold the position of chair of this committee, I have a much broader approach to this speech. I can talk much more broadly around agriculture appropriations.

I want to begin by acknowledging the chair of the Primary Production Committee, David Bennett. He is not as bad as we expected. Where we find that this committee stands out amongst the rest is its willingness to work together. I think the point there is that it demonstrates how important the primary sector is to this country. I, along with many other of my colleagues on this side of the Chamber, and indeed over there on that side of the Chamber, live in an area where agriculture in particular—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I’m afraid I have to interrupt the member. The time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Kia orana e Maine Vaa Tuatua.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Oh, well done.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Deputy Chair. It’s been a marvellous break actually. I enjoyed my dinner; I hope you did as well. I had some lovely New Zealand lamb for my tea, and how appropriate, given the topic of conversation today. It did make me think about the challenges that are facing the sector. My friend next to me, the next member for Clutha-Southland—we take a different view on one particular matter. [Interruption] That, of course, is the—I’ve never known so many National MPs to demonstrate support for a New Zealand First candidate as we’ve just demonstrated there: the screams of joy at the concept of Mark Patterson being elected in Clutha-Southland.

Look, my friend and I share a passion for primary industries but there is one thing that we have disagreed on recently, and that, of course, is the issue of synthetic protein. Mark Patterson here was very apt in registering concern around the presence of that synthetic protein and the challenge that it presents to our industry. But I do take a different approach, in the sense that it is also an opportunity. It’s an opportunity for ourselves as a country and the primary sector to actually tell our story, to tell the story as to why our meat is the better option, to target those consumers overseas that are more discerning, that do want to see environmentally sustainable and healthy products, and, of course, New Zealand - produced beef and lamb is that particular product. But it’s up to us as a country, and it is up to the sector to market that product and tell that story so that people know why they should—

💬 Mark Patterson: And the national carrier.

—I’m getting heckled by my own side here—buy our stuff, our products. The fact is that New Zealand needs to work together.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Has this got anything to do with the Estimates at all?

It does, actually. It does. Here we go.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): It would be nice to sort of link it to the Estimates.

The Minister has indicated a visionary approach in establishing the Primary Sector Council. Now, the Primary Sector Council is made up of 18 members, and within that sector they are tasked with producing a sector-wide vision. There have been appropriations allocated to that sector. It is entirely appropriate.

💬 Hon Member: A working group. Another working group.

I say to the new member for Northcote, welcome. But if you’re going to heckle, make it good. You’re not sitting next to a very good example, but the member next to you Tim van de Molen knows how to heckle.

I live in Wairarapa. Now, for the benefit of Alastair Scott, Wairarapa is the area on the east coast just north of Wellington. The point there is this is an area that is dependent on the success of the primary sector, not just for those who work directly within it but for the communities that surround it as well. The future for that sector is one where the Government works alongside industry. The Primary Sector Council, led by the Minister here in the chair, is the body that will set the vision for the future of the industry.

We can no longer leave things purely to the market. We all know the theory of trickle-down, but we’ve also seen the effect the Labour coalition Government—[Bell rung]

No. That’s it. That’s it.

It’s great to be able to take a call on the Estimates for 2018/19. I want to cover some of the topical issues and look back since the coalition Government has formed at some of the decisions that the Minister has made that, indeed, reflect either positively or negatively on the primary sector.

Of course, we remember back to the campaign when Labour went out and said that they wanted to create all of these stand-alone entities. Remember it? There was food safety and biosecurity and fisheries and forestry. Well, when the Minister got his feet under the chair in the first week, he received some very chilling advice from the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) which said, basically, you can’t smash apart MPI because of the competent authority, which means you would lose the status in international markets, particularly for biosecurity and for food safety. So he had his first big loss early on.

Then he had to go through a face-saving exercise of, effectively, rebranding MPI, which was really costly, about $17 million from the primary growth fund. That’s what it will cost to rebrand, to do the signage, and put stickers on doors.

💬 Simon O’Connor: How much?

About $17 million, raided from the research and development Primary Growth Partnership (PGP) fund that’s been really successful.

So that was the first cross that the Minister has against his name, when he set up these four branded units within MPI. I could never see the need for setting up four separate entities for MPI because, indeed, people work across the different entities and, indeed, now the different units.

What was also really topical when we look back was a very dry summer, remember it? We had six regions declared in drought. And then the Crown Irrigation Investments officials were writing to the Minister saying “We need to come and see you.” Because they had read the Speech from the Throne, and they had seen the confidence and supply agreements with New Zealand First and the Greens—as a result of that, the Minister was confused. Remember that I was asking him questions in the House here—whether he’d met them, whether they’d asked or not—and he had to come down and correct his answers on two occasions. Indeed, he hadn’t bothered to pick up the phone, or his officials hadn’t, and welcome these Crown Irrigation officials into his office. As it turned out, pretty much all of that money has been raided from Crown Irrigation and gone into other things—other things outside the primary sector, I must say too. Isn’t it ironic that we had such areas, six regions in drought, and the Government decided to ditch water storage?

💬 Hon Members: No way.

Yes. And then, wait for it—wait for it. The Minister turned up to open an irrigation scheme the day after he’d canned the fund and he said “We’re not against water storage; in fact, we love it.” But wait for it, read the fine print—“We’re just not going to help fund it.” And we know that water storage is hugely important for food security. In fact, when we think about climate change, it’s about climate mitigation as well.

Then, of course, we’re waiting for the Primary Growth Partnership review. The Minister, any time soon, will be receiving a report on the review of PGP. He spent most of his time in Opposition going around and bagging it, bagging this fund; quotes like “Oh, this is just confetti. They’re spraying around money like confetti. It’s a slush fund for National’s mates.” Well, I reckon what’s going to happen is the PGP report is actually going to be very positive. And we got a little sense of this last night when the Minister spoke at the red meat sector dinner in Napier.

Mark Patterson’s just sort of smiling over there. He doesn’t know quite where to look, because he’s a bit of a fan of PGP, and he was there in the audience last night. He heard the Minister say, “By the way, to all you processors and farmers in the room, I’m going to have to swallow a small mouse.” It’s not a big dirty old smelly dead rat, even though it’s a big part of the engine room of the primary sector. He stands up and says, “Ah, yeah, well, I’m going to have to swallow this little mouse.” What he was meaning was he’s received the report and it’s pretty good on Primary Growth Partnership, he’s been and talked to some key players in the Red Meat Profit Partnership—remember that these are all the key players in the engine room of the primary sector who come together to unite, to work on a strategy and innovation, and all of those really important things, reaching right into markets and adding value. Then he said, “Yeah, well, I’ve had a second thought. Park up all the bagging I’ve done for the last six years or seven years about PGP. Now I’m probably going to have to support it.”

