Annual Review Debate — Primary Sector (continued)

Thanks, Madam Chair. It’s a great opportunity to have a chat this afternoon about the primary sector and the annual review for 2017-18, right up to this present day. It’s a good opportunity, with the Minister Damien O’Connor in the chair, to ask him a few questions through this process. It would be good to hear from him this afternoon about Mycoplasma bovis and, indeed, how he thinks that is tracking, because in the last month or so, there have been a lot of farmers second-guessing the Ministry for Primary Industries’ (MPI’s) response, particularly around poor communication and slow compensation payments.

But I want to say to the committee this afternoon that the National Party still does support phased eradication. We do acknowledge that this is a big response that involves Government and industry, but there’s been some changes in the general feeling in the last four or five weeks or so. There have been several updates on numbers from tracing and things, and farmers, certainly as they move into moving day—or moving weeks, as it more commonly is now, which is starting to occur at this point—want to hear from the Minister that he, certainly, is on top of the response. I guess he’ll also want to tell those that are listening out there in rural communities that farmers need to play their part in terms of animal tracing.

What’s also interesting is that since we had the review, we had the Rob Delane report and MPI’s scramble, with the Minister, when they had two different fruit flies that popped up in Auckland. Of course, they said in Opposition that they were going to stop all these incursions, but the reality is it’s very hard to stop them. So they reached out to Mr Delane from Australia, who came in and, over about a month or six weeks, did a pretty good report, I thought. One thing that was very telling was he said that technology needs to play a very important role into the future with biosecurity, particularly scanners and the like. He also alluded to the fact that the processing area in Auckland International Airport is very congested, and he commented that those low-risk passengers should be fast-tracked through. We did, in Government, have a plan for that. We started a work stream—Trusted Trader - Trusted Traveller—and when the Government came in, they squashed that initiative. Now that, presumably, is going to be back on the table, so it wouldn’t take too much for the Minister to dust off that report and have a look at it.

What Mr Delane actually did say is that biosecurity is going to need, in the passenger pathway and the mail pathway, another $10 million to $20 million invested each year, was his belief. So I’ll be interested. We’re just a day or two away from reading the Budget, unless it leaks out in the next 24 or 48 hours to the National Party. I’ll be interested to see if there is a line item picking up the recommendations from Rob Delane.

The other thing that’s really important to note is that we discovered after the election that the green lane route didn’t have any detector dogs working between 2 a.m. and 5 a.m. There have been 37,000 passengers that have come through the green lane without any dogs working on this particular exit route. What’s been telling is that that occurred because there was a bit of a scrap with the unions about the roster. There was a bit of a culture in the small but very important dog detector team, and the Minister did nothing to close down that loophole that existed. Just over 37,000 passengers waltzed through the green lane in the early hours of the morning—that’s the size of Gisborne city. They waltzed on through at the time when we had Queensland fruit fly running rife in Auckland—still there’s a response under way there—and the Tongan fruit fly as well.

Here’s the telling point: just quietly, around the time that the Delane report was in the Minister’s hands, MPI decided to put the dogs back on the green lane route between 2 a.m. and 5 a.m., or, indeed, if there were no dogs, passengers couldn’t travel through the green lane. That is very important. So there’s been a seismic shift just in the last couple of months. There’s been a seismic shift just in the response to do with closing down this loophole, and while the Minister said it was all operational, I’m sure he had a hand to play in closing that route down.

The other thing that’s been important for us when we reflect back to the reviews is Crown Irrigation, set up by this Government. All funding now has dried up for any projects that were in the pipeline that weren’t contracted. The Minister’s lucky that the Waimea Community Dam was contracted, because we had the biggest drought on record in the Tasman-Nelson area, and people were saying, “We need this dam.”

There needed to be a land swap. Would you believe that came through the Parliament and was supported. Hard to do under Ruataniwha, but OK to do on the Waimea dam, and I’m disappointed that the Government has raided all of that funding from Crown Irrigation, and, actually, taken it and put it into trees, and I want to come on to trees in a moment.