What I will commend the Minister on is M. bovis and reaching a decision with industry on that, and thank goodness for the Prime Minister coming in and supporting that.

I still feel for those farmers that are going through and having their herds culled; it’s a terrible time for them. The focus needs to be working constructively, as I believe the Government is, with rural support trusts, who are providing that mental wellness support, and the key people in each community, ensuring that farming families that are having their herds culled know who to turn to.

The other one that’s fascinating in the biosecurity space is this brown marmorated stink bug. That is going to be really big when it turns up in New Zealand—but, wait, it’s already turned up. It’s already here. Remember, we had all those cars coming in from Japan, and the Minister for Biosecurity was out there saying, “I’m turning the boats around. I’m doing the right thing.” Well, the reality is that over that period of time, or since they’ve been in Government—the coalition has formed—there’s been 324 stink bugs that have arrived in New Zealand; 52 of those were alive.

So I’ll tell you what’s going to happen. These stink bugs are already travelling all over New Zealand in these Japanese-imported vehicles. The stink bug season is coming in 30 days’ time. On 1 September is when the stink bug is most prolific. It takes daylight and sunshine and a warming temperature for these bugs to come out. The reason I raise this: when MPI finds one out there—and they’ve already found them post-border, several of them, and, remember, about 12 of them went on a road trip. They were inspected in Auckland; they turned up in Christchurch alive. So they’re already here, they’re waiting. When they have to stand up a response, there’s no lure, they’re training a dog; they were talking to the Agcarm conference in confidence last week, making sure there’s chemical to stand up. There isn’t enough chemical in New Zealand currently. So this is going to be a massive thing.

Hort produced a report—that rhymes, doesn’t it?—that said when stink bugs get going in New Zealand, it’ll cost the horticulture industry about $3 billion, and the thing about these terrible stink bugs is that they don’t just impact on horticulture crops; they get into households, and they—

💬 Simeon Brown: Stink.

Yeah, they literally stink. One person described it to me like your pair of tramping socks that you’ve had on on a week’s expedition that you haven’t taken off—that’s what they stink like. They get in the nooks and crevices of your house and then they breed and populate, and these things are terrible. So we’ll be interested in the Minister’s comments on what he’s going to do in the next couple of months when they turn up.

The other one that’s really topical is this Primary Sector Council. Now, I’ve been trying to get the minutes from MPI and the Minister, and we’re getting sort of a bit of a rush-around as to who’s holding the minutes. You would think that the Government, who wants to be open and transparent—they would just release the minutes the day after the council has met, but we’re having to do an Official Information Act request and get the minutes and find out what was discussed. Well, we heard from the chairman yesterday at the Red Meat Sector Conference, Lain Jager, who I have a lot of respect for—I’m just not quite sure what the sector is really going to achieve. I think in the first couple of meetings they were getting to know one another and talking about the primary sector. The second meeting, I think, was putting some of these Post-it notes on a chart and working out what the primary sector means and exports and things. They’ve got some good people in there, but I’m just not sure that they’re going to achieve anything. It’s all about advising the Minister. Well, what’s their advice going to be on red meat sector reform? I don’t hear anyone in the red meat sector saying they need to be reformed, but the Minister was speaking to a couple of hundred people last night at the dinner saying, “Oh, I’m all set to reform you.”

Then we move into the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act. That’s going to be really topical soon, in a couple of months, because a report’s going to come out, and then, of course, there’ll be a bill. We’ll wait and see. I express my gratitude to John Wilson, the outgoing chair of Fonterra, who I have a huge amount of respect for and who’s standing down because of health reasons. I wish John Monaghan, the incoming chair, extremely well—the Minister did that, as well. But the reality is that Damien O’Connor doesn’t like Fonterra. He likes co-ops but he doesn’t like Fonterra. So he and his mates over there—Mark Patterson’s mates—want to deal to Fonterra. They want to smash the place apart. I heard the Minister talking at a Federated Farmers thing about a month ago where he said, “Oh, yeah, I’ll be probably meddling in their constitution as well.” So the gloves are going to come off. It’s going to be fascinating to watch.

Anyway, I think it’s been a mixed eight or nine months from this Government, focusing in on the primary sector.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m happy to follow that bit of fiction with a few facts. I acknowledge the Hon Nathan Guy as the former Minister, and I acknowledge the challenges that I’ve had coming into this role, taking over from him and his Government. It’s not been easy, and he points to a few things that we have done. We certainly have made some changes at the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI), and set up four business units. The previous Government’s approach to this area was that we put everything together and big is better and it’s more efficient, but the multiple responsibilities that are within MPI as an organisation were so vast and so important that we thought, actually, no, it’s better for biosecurity, food safety, fisheries, and forestry—really important areas for the future of New Zealand; farmers, foresters, fishers, and the New Zealand economy—to have officials with a passion, with knowledge, in a business unit, not distracted by other responsibilities in MPI. We made those changes, and I’m proud of them and happy that we’ve made the kind of progress in terms of focus that we were expecting.

Yes, some of the money from the Primary Growth Partnership (PGP) was used for this restructure, but, in fact, when I went back and looked at the books, the previous National Government had been promising an amount of money for PGP but taking an amount of money for other uses across the primary sector. So the amount of money spoken of and promised was never ever delivered across the PGP, and the former Minister criticises me for daring to challenge the PGP and what it attempted to do. I said that for the most part it was business-as-usual operations, but in spending $700 million, you can’t help but have some positive outcomes—you can’t. I mean, no matter how inappropriately or irresponsibly the previous Government spent that $700 million, you have to have some. So I did admit last night that having met, effectively, a discussion group of farmers in Napier and talking through some of the issues of M. bovis, it was good to see them come together and discuss these issues, and they were funded through a Primary Growth Partnership fund. They should have been coming together like this for years, if they’d seen the wisdom in it.

But I acknowledged, and I did swallow a small mouse to say that the Red Meat Profit Partnership, if it brings together farmers across the drystock sector, is indeed creating some benefit. Whether it’s value for money is not up to me; I think the review will be testing that. And of course there will be some benefit from the PGP, but the question for any responsible Government is, is that the best spend of $700 million?

💬 Hon Nathan Guy: What does the report say?

So the member will wait for the report. I hope he holds his breath. It won’t be immediate in coming.

I’d just like to say, in moving through a couple of the other issues, we do believe that we need water for the future of New Zealand agriculture—indeed, for all communities. But, again, in the largesse and promise of support for their constituents, the National Government didn’t sit down and look at the outcomes from its funding of large-scale irrigation schemes. In some areas, there have been environmental impacts that haven’t always been positive, but the one thing that was being undermined was the social licence to continue with that programme and the expansion of dairy.

So we have wound that back, taken that money and, yes, put it into other, better uses across the primary sector, but what we’ve also done is said that we will work through smaller projects that are focused on catchments, that will deliver clearly identifiable benefits but within a social licence to operate and environmental limits that are sound. That’s our approach to immigration, not just simply throwing money at big schemes, some of which haven’t actually got the uptake and utilisation of the water that they’d been promised. We’re saying we’ll be really careful and we will intervene when necessary, not sit back and rely on the market to deliver the outcomes.

Can I say, on M. bovis—and it has been raised, in fact, by all speakers—that it is one of our biggest challenges. I acknowledge that. It was first identified in July, this time 12 months ago. We weren’t in Government at the time. I made some comments at the time, and I still stand by those comments. But none the less, when we came into Government we had to firstly assess the situation and then apply our best focus and the money necessary, utilising the best advice that we could.

We had an international technical advisory group of experts, who came back and said—after two reports, in fact—that we could eradicate this. It wasn’t unanimous. But, as we have been with industry, we sat down in an open way and laid on the table all the evidence—the reports from the experts—and said, “Well, we believe we’d like to give this a shot. Do you agree?” They went away, they considered it, and they came back, and we unanimously agreed that we should attempt to eradicate M. bovis, because I think it would be fair to say that a number of the sectors across the primary areas underestimated the potential impact of this, and, indeed, we’re just seeing this flow through now.

I would like to acknowledge the support of my colleagues through Cabinet and caucus. The $886 million that we have committed to this programme—32 percent of which will come from the industry; I acknowledge that—is a huge commitment to, I guess, underpin the farming sector but, ultimately, reduce over time the potential costs of managing a farming system with M. bovis. So thank you to colleagues, thanks to the taxpayers—they are contributing to this.

As long as the farmers and the people in the sector appreciate that and do what is necessary from their side of the equation, such as better traceability, better tracking of animal movements and notification of those movements, adhering to the regulations around tagging—these are all things that haven’t been implemented properly. Indeed, I could say that the previous Government’s softly softly approach in this area has contributed to the spread of the disease. But that’s spilt milk—pardon the pun—and we’re now trying to move ahead and make the changes necessary to ensure that farmers do adhere to their part of the equation, because the taxpayers are doing their bit and they’re funding this. So it’s really important to remind them.

Can I say that the brown marmorated stink bug is almost as devastating to New Zealand as M. bovis. Can I say that the systems that we had in place were those put there by the previous National Government, and the transitional facilities approach—which Nathan Guy, the previous speaker, referred to—that allowed a machine to be brought off a boat and on to a truck in Auckland and taken back down to Christchurch to be parked up and then, finally, checked is being changed by us.

That was a totally inappropriate system that allowed those brown marmorated stink bugs—they were hidden away—to get to Christchurch. We can’t have that any more. We turned around ships. We will turn them around again. We’ve gone offshore and told the people who are bringing, or are planning to bring, imported equipment into this country, “Do the spraying and do the checking properly, or they’ll be turned around and they’ll be sent away.”, because we’re not going to muck around and consider the possible impacts on equipment importers or on used-car importers. In our view, biosecurity is so important that their interests are secondary to protecting our country from these bugs. So the softly softly approach implemented by the previous Government is no longer in place under this Government, and I’m very happy to say that.

If I could just very briefly mention the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act review. The previous speaker said that I don’t like Fonterra. I was the chair of the select committee that passed through the legislation that set Fonterra up. I have a passion for it. I know it wasn’t perfect. But it’s the biggest and best company we have in this country, not the best performing, and it needs to be the best performing because otherwise farmers are going to leave it and undermine the cooperative, with the possible failure of what has been our biggest company.

I want them to succeed, but criticising them and encouraging them to do better is something that we will do as a Government. That’s not the softly softly, patsy approach that the National Government took to them—it refused to encourage them to do better and to move along. What we’ve seen now is that, actually, foreign companies and other participants in the dairy industry are outperforming Fonterra, when it should be Fonterra outperforming them. That’s the risk to the dairy industry. That’s the risk to our country. This Government will not stand by, and I will not stand by, and allow that to happen.

Kia orana. Madam Chair, thank you. I want to change the topic slightly from brown marmorated stink bugs to the greatest animal in the world—the horse—just briefly, and, of course, you’ve got an ex - Minister of Racing sitting next to you. I just briefly want to talk about the only tax relief that came about in the course of the Budget. I think it’s hugely positive for the industry, and I’ll explain why. The tax relief given to the racing industry is exactly the same as tax relief available to all other livestock sectors in New Zealand, and I think it’s a very good bit of tax relief for the industry. The thing that I find extremely unfortunate was the description put around it, and that’s certainly undermined, I think, the credibility of the industry.

I want to talk about a couple of other things in that sector before I move on to fishing. I want to talk about the synthetic track and the potential for that to happen, because I think that also is exciting for the racing industry in New Zealand. Interestingly, it looks as though that will be funded from the Provincial Growth Fund, and I hope the fact that that happens doesn’t then preclude those tracks from going in places they should go, because, clearly, the Provincial Growth Fund has been designated as a provincial growth fund, not a city growth fund. I think it would be a shame if, as a result of that, the tracks that are proposed by the Minister don’t end up in a place that it’s most important that they should. So I’m not going to pick those spots, but, no doubt, that will happen. I think it’s critical that they do end up where they should.

Very briefly, on the last couple of topics, I wanted to very briefly speak, in relation to the racing industry—and that’s the Messara report, which has been awaited with interest. The contents will be critical for the industry, and I hope it covers all three codes.

I now want to move on to the fishing industry, an industry that’s absolutely critical to all New Zealanders. The reason I want to talk about one or two things in this sector, because I guess the most notable decision that’s been taken by this Government is to delay or stop—and I’m not sure which—the implementation of cameras and even, to some extent, the monitoring that takes place on fishing boats.