Importantly, if we think about climate change—and that’s been very topical in the last couple of weeks, and will continue to be for the rest of this year, and, potentially, into next year—if we want to get very serious about wrestling these emissions down, why wouldn’t the Government allow the AgResearch trial on GE ryegrass to occur in New Zealand that’s currently having to occur in Australia? The Minister will say “Well, it’s all about value”, and “We extract all this value”, and I’ve heard him say we get billions of dollars from being GE-free. I’ve never been able to see any report where that is confirmed, and, indeed, is the case. So GE ryegrass will reduce methane emissions by 23 percent and it’s drought tolerant. So farmers and rural communities are looking for the tools in the toolbox to do the right thing for climate change, but this Government, because of the Greens’ ideology, aren’t prepared to even have a look at it.

Now just focusing in on the trees in the last couple of minutes that I do have; the Government came out and said “We want a billion trees planted”, and as a result they thought, “How are we going to get this done?” Well, one is subsidies, one is making the changes through the Overseas Investment Amendment Act, and they’ve made those changes for forestry rights and the like. So now we are really starting to see this policy roll out in rural communities. I know the Minister has had delegations into his office really concerned about what this does mean for provincial New Zealand, and, importantly, rural communities.

Just have a look at what happened last week—and it played out on social media—with the teacher at Kumeroa-Hopelands School over in the Tararua district. They’ve been struggling to attract teachers into this very small but important primary school. The teachers’ partner was working on a station on a farm, which was sold to forestry. So she’s having to leave that community. They’ve had to try and attract eight teachers over the last 15 years. So this is the impact that the one billion tree initiative is starting to have on rural communities. New Zealand First, while they crow about it, about how successful it’s going to be, are now realising that they’re going to need to do more than just a bumper sticker that’s going to say, “Right tree, right place, right time”. It’s going to take a lot more than that because rural communities are waking up to the fact that, when large tracts of agricultural land, carte blanche, are taken over by foreign investors and planted, and those that are involved in carbon farming and locked up for ever, the rural school goes, the roads get smashed in the process, the rugby club probably folds as well as a result, and rural communities are hollowed out.

Now, I’m not opposed to planting trees, but the Government needs to be thinking about this policy intent, where it should be focused on the land that has a land class of five and above—the hill country land—instead of some of the most productive parts of the agriculture sector going into forestry. Jobs are a hell of a lot less in forestry than what they are in rural communities, and it won’t be long before there’ll be a group on the steps of Parliament protesting about the one billion trees. So I’ve got several questions that I’ve put to the Minister that I’m keen to hear responses on. Thank you.

I take the opportunity to speak on behalf of New Zealand First on this primary industries review, and in the nick of time, I might say, because, if I was just listening to the National Party, and particularly that previous contribution, what a dire state rural New Zealand must be in. But what are the facts? We’ve got record, record exports—$46 billion this year. The Minister has just overseen a 7 percent rise. In fact, I was just looking at the news feed come up from the Rural News; the main headline: horticulture booming, $9.2 billion sector now. We’ve got the red meat sector at over $10 billion, and, of course, we’ve just had Fonterra come out with its forward projections for next year, which, at the top end, have got a seven in front, and we’ve had three years of $6-plus payments. So we’ve got a rural sector in rude health. Of course our exports, as a percentage of GDP, which were in decline under the last Government, are now in the ascension.

So when we look at the estimates, and when we look at the Ministry for Primary Industries’ contribution in particular, I’m pleased the previous speaker Nathan Guy touched on the billion tree policy, because there is a lot of misinformation out there about this particular part of the policy. The billion trees policy, being overseen by Minister Jones, does not allow for mass afforestation. In fact, for the grants, only 300 hectares is the maximum you can apply for. Actually, if you look at the grants at the moment, there have been 36 grants to date, of which 30 of them have included native plantings, and 26 out of those 36 applications have been for less than 50 hectares. So to totally misrepresent the billion trees policy for afforestation of whole farms is not indeed correct, and it’s misrepresenting the policy as it stands. It actually is right tree, right place, right purpose.

Around two thirds of the grants are for native plantings to increase our biodiversity, to address some of our environmental water-quality issues, and, of course, helping with Māori land—and some of those whose ownership structures are in trusts, etc.—not always easy to get funding. This policy helps them get full value for their land. Of course, it’s not all pine trees—things like mānuka, where we’re also getting the honey as well as, maybe, pine plantation or exotic forestry. So where the speculation is coming in some of these afforestation situations is, actually, from land speculators based on the Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Bill, and maybe anticipating a carbon price going through the roof. There are absolutely no grounds for suspecting that. In fact, there has been no such level beyond the $25 a tonne that is currently in the pipeline announced. So it is pure speculation that people might be buying farmland in that regard.

Why are we doing that? Of course, because we’re actually having to address the very serious issue of climate change. But it was actually something that the National Party signed us up for. Paula Bennett swanned off over to Paris in 2016. They did not have a single idea of how they were going to meet the commitments that were made. In fact, the only answer they had was to send $1.4 billion of New Zealand taxpayers’ money overseas, every year, for 10 years, and much of that money was seen to be fraudulent—they were fraudulent carbon credits.

So we are actually putting some policies in place to address these very real issues and concerns, and they are commitments that were made by the previous Government, and it is us that will be delivering. With the time left, there is $1.7 billion worth of hectares of forestry. There is 8.6 million hectares of sheep and beef land. So the billion tree policy is set to make between 230 and 430 extra hectares of farmland into forestry, which, actually, presents about 5 percent of the available land. So there is a lot of scaremongering going on about this.

Thank you, Madam Chairperson, and I’d like to take the opportunity to take a call here. It is an exciting and privileged time, I guess, to be Minister for Agriculture and Minister for Biosecurity, and a few other things. Can I firstly acknowledge our coalition partners, without whom we wouldn’t be able to govern, and do good things in the primary sectors, and my colleague Mark Patterson, who filled in for me at the Century Farm awards, a celebration in Lawrence of people who have been on the land for over 100 years. The night before, I was at the Ahuwhenua awards, celebrating people who have been on the land for a lot longer than 100 years, and that is our Māori. Māori agri-business is booming at the moment. It was a pleasure and an honour to be there at that.

As the previous speaker, Mark Patterson said, we’ve seen a 7 percent increase in total growth of exports from our primary sectors. Can I thank and acknowledge all those people: the farmers, the horticulturalists, the forestry people, the fishers—all those people out there who are helping create wealth for this country, supported by a Government that does care, not just about the cities, and not just about a few people who can accumulate all of those benefits, but actually every New Zealander. Our approach and our policy is that exports and trade should benefit each and every New Zealander. It’s why we’ve gone out and negotiated the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, which is new opportunities, which is why we’re negotiating the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, which is a trade agreement we hope to get in place with half the world’s population. But in creating those opportunities, we’ve got to have industries that take them up, and then we’ve got to have structures that share the benefits around. That’s the difference between us and the previous Government.

I’d like to respond to a couple of things raised by the Hon Nathan Guy in terms of M. bovis. Yes, when we came into Government, we were facing a big challenge. The previous Government had kind of been like a possum in the headlights with M. bovis—hadn’t really taken any crucial decisions, and so we had to get on to it. Can I say, nowhere else in the world has this been done. We are not perfect and mistakes have been made, but I have to say that we’re still on track to eradicate this disease. No one else has done so. If we can do that, we will save, over time, literally billions and billions of dollars for farmers—people at the front line—through animal medicines and through productivity that can still be maintained at some of the best levels across the world. There are a lot of reasons to get rid of M. bovis, but we had a NAIT system that had been in place for about five years, and hadn’t been enforced, hadn’t been followed through, and, indeed, even this week we had to expose the reality that there’s still a bit of a casual approach.

Now, farmers have told me in the last day or two, quite rightfully, that the NAIT system’s still not working well. Well, I accept their criticism, but NAIT is something owned by Beef and Lamb New Zealand, DairyNZ, MPI, and Deer Industry New Zealand. It’s not just MPI’s responsibility. So while we get all the criticism, the fact is that industry organisations have to step up and make sure that their softly softly approach to NAIT—as it was under the National Government—has been stepped up. But there’s a whole lot of work to be done in making sure that the 0800 number can be answered in a timely fashion, that the online connection can be effective, and that farmers aren’t facing unnecessary hurdles in trying to record the stock movements that go on every single day on and off their farms.

Can I say that we will sort that out. We will change the law and the resources we put in, but it’s not MPI’s fault. We will assist with regulation, with the law, and as part of that management regime, but it is important that farmers and MPI and Deer Industry New Zealand and Beef and Lamb New Zealand all share the burden and get on and do as best we can.