I just wanted to briefly talk about the industry because this industry is critical to New Zealand in many ways. It’s a very big commercial industry in New Zealand and it employs thousands of people. But, more than that, there’s an estimated 700,000 of us that want to go out there and catch a fish on Saturday afternoon. Interestingly, the biggest reason for those people wanting to go out and catch fish is not to catch it for food. It is to go out for an afternoon or a day, or whatever, of recreational fishing. The big challenge we’ve got in this industry—and the big challenge the Minister’s got around the implementation of cameras or whatever other compliance measures are chosen to deal with the challenges the industry has—is that this has got to be sustainable from a New Zealand perspective. It’s hugely important for so many New Zealanders that the fishing industry is sustainable and that it’s managed in a manner that we can all participate in and yet can still guarantee New Zealand those huge commercial returns that come to the country as a result of that fishing industry.

I just wanted to speak briefly about the foreign charter vessel legislation that was put through a year or two ago. It has proved to be pretty successful. I had the opportunity just some weeks ago to visit one of those boats in Lyttelton, and you can’t help but be impressed with the way they are operating. That’s a piece of legislation that was put through the last Parliament, and it certainly has proved to be hugely successful. So it just shows that with a bit of cooperation in an industry and in a sector, we can make a lot of progress with the things that are most important for us as a country and most important for the fishing industry. The last Government commenced an independent review into the fishing industry, and it will be very interesting to see the eventual result of that. That’s pretty critical to us all, as well.

The other really interesting thing that’s going on in the fishing industry is related to aquaculture, and I think it’s most important that we get the Marlborough Sounds salmon issue sorted out very quickly and allow those farms to move on and get on with what they do. Aquaculture is absolutely the key to New Zealand’s future with respect to not so much the fishing industry but the production of food—protein—and it’s a huge opportunity for this country if we can get the settings around aquaculture right. I urge the Minister to get on with that and make those decisions around the Marlborough Sounds as quickly as possible. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I am pleased to speak in this Estimates debate on the primary industries, and I must acknowledge the previous speaker, Mr McKelvie, a sheep and beef farmer of note from the Rangitīkei, speaking so passionately about the fishing industry and the aquaculture industry. That just goes to show the passion which members, and former members, of the Primary Production Committee have across all of our primary industries. Whether it is viticulture, sheep and beef, dairy, forestry, we’re all represented in that committee, and we gave quite a thorough examination of the primary industries.

I want to give a bouquet to the Minister for the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI), the Hon Damien O’Connor, for the outstanding job that he has been doing in leading our primary sectors in what are challenging times, and in particular how he has responded to the threat of Mycoplasma bovis and the investments which this Government are now putting into the eradication of that nasty organism. And that has been testament to the leadership of Mr O’Connor and, of course, our coalition Government. It not only spans the MPI sector but I must acknowledge the great team that we have within our coalition Government, because our primary industries are so important that we have dedicated Ministers now who are specialists and who are focusing right across the primary sectors—if we look at Te Uru Rākau, with the Hon Shane Jones and the great work that he’s doing in the forestry sector. He’s literally rejuvenated that forestry sector right across Aotearoa, right from opening headquarters in regional New Zealand. So he has absolutely been the first citizen for the regions with the work that he’s doing in championing our forestry sector. So I commend him for that.

I must also go on to commend Minister Nash for his great work that he’s doing across the fisheries sector, and I must also include Minister Sage for her work, because a lot of what they are doing in the fisheries sector involves spanning and looking at complicated, complex issues around marine protected areas, sustainability, right through the supply chain into our export markets. So that just demonstrates the cohesiveness that we have with our outstanding Ministers that are leading in these portfolio areas. And, I guess, what further, better proof do we have that we’re doing a great job in these sectors than one only needs to look at the increase in the export revenues that we are generating across these sectors. If you look at the seafood sector, in particular, there are record export revenues, record export growth—$2.1 billion. We’re into the two-billion figure now for fisheries. Likewise, in the forestry sector, a 16 percent increase—$6.4 billion. So the numbers are going up across the board. Of course, we are aware of the challenges that we face. We don’t take it for granted, whether it’s a brown stinkbug or other nasties or organisms. We know how important our industries are, and Mr O’Connor and our wider team are right on top of all of these threats that we face, and are also looking to grow our sectors into the future.

That’s what we want to see: thriving primary industries which are sustaining our families and our regions up and down the country—the sweat and toil that goes on on the land or on the sea—which is done in a sustainable way, which is earning outstanding export revenues and wealth back to our country. So I do stand in support of the Estimates across our primary industries. Our Ministers are doing an outstanding job, and I’m looking forward to supporting their additional measures that they will be putting through as we continue through the course of this Parliament. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Kia orana, Madam Chair. Thank you. And I thank the two previous speakers and note their comments about aquaculture. I was pleased, last week, to be visiting some of the salmon farms in the Marlborough Sounds, and I recognise too the commitment of this Government to tackling climate change, because, of course, with rising sea temperatures as a result of a changing climate, it makes it incredibly difficult for aquaculture, particularly salmon, which are very sensitive to water temperatures, and it can cause quite significant mortality.

What I’d like to speak briefly on tonight is Vote Lands, which I am responsible for. And it’s been a real pleasure taking on this portfolio and the significant work that Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) does, because we have over two million properties in New Zealand—a trillion dollars’ worth of property—and Landonline and the work that LINZ does with the issuing of several hundred thousand titles each year is absolutely central to people’s security of title and to the basis of our economy, with people able to buy and sell properties with security, knowing that the title means that they actually own the land. And there’s quite a lot of work going on there.

There’s also considerable work going on across the Crown sector. LINZ, increasingly, is responsible for the disposal of surplus Crown properties, and it surprised me, as a new Minister, to learn that we did not have a register of all Crown-owned properties. So that is being developed across the State sector—whether it’s education properties, district health boards, and other properties—so that there is a comprehensive register and we actually have a bit more of an inventory and understanding of the property and the assets that the Crown owns. Some of those significant properties are, of course, the Crown pastoral leases in the South Island high country, and it is my ambition, as Minister, to ensure that we have a sustainable farming regime in the high country and one that protects the outstanding landscapes, which are the basis of our tourism industry in the South Island, and also the significant biodiversity values. So there’s a lot of work being done in that space to look at how we can improve the management of Crown pastoral lands, how we can improve decisions around discretionary consents.

There’s been a significant investment, in this Budget, in the Overseas Investment Office—an additional $7 million—to enable the office to do more work in the compliance and enforcement space. And that follows on from the major change which this Government introduced with the new ministerial directive to the Overseas Investment Office to make sure that the provisions of the Overseas Investment Act applied to all sales of rural land over five hectares rather than just to the large farms, which occurred under the previous Government, when many rural land sales were put outside the purview and the decisions of the Overseas Investment Office. We’re ensuring that there is much greater attention to the substantial and identifiable benefits that are required, because it is a privilege for an overseas person to buy land in New Zealand. If they are going to get that privilege, they need to ensure that there are substantial and identifiable benefits to the New Zealand economy.