In regards to the Delane report, which was an investigation into the pathways off the back of fruit fly, I share a view of Nathan Guy that it was a good report and that it identified a couple of pathways that we know are risky—and that is New Zealand Post: with the growth in the online purchases from all around the world into New Zealand, that has come under huge pressure. But it’s been under pressure, I have to say, not just for the last 18 months but actually for years. The National Government refused to work with New Zealand Post to upgrade that.

Let’s move to the airport. Auckland International Airport is a disgrace. It’s a disgrace when people come into this country and, firstly, face the biosecurity and customs requirements from us, because they’ve invested in car-parks, they’ve invested in buildings, they’ve invested in everything other than in the area of biosecurity. I have to say that we’ve had some blunt conversations with them—and I’ll continue to do that because it is really important that we welcome people. And while the previous Government wanted to fast-track people in, what we are saying is, “No, sorry, biosecurity is too important, and we are not going to fast-track people if there is a risk, and we’ll upgrade.”

Now, the fact about the dogs that the Opposition go on and on about is, look, they set up the dog structure and the regime around the shifts. There was tension, I accept, and we’ve moved to sort that out. We’ve put one scanner in so that we can check all bags. We’re going to get another scanner. We will upgrade and invest in biosecurity because it is necessary.

Can I just acknowledge the good people in Auckland for their cooperation: Northcote, Devonport, and South Auckland, where we’ve had the fruit fly. They have been incredibly supportive and understanding in working with Biosecurity New Zealand to try and catch every one of those flies. Thank you for your cooperation.

Can I just go on to the trees, as this was mentioned—Te Uru Rākau; yes, we do want to plant a lot of trees. I have to say, finally, after years and years of neglect, forestry’s got its day in the sun. Can I acknowledge my colleague the Hon Shane Jones for really pushing ahead because forestry was important, and then was ignored, and now it’s important again. We’ve set up a separate unit called Te Uru Rākau. They have some support, but, more importantly, they went and they have mapped the whole of New Zealand—identifying areas where we can plant a billion trees plus and not have any impact on farmland.

Yes, there are some lazy, speculative investors that are buying good farms—not that many of them, to be fair, and it’s been ramped up. I share their concern that we should not have good farmland planted in trees. There are plenty of other useful areas to plant trees—the right tree in the right place. Watch this space.

Can I say that we do accept that criticism, but we have to be realistic about what the level of threat is, and we’re going to look at that. My colleague the Hon Shane Jones has acknowledged his part to play in that review that we are just looking at. Can I say that—

💬 Hon Nathan Guy: Have you got a review under way?

No we don’t have a review under way. We reflect on our actions every single day, because we are not as arrogant as the previous Government to think that we know everything. We listen, and we’ll accept some criticism where it’s warranted, and we’ll make changes where needed, not the arrogance that we saw from the previous National Government.

Can I talk in terms of the area of GE, because it was raised by the Opposition spokesperson about ryegrass. Well, there was a Government in place for nine years that had all the opportunity in the world to undertake these trials and, indeed, it didn’t occur. Can I say that there are people that think we need to have a discussion on genetic engineering and the CRISPR technology, and I think that does need to take place. It’s not the magical one bullet or solution to all the issues that we face. Those who put it forward as the solution are very naive. So we’ll work with that as needed.

Can I say, what we are doing—and somewhere where we’ve had an opportunity is somewhere like wool. Wool: biodegradable, renewable, been a part of our agricultural system and primary production for years and years—totally neglected and nothing done for nine years. Well, we’ve got a group working on the opportunities and, in my view, when we compliment the meat income in a dry-stock operation with wool and maybe some trees, we’ll go back to mixed-farm models that are more resilient, that are more sustainable, and deliver more value from New Zealand, because we are not going to ask farmers just to double exports and just to double everything they do, which was the previous regime. We are saying to them that we will get more for what you do, not just ask you to do more, because we can’t continue to drive agriculture and primary production without consideration of the environmental impacts and of the effect of labour on the skills that we need.

So we are, as a Government, taking a comprehensive look at where we need to go. I’m proud of the work that has gone in and the approach that farmers are taking to make that transition. Wait for Thursday: we’ll be in a position to show that we care, and we are committed to the people in this country who drive primary industries.

In the short time that I’ve got before the dinner break, I’d just like to carry on from the conversation that Minister O’Connor just started and talk about making farmers more profitable. I would say that if we’re looking for silver bullets—and they’re very hard to find—there isn’t one right now on methane. If you’re wanting to make farmers more profitable, then I would suggest we look at those methane targets that are currently in the Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Bill, because, actually, that’s an unachievable target for farmers and something that’s very difficult. So—

💬 Hon Damien O’Connor: Which one?

—the methane targets are very—

💬 Hon Damien O’Connor: Which target?

The methane target.

💬 Hon Damien O’Connor: There’s a range.

Well, let’s just look at the range of methane targets and put it under some consideration, because that’s an area that, actually, farmers are going to struggle to deal with with the tools that they currently have.

On the whole climate change thing and the tree issue at the moment, a lot of our rural communities are really panicking about what’s going to happen, about people coming in and buying their farms. So if there is, in fact, a plan which we haven’t actually seen in terms of planting trees, then I think it’s time that some of those rural communities were reassured around that planting plan because they just see a whole lot of trees coming at them.

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

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Good evening, members. I hope we had a lovely dinner break. When we rose for the dinner break, we were debating the questions that the reports of the committees relevant to the primary sector be noted. Barbara Kuriger was speaking, and she has three minutes and 41 seconds remaining, should she so wish.

Thank you, Madam Chair, I do wish.

So, just to recap on a couple of the topics we went into before we broke for the dinner break: one was methane, and talking about the confidence around methane and not putting penalties on when people don’t have tools to fix a problem; I think the second one was around trees and the spattering of trees that are coming. People are willing to plant trees. There’s half a million trees, native trees, being planted in Taranaki as we speak at the moment. We’re planting them on our own farms, and we have been doing so since 1993. There’s a fantastic number of trees that have gone into Taranaki, and the water quality is actually improving, so there’s a proven process going on there. So people don’t mind doing stuff and they’ll do it voluntarily with a plan, but they are worried about all this forestry that’s coming towards them. The Minister in the chair, Damien O’Connor, mentioned before dinner that there was some plan around that. It would be helpful if the farmers knew what that plan was, because people will volunteer to do all sorts of things but they don’t like having things done to them.

I then just wanted to touch on Mycoplasma bovis, and I know it’s come up in the conversation before dinner, about National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT). I took another call before the dinner break about NAIT. We often hear the finger pointed at farmers about NAIT and not keeping records, etc. etc. But it was really interesting: the call I took before the dinner break talked about NAIT and TBfree New Zealand not talking to each other, and the MINDA system not talking to NAIT and TBfree. Back in the day, when I was in DairyNZ, we often talked about getting a one-stop shop—and the Minister talked about all these other organisations that were involved, so we can’t look in the rear-vision mirror now, but let’s look forward. And farmers are getting confused because they think they’ve done stuff and they think it’s been transferred to the other half of the organisation, and that’s, in effect, what’s not happening. And so I think that’s making it a problem around M. bovis.

Now, it would be one of the biggest things that you’ve potentially appropriated, in your time as a Minister, and may well prove to be that over a long time, Minister O’Connor—the money that’s been put aside for M. bovis. I do wonder, with some of this tracking and tracing. I heard you say recently—and, I’m sorry, I’m using “you” in that tense, Madam Chair, because I’m talking to the Minister about asking if it’s still feasible—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): You can talk about the Minister, rather than talk to the Minister.

—yeah—and I think it is a question that all of us should be asking in this House. It’s a lot of money. There’s been a lot of angst, and it’s why we all hope that this awful disease is still able to be eradicated. I think it’s a very good question, to keep asking where the offerings are.