Some of the other work that LINZ is doing is in the area of light detection and ranging surveys, to give a much better handle on the land and the proneness to things like sea-level rise, and a lot of that mapping work was very useful after both the Christchurch and the Hurunui/Kaikōura earthquakes. And so there’s a lot of work being done to ensure that we have got more up-to-date mapping data, that it’s digitised—not just the topographic data but looking at applications in the biosecurity space, with wilding control, for example, so that there can be better mapping of the spread and control of wildings; and, similarly, with the rabbit calicivirus—the effective release of that and where it has worked.

So LINZ is definitely a digital organisation. It’s investing a lot in information management. It’s investing a lot in maintaining Landonline, in our property database, ensuring that we have got a better register of Crown properties and, with the Overseas Investment Office, making sure that conditions of consent are monitored and complied with. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Madam Chair. When I travel the countryside talking to rural communities, the overwhelming feedback I get is uncertainty: uncertainty with this change of Government, with the direction the agriculture and primary industry sectors are taking, and that lack of clarity around how they can drive their business, going forward, without clear parameters in which to operate. There are some challenges in the industry at the moment, and we’ve heard already a bit about Mycoplasma bovis, the threat of brown marmorated stink bug, as well, and this is a time when Government needs to be stepping up, putting a clear mark in the sand, and saying that they are backing the primary sector through these difficult times, and we are not seeing that currently.

What we’re seeing instead is a raft of reviews and a lot of uncertainty around what’s coming up. Are we having another restructure of the Ministry for Primary Industries, for example? We saw that, breaking the ministry apart—but, actually, “No, we can’t quite break it apart; we’ll just do a bit of rebranding, change the labels.” Then we’ve got challenges around the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act (DIRA) review. That just encourages uncertainty with our farming communities. They need support at these times; they don’t want this hanging over their heads, not knowing what it’s looking like. We are seeing a breadth of parameters outside the scope of DIRA coming into that review as well, and that, again, encourages uncertainty and a lack of confidence within the sector. We’re seeing that up and down the country.

The Primary Sector Council is another example. That’s been set up, but, actually, where is the dairy farming representation on that council? It is strangely absent; there is not a single dairy farmer on there. Where are they? All the other industries are represented, but dairy is sorely lacking. You can have no surprise, then, that the industry takes exception and has uncertain expectations in the air around what the future is for them during these difficult times.

When you look at some of these challenges, like the biosecurity challenges in front of us, we need to be making sure that we’ve got the backs of our farmers, and part of that is around mental health. The Rural Health Alliance Aotearoa New Zealand was a key organisation that just had its funding ripped under this Government—$600,000, an absolute minuscule contribution to the rural sector within New Zealand. It’s been cut out altogether. What an example of support for the sector. It’s disappointing to see.

We’ve heard already, again, some of these challenges around the alternative protein, or plant-based protein, synthetic protein space that Mr McAnulty was talking about earlier. Well, some of his comments were all over the show. I suspect he’s been eating a bit too much of this plant-based protein himself and is, indeed, starting to resemble, perhaps, a plant-based protein—looking a little bit weak, somewhat of a scientific experiment, in that we just don’t really know if it’s good for us or not.

Moving on from that, we have seen a continued lack of support. Irrigation—we’ve already heard from the former Minister about that. The water storage projects, that present huge opportunity for the primary sector in terms of building wealth within the economy, building resilience, having environmental benefits as well, were just cut. What we’re seeing, continually, is virtue signalling—good ideas, good concepts, but a lack of detail that actually supports those on the ground doing the hard yards. It’s disappointing to see, despite the rhetoric, that we are not having a clear line of support for our primary sector. We’re seeing that flow through to market conditions. You go up and down the country, and in the Waikato—my electorate—we have seen land prices stalling in the property market over the last eight, nine months. There is uncertainty; they don’t know what’s happening in that space—there’s the DIRA review, there’s M. bovis, there’s a change in Government, unclear policies. It has a significant impact on the economy, and this Government does not seem to recognise that.

A lack of support is clearly evident in these communities, as well. When I travel around and talk to my rural constituents, they are saying they don’t know what the future holds for them at this point. They are looking for clear support and clear leadership from the Government, but it’s absent. It’s nowhere to be found. What we see again and again is rhetoric coming out of the Government, with no clear indication of the financial support that farmers might expect, how they’re going to drive their productivity and environmental sustainability and business growth—all these aspects that are critical to any industry, but we’re seeing that, in particular, in the rural sector at the moment. It’s a shame that this Government won’t step up and fill that gap as it’s needed. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I guess, given the importance of the primary sector to this economy, I just thought I would take a second call and clarify a few things for the previous speaker, Tim van de Molen, in particular. I guess that’s the problem: if you ask a rural banker to do an assessment, the chances are they will come up with the wrong one, for the wrong reasons. He’s probably better off in Parliament than he is out there in the wider field. Can I say that there is a dairy farmer on the Primary Sector Council. Julian Raine, in fact, is leading the way, with Appleby Farms Ice Cream, with Aunt Jean’s Dairy fresh milk, and is actually showing the industry that there is an opportunity to get out there with high-value products from the dairy industry.

Can I just refer briefly to the Primary Sector Council, because it is a group of lateral-thinking, innovative, and disruptive people who have a passion for the industry, who have been brought together, not as a group of representatives, which has always been the kind of traditional National Party way; this is a group of people who have a passion to look into the future and deliver a vision for us, because we haven’t had one across the primary sector. “What are we doing and why are we doing it?”—that question was never asked by the previous Government, and it’s one that I can’t answer myself, but I put that to a group of very, very experienced and passionate people who are getting on with that job, under Lain Jager, under his chair.

I think he sees that this is a really interesting group of people to chair, because they are all quite strong-minded. They have a passion, as I’ve said before, and are independent thinkers, and that’s what I want from them. But they will deliver a vision, and they accept that we, as a country, are delivering food and nutrition, not just primary industry—lambs or logs or fish. In fact, we are now in the challenge of delivering the finest protein to the world’s most discerning customers and getting the best value for that, because if we don’t, we’re actually going to stumble as a food-producing nation. So that’s what they understand is the challenge for us, and they, I think, are getting on with the job.

Mid-stream, I have to say—and I’ve just written it down here—and I spoke of M. bovis before, can I acknowledge the farmers caught up in this terrible challenge that we have. There are a large number of farmers—probably 800 or thereabouts—who have been directly affected. It’s very, very challenging. They are under a whole lot of stress. We’re trying to put in place the best support systems for them. It’s not easy, but they are taking a hit for their colleagues and for the future of agriculture in this country. Can I just say thank you for their participation and their cooperation, and we will get through and succeed if we all do the same thing.

Can I just very briefly, before I sit down, talk of New Zealand Food Safety. In terms of a country producing the finest food for the people in the world, we have got a good reputation but we must ensure that whatever we produce, whatever we grow, whatever we process, whatever we package, going off is the safest and finest food, as I say, for the world’s most discerning customers. In that area, we’ve set up, firstly, New Zealand Food Safety as a business unit within the Ministry for Primary Industries, but we then got on with the job—jobs that have been sitting around for a while. Firstly, we’re consulting on an organic standard—one standard that we can be proud of and can be credible for the export of New Zealand organic products. It hasn’t been done before. The last Government ignored it; we’re getting on with it.

We’ve been talking with the hemp industry. There is potential for hemp, hemp seed, and then hemp as a fibre to get out there. It’s a new opportunity—something that’s been scoffed at by some people, but actually a real opportunity—again, for people who are really discerning customers around the world, looking for natural products. We’ve just had a wool summit—again, something to push off opportunities from the very stagnant position that they have been in for quite some time.

The other area, in terms of food safety, that we have—we grasped the nettle, and we now have in place a mānuka honey standard. For years, people have been telling us they can’t believe that the mānuka honey sold offshore isn’t, indeed, true to label. So we had to get on and put in place, after years of procrastination by the previous Government, a standard that all those honey producers have to adhere to. It hasn’t been easy for them, and some are trying to get around the rules, but if they stick to the rules, we build our integrity, and they will get even more value for that mānuka honey. We have done a lot more in the food area, and we’ll continue to do so.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m delighted to stand up and take a call on agriculture in the Estimates debate. I want to start by acknowledging members of the National Party, New Zealand First, and Labour, who sit on the Primary Production Committee. If you want an example of a really good select committee—we’re all members, regardless of what side of the House you’re from—you need to come and witness, come and experience, our select committee.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I don’t need to.

We have a lot of fun and—sorry, Madam Chair. And for any members in the Chamber, if you do want to get legislation put through the House, the best place to put it is the Primary Production Committee, because we do have a good time. We actually come together for the benefit of farmers.

I want to also acknowledge the Minister of Agriculture, Damien O’Connor. I know you work hard around the Cabinet table, Minister. What I hear from feedback from people that you’ve met with, you have got farmers’ interests and New Zealand’s interests at heart, but, unfortunately, you are working with an extreme-left, anti-farming Government. But I do know that you do work hard—considering you’ve got David Parker running round telling people he wants to cap cow numbers. He also wants to, basically, put farmers out of business, bringing them into the emissions trading scheme, which is going to cost farmers on average $5,000 to $10,000.

To give you more credit, Minister, you had a protest march on the West Coast over the weekend, and you turned up as the MP. You were the lone Labour MP there; you had no mates. I think the National Party’s Maureen Pugh, who’s doing a wonderful job—she turned up with a few National MPs. And Mark, how many New Zealand First MPs were there? Maybe half a dozen or so. So it’s great to see the National Party and New Zealand First supporting the coast.

I do worry for the industry. At Field Days we had a rural-proofing policy announcement from the Labour Party. If you go on to their website, it says we want to “engage with rural health professionals to ensure adequate access … and acute treatment for all rural New Zealanders”. Hmm! Very interesting. If that was the case, why is the Lumsden Maternity Centre being shut down? This is a wonderful hospital where over a hundred mothers give birth each year. And then, if you want to take the M. bovis outbreak, and I appreciate—[Interruption]. Madam Chair, I think I hear a screaming cat. Is there a cat in the Chamber? Can anyone else hear a cat?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I think you need to focus on the Estimates.

💬 Hon Member: Don’t tell Gareth Morgan.

Better not mention that. So with the M. bovis outbreak, Minister Guy did a wonderful job in 2013 with the Government industry agreement (GIA) where he got 16 primary industry sector groups together to ensure that if an outbreak or an incursion did happen, which they do from time to time—we’ve got 180,000 items crossing our border each day. So Minister Guy did a wonderful job in 2013, where industry would pay 12 percent of an outbreak to ensure that, if there is a possible outbreak, industry wants to come to the table first.

Poor old Minister O’Connor here had to go round Cabinet with his begging bowl asking for more money and he was looking at charging industry 40 percent for a GIA. So I commend the Minister for getting that down to 32 percent. Unfortunately, this is going to cost the industry an extra quarter of a billion dollars. We also saw the Minister going round saying that the National Party wasn’t doing enough in biosecurity. The Budget comes around and, hooray, they get another $9 million increase in biosecurity. If that was the case, you would have thought they needed $100 million. The National Party last year increased biosecurity by $18 million. Yes, that’s right. Twice as much as what—sorry, Madam Chair, I think there’s a cat in the House. I think there’s a cat.

💬 Hon Tracey Martin: Love the way you diminish women. You diminish women. How lovely!

For farming communities to stay strong—you don’t go round as the Minister for Children and shut the Roxburgh children’s camp. Minister Tracey Martin, you campaigned on looking after the most vulnerable children, and you go and shut down the Roxburgh children’s camp—absolutely disgraceful. The Lumsden Maternity Centre—that’s about to be shut down. Te Ānau rescue helicopter base—what do you know? That’s on the chopping block.

I do want to finish on a positive. I just do want to commend the Minister for doing a wonderful job. You do have to put up with a lot with your anti-farming Government. Keep it going, Minister. I just want to say how much I have enjoyed the Primary Production Committee, and I’m looking forward to our meeting on Thursday.

It’s a pleasure to rise in this appropriations debate for the primary industries, and, of course, as we all know, this is the most important of the appropriations because in this House we spend a lot of time debating how we’re going to allocate funding. This is how we earn the money.

I commend the Minister of Agriculture on the leadership he’s showing in this sector, but I also would like to just acknowledge the chair of our Primary Production Committee, David Bennett. As the previous speaker, Mr Walker, has alluded, it is quite a bipartisan committee, and I witnessed something quite extraordinary tonight. The Hon David Bennett got up and made quite a diplomatic speech in terms of his representation of what happened. It’s a side of him I hadn’t seen before. The last time I saw him attempt diplomacy was when the Welsh Minister for Communities turned up in a diplomatic mission looking at Brexit and how the Welsh farming community can come through that particular thing, and the honourable member gave her a five-minute lecture on the evils of subsidies. That was his previous effort at diplomacy, so it’s good to see that moving along. Can I say that when we are talking about the primary sector—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Can we now come to the Estimates. Just briefly sort of mention the Estimates.