I just wanted to finish on one thing, because GE ryegrass came up before. It’s a topic that I think is less scary around the science, and more questions need to be answered about the marketing of it and how we want to see New Zealand as a country. So I would, you know, love to have a drought-free grass, but I do think we need to have the conversation. We talk about it often. It reminds me a little bit of the End of Life Choice Bill: you can actually avoid talking about things for a period of time, but at some point you actually have to get up and you have to talk about these topics and have a real hard-fought conversation about whether it’s a feasible option for the future. So I would encourage you to do that, Minister.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, I’d like to pick up from where Ms Kuriger just left off, actually, on the ryegrass. Now, this is an area that’s been getting increasing profile recently, and it is an important area. When we look at the obligations in terms of what we’re trying to achieve around reducing emissions profiles from agriculture, this is a potentially viable and exciting solution for that. And yet we’re seeing some constraints around the ability to utilise that, to do field trials here in New Zealand and to then roll that out, because of the legislation we have, as a result of this grass being developed through gene-editing techniques. So I certainly do think that is a conversation that we need to have as a country and that we should be having, if we’re looking at what are the best solutions across the board to meet these obligations.

Now, I also want to touch on biosecurity, because the Mycoplasma bovis, in particular, has, rightly, dominated a number of contributions to this topic, because it has been such a massive area for the dairy sector but also the sheep and beef sector over the last 18 months or so now. I am encouraged by the progress that has been made. There are a few concerns I have, and they came up through the annual review process as well, and part of that was around the response on the ground. I commend the Minister in the chair, Damien O’Connor, for the work he has done in this, because it is a challenging situation that he found himself in—

💬 Kieran McAnulty: Why was that?

—and it needed a strong approach to make sure that we could work together on this—and we took the politics out of it, actually, Mr McAnulty, because it was that serious and that important for the industry. I appreciate that might not be something you can get your head round, but certainly on this side we could.

And so for us the challenges, though, came with actually playing that out on the ground, and how the communication happened between AsureQuality, in the field, and the farmers. Those subcontractors—there were a number of concerns raised around that, from a communication perspective and the actual understanding of it, the ag-sector. And I know that presents a challenge in terms of how do you maintain a ready force to respond to an incursion like Mycoplasma bovis. But that is something that I would like to see some work put into, trying to create a better solution down the track.

Also on biosecurity, we heard a little bit earlier from Nathan Guy, and also the Minister in the chair in response, around the detector dogs at Auckland Airport. Biosecurity, for me, is such an important area that we need to make sure we continue to invest more in this space, because the $46 billion contribution from the primary industries relies so much on our ability to maintain that ring-fencing around New Zealand in terms of the potential incursions that might come. The detector dogs on that green lane at Auckland Airport are a big part of that. The former Minister, Nathan Guy, mentioned that between 2 and 5 a.m. they haven’t been there, but now the commitment has been made to actually close down that green lane and ensure that people go in through more detailed scanning if the dogs are not available. But actually, having recently come back from a parliamentary delegation to Canada—20 past 5 in the morning we came through, there were no detector dogs and we were still going down the green lane at that time. I’ll just point that out. We haven’t got the solution yet, and I do really want to impress upon the Minister the importance of that, because that is something that we just cannot let slip.

We’ve seen already over the last few months now a few fruit fly incursions as well up in Auckland, and I would also like to reiterate the Minister’s comments there in terms of how the local communities responded to that. I was really encouraged to see that the Northcote community in particular and the Ōtara community were responding well to the requirements placed on them to help minimise the potential impact of this biosecurity incursion. That is a big one for us, and we need to make sure that we’re all continually pulling together to do our best on behalf of the primary industries.

Now, the other one I just want to touch on briefly is the trees, the half-billion-extra trees that the Government wants to plant—and it’s only half a billion because we know that the other half billion are actually planted already by the industry as part of the natural replacement cycle.

💬 Mark Patterson: What are you scaremongering about?

And what we heard from Mr Patterson, who’s chipping in now, in his contribution a little earlier, was actually quite naive in that he suggested that because the grants were only for areas of up to 300 hectares, that was not going to be an issue and that we were not seeing significant areas of forestation of former sheep and beef farms. Well, I’d suggest to Mr Patterson that perhaps he needs to go and talk to some rural communities and get outside of his speaking notes to understand that this is having an impact and that actually in the Wairoa area right now there’s already been 8,000 hectares of sheep and beef land purchased for forestry issues, and that’s an area we need to address.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Since my name was referenced in that last speech, I do appreciate the opportunity. I will start with the contribution on the Mycoplasma bovis situation, in terms of how the Ministry for Primary Industries represented it to us within the annual review, and I just would like to talk about the politics of that. I would acknowledge Barbara Kuriger over there, who has played a role in taking some of the politics out of it—Opposition members that have put their farmers first—and I acknowledge the Minister, because I’m sure that if the other members’ experience is the same as mine, when you’re taking cases—he’s actually reached into cases personally and tried to get resolution, which is not necessarily his role in an operational matter, but I think it shows that he is concerned about the individual farmers concerned.