—yes, the Estimates—it is the M. bovis; M. bovis is hanging over this sector. It has dominated our thinking, and as the Minister said to those farmers, our thoughts are with them. I just want to articulate something that happened. What I’ve seen from the Minister actually is—in fact, I witnessed it on Saturday night. I got an email through on my phone at 9:45 p.m. at night. An M. bovis farmer had contacted him personally to express some concerns, and he was replying to it at 9:45 p.m. on a Saturday night, and I think that typifies the heart and soul that he’s putting into this.

But in terms of the appropriations, there are a few things. Of course, Minister Jones gave an outstanding presentation on the billion trees strategy. What a nation-building effort that is going to be as we seek to make our Paris Agreement commitments and take responsibility for our own emissions. Mr Walker can say it’s going to cost farmers $5,000 or $10,000—I’m not sure how he knows that. That commission has not come back. But we do need to face those responsibilities, and this Government is prepared to take those hard decisions.

As the Minister said before, Land Information New Zealand—and what a shame, I think we had 465,000 hectares of land transferred into foreign ownership in 2016, and we are taking some action on that. We have tightened those criteria and having to go down to the 5 hectares to notify and make it have identifiable benefits, and it’s about time that happened, too. We’re on the side of young New Zealanders.

The other side that we’ve talked about is the Primary Sector Council. I’ve heard a little bit about this today in disparaging tones from across the Chamber, and I will say how wrong they are. The Minister and I were at the Red Meat Sector Conference yesterday and the theme of that was disruptive technology, and I will take a bit of issue with the soon-to-be member for Wairarapa that’s sitting next to me, Kieran McAnulty—this is a challenge for our industry that we do need to meet. And there were all sorts of things: blockchain and, of course, the aforementioned Impossible burger, which seems to follow me everywhere. But we’ve got to look seriously at this stuff. We’ve got a $42 billion sector and $23 billion of that is still going out in raw commodities. There is massive scope for us to improve this, and this Primary Sector Council is a cost-effective way of bringing the best brains in our industry together to look at those challenges. As I said at the start, this is the sector that pays the bills, so I think this is an incredibly important development.

We also see within the appropriations the OVERSEER, the investment in that—and that’s very wise as we seek to meet our environmental expectations and our social licence to operate that programme, that was never designed to be a regulatory tool but has developed. And it’s great to see that we are putting some resource into that.

The Sustainable Farming Fund—this is a Government that’s looking at the big issues. We are looking to not just the next focus group but to the next 10, 20, 50, and 100 years. So I’m looking forward to continuing on with the good progress that this Government’s making under primary industries.

Thank you, Madam Chair. One thing that I will agree on with the last speaker is that, yes, this is the most important of the appropriations. While I don’t sit on the Primary Production Committee, I did for three years, and I’m never far away. To put a quote in place before I get on with the appropriations, as I turned up at the Mystery Creek Field Days in my electorate, Mark Patterson said, “Oh, am I ever going to go to an industry event where I don’t see you?”—I’m not referring to you, Madam Chair—and I said, “Never.” So there you go.

I want to speak about M. bovis to start off with because that’s taking up, obviously, the lion’s share of the funding as we go forward. We’ve all got to get in and support this phased eradication—at least, our one shot at it. We’re all going to be, also, very carefully watching this spring time as we work through this most stressful of times, because one of the things that I’ve said to the Minister, and will continue to say to the Minister, is we must know where the off-ramps are. We do hope we can eradicate this disease, but if we get to a point where we realise that we have lost the game, in terms of dollars, we need to be realistic. We don’t want to be spending $900 million and then finding out that we’ve actually lost the battle. So it’s really important that we keep a very, very solid handle on that.

I also want to make mention of those farmers out there that are going through that process. I have had lots of calls, I have had lots of emails, and I’ve spoken to a lot of people, and it’s been a very, very hard time—not just with the disease, and not just having to go through the loss of their cows and the culling of their cows, but it does need to be noted that there have been delays in compensation. There have been times when the timing of the culls of those cows has actually made a difference to the farmers, and we’re noticing it right now, particularly when they’re in that calving time.

It hasn’t always been the clearest of situations. Moving forward, it has got clearer, and I thank everyone for the clarity of at least knowing where we’re heading, but I can tell you that the rural support trusts have picked up a lot of people, and I do want to put a call out to all of those people who work tirelessly in the rural support trusts. I know Neil Bateup very well, just to mention a couple of names, and Mike Green is another one who’s in our local area, and they work absolutely tirelessly.

I’d like to mention OVERSEER, because I have noted that in the last Budget there was money put forward for OVERSEER. Now, OVERSEER’s been one of those programs that’s had its glitches for quite some time. It’s actually, on a general purpose, sort of, kind of accurate when you put it all together, but by farm and per farm it’s actually not so accurate and quite difficult to use. It’s good to see funding go into that, but I think we need to think about the wider purpose of OVERSEER as well, because OVERSEER, really, if you look at the end result of what we want from OVERSEER, we actually want cleaner waterways. There is a difference in what councils are doing around the country. We’ve got some councils that are using OVERSEER to measure. We’ve got other councils who are actually looking at what the water quality is and then working backwards from the quality of the water to see what needs to be done. So I think OVERSEER is a tool and I think we can still improve it, but we shouldn’t overplay it, because it will be one tool in a tool box of things that are effective for cleaning up our waterways.

On that, I was very pleased to hear the conversation before about water storage. We’re talking about primary industries now, we’re talking about water storage, and we’re talking about the estimates around catchments. I do hope, when we continue to talk about water storage, that we actually talk about water storage in terms of communities, rather than just the old story that it’s just about farming and it’s just for farmers, because it’s for the environment and it’s for the people who live in the town, and we are not short of water in this country; we are just short of water storage.

The other thing I would like to talk about is a little bit about forestry, in the short time that I’ve got left. There are lots of conversations going on about how many trees we’re going to plant. I think we need to think a lot more about rural proofing and the roads that those trees are going to be carted out on in the future, and all the other dynamics that go around trees. We’ve seen some quite bad events in the eastern North Island recently. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Kia orana e Maine Vaa Tuatua. It’s a delight to be able to take a brief call in the primary industries appropriations debate for the upcoming period. Things have become a little excitable over the last half-hour, and rightly so because the primary industries are blimmin’ exciting. But one thing I must say, having had the opportunity to sit in on the Primary Industry Committee here and there, is I do want to acknowledge the bipartisanship and just general approach to the primary sector from across the House. I want to acknowledge the chair, Brett Hudson—

💬 Kieran McAnulty: Ha, ha!

—and our colleagues from both sides of the aisle. That wasn’t funny, Mr McAnulty.

💬 Kieran McAnulty: It’s the wrong bloke.

Yeah, that’s right. Ha, ha! We digress. There’s a range of, I guess, particular areas where I really want to commend the Minister, Minister O’Connor, for his leadership and vision. Many of us who are based in the regions are required to engage thoroughly (1) because we love it and (2) because the primary industries are the backbone of our regional economies. Minister O’Connor, in every single environment I go to—now, I don’t know about what these guys are saying from across the aisle, but at pretty much every single primary industry event that I attend, the Minister is spoken about extremely highly by the leaders and workers within the primary industries. So, Minister, thank you for your leadership.

Look, one of the things that I find particularly necessary is that the Minister’s approach to the primary industries is that we have to work in partnership—Government side by side with our primary sector, because, at the end of the day, what’s good for our primary industries is good for our regions. What’s good for our regions is good for New Zealand. Look, I want to note a couple of the particular instances where I think that the Minister has shown real leadership. It’s been widely traversed this evening—the response to M. bovis. I too want to join with the plethora of voices from across both sides of the aisle that acknowledge those that have been caught within—I guess we could recognise it as—almost a national tragedy. So I do want to acknowledge your work and leadership alongside the primary industry leaders. I know that there’s a lot of work that went into the determination to eradicate; so thank you for your leadership there.

There’s also been a whole range of discussions this evening about the Primary Sector Council, and the Opposition seem to be slagging it left, right, and centre, but the thing is that every single primary industry environment that I’ve been in, at every single event I’ve been at over the past, well, month or so at the very least, there’s been a lot of hope, actually. There’s a lot of jubilation about what the leaders from across the primary sector, generally, may achieve when working in collaboration with each other and with us. So I want to acknowledge your work there.

💬 Third: a tricky issue that seemed to be one of the many stumbling blocks of the previous Government was trying to reach a determination on the mānuka definition. Now, that had its challenges, but, again, very short into the Minister’s tenure, there was a determination around the scientific definition of mānuka. So, too, I want to acknowledge your work there. Look, there’s been a fair bit of discussion this evening about—I’ve mentioned M. bovis, but also a topic very dear to my heart, particularly being from the East Coast—horticulture and the biosecurity risks that threaten our primary industries, particularly from the horticultural perspective.

There was an immeasurable investment that the Minister and this Government made into biosecurity. There are challenges. As I’ve heard the Minister say, the biggest challenge for us collectively—New Zealand—is biosecurity risks when it comes to our primary industries. This isn’t an issue just for the Minister and the Government; it’s an issue for us all. So I thank you again for your leadership there. Tēnā koe.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It is a pleasure to be speaking on the Estimates in the primary sector part of the debate. Minister O’Connor, I’d like to correct you, I think, when I say that Julian Raine, while she’s a dairy farmer, she is not the dairy rep. There is no dairy representative. She is actually there as the chairman of Horticulture New Zealand. So I back up what Tim van de Molen said—that there is no dairy representative on the council.

The second point I’d like to make is to quote back Kiritapu Allan’s words—and I hope I get this right, Ms Allan—when she said, “What’s good for the primary sector is good for the regions, and what is good for the regions is good for New Zealand.” I could not agree with her more, and I invite her to come over and support the regions, support the primary sector, and come and sit on this side of the Chamber, because that is what we do here. That is what we do here. Unfortunately, Ms Allan, your policies on that side of the Chamber do not support the primary sector and they do not support the regions. We’ve already traversed water storage. We’ve talked about bringing agriculture into the emissions trading scheme, and I could talk about regional fuel tax, and so on. So don’t tell me that the Government supports regional New Zealand. You cannot tell me that the Government supports primary sector production.

💬 Kieran McAnulty: Yes, we do.

Well, you can say it all you like, but it doesn’t make it true, Mr McAnulty.

So I turn to forestry, and much can be said about the Minister of Forestry. He talks a big story but has delivered virtually nothing—nothing whatsoever. He might look good in a high-vis vest, but delivery is the problem. And I’d like to get into the select committee report if I can, when we talked about 1 billion trees in 10 years—1 billion trees. Well, half of them will already be planted through the replantation of existing forests, without any interruption or interference or support from any Government. So we’re only talking half a billion trees.

There’s some good things that planting trees will achieve: “provide climate benefits, and help the Government meet its carbon obligations.”—that was mentioned—and “increase employment in rural areas in growing rural economies”. But I ask the question: how? How is the Government going to do that? It also talks about reducing alpine and coastal erosion through soil consolidation and catchment. But how is that going to be implemented? What are the real underlying actions that are going to deliver these goals and objectives? And, of course, there is increasing the economic return on land. Well, very laudable goals and aspirations, but there’s nothing in here that tells me how the Government is going to do it.

There are three problems that the Government faces in forestry: we don’t know where the seedlings are going to come from; we don’t know what land is available—where is the land that all these trees are going to be planted on; and, most importantly, who is going to be planting these trees? I ask the Minister if he can help me out here. Are we going to loosen up immigration policy to allow trees to be planted? Are we going to loosen up immigration? And it’s not just forestry in the primary sector, as he knows; we’re short of people in the dairy sector to milk the cows. We’re short of people in the beehive industry. We’re short of truck drivers. Can you believe it? We are short of truck drivers.

I had a guy in the office the other day pleading, “Can we loosen up immigration, because we need people in the regions. We need the work to be done.” So, Minister, please advocate and talk with your colleagues—and particularly Mr Lees-Galloway—to suggest that there is work to be done in the regions and we need to support the regions by allowing people to come in to work.

I tell you what: the nephews aren’t going to do it. The nephews aren’t going to cut the mustard. The big problem in the forestry sector is the failing of drug tests.

💬 Hon Tracey Martin: Oh, for goodness’ sake!

It’s a fact. Go out and ask the foresters, Ms Martin. Ask what their main problem is. It is finding clean workers—clean workers. So I invite the Minister to come with me to the forestry sector and talk to the people who find it difficult to find appropriately clean workers in the sector. It is a real problem, and there should be no tolerance. There should be zero tolerance, and that is the standard that the forestry sector, I’m sure, will keep and maintain.