I do want to go back to that billion trees strategy, and I thought Mr van de Molen, obviously, wasn’t listening to my previous contribution on this, because I did outline that it’s not the billion trees strategy that is leading to mass afforestation; it is only a 300 hectare maximum. There has not been mass afforestation because of this policy. It is about right tree, right place, and right purpose, and there’s lots of rules and stipulations that you have to go through before you can get those grants.

Now, talking about being out amongst the farmers, well, I was actually one of seven coalition MPs at the Farm Forestry Association conference about 10 days ago at Rotorua. There was not a single National Party MP there. It’s actually turned into a bit of a quiz question, “Who is the National Party’s forestry spokesman?”, because nobody seems to know, and he certainly was not—or she was certainly not—at that conference while we were there, listening to those farmers and to some very sensible contributions about how forestry, as the Minister outlined before dinner, can fit into a more profitable farming system.

That’s not to say that we’re not concerned, and I was pleased to hear the Minister reference that in his contribution as well. We don’t want to see huge swathes of countryside turned into pine trees, and we haven’t got a tin ear to that. We have heard, and are hearing—and I know the Minister in the chair, and I know Minister Jones and other senior Ministers, Minister Sage, I believe, as well have received a delegation just yesterday—from mayors. We are very engaged in this. If we pull the levers too hard as a Government—we won’t be arrogant enough, as the Minister said, and we will make some adjustments, but it is about acknowledging that concern.

If we go on from that, part of that, of course, is our response to the climate change stuff. It’s really important that we do our bit. We have made those commitments. The previous Government made those commitments on our behalf, and we are delivering on them. It’s not fair to say that there are no tools in the tool box to address some of these things, and particularly the methane. In fact, there are three strands of technology in progress. One is genetics, and Kiritapu Allan and I were at the Livestock Improvement Corporation the other day, a couple weeks ago. They were outlining their programme for genetically breeding more efficient animals, and they believe they can get a 10 percent reduction over that 30-year period. So that’s a fair bit of the heavy lifting we can do with genetics, with just the technology that we’ve got available.

We need to tell that story a little bit more. I think that to just scaremonger and say there’s no tools out there—the tools are coming and we do have some time. Actually, credit to the previous Government and John Key: I think he set up that greenhouse gas alliance at Massey, where we’ve got work going on, an international effort, to get vaccines that can make gut efficiencies and the like, which will reduce methane emissions. And, of course, we have got those grasses that AgResearch are developing. We do have to have that conversation about those grasses and their place. If farmers are being asked to make a contribution, they will want the tools and we do have to have that discussion. There may be a trade-off, but it’s a discussion that we absolutely have to have in place. Actually, because, of the work that New Zealand First did in structuring that zero carbon bill to mean that future Parliaments have got the chance to reassess where those levels are, should those technologies take a little bit longer, we’ve really future-proofed—[Time expired]

Thank you for this call. I’d just like to thank that previous speaker. Mark and I actually enjoyed a very good night on Saturday night—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Refer to the member with his full name, please. Thank you.

Sorry; Mark Patterson, Madam Assistant Speaker. We enjoyed a lovely night in Lawrence, where Mark actually lives—he’s been there for about 10 years—on Saturday night. It was the Century Farm awards. For anyone out there, there’s about 450 farms across the country. They have these centenary awards now. To get the award, you’ve got to have a farm within the family for over 100 years, and I think on Saturday night there were about 40-odd farms that got awarded. But the favourite part of the night was seeing Mark get up. He actually delivered the Minister’s speech, but prior to that he spoke for about 15 minutes, and what a delight it was. This was Mark Patterson—he spent roughly 20 years in the National Party, a long-serving branch chair of the Lawrence wing of the National Party—and he disagreed with a number of Government policies, in his speech, including Taratahi, Roxburgh children’s camp, gene editing. So it was great to hear your contribution on Saturday night, Mark.

But getting back to the appropriations, farmers have it all coming at them right now—whether it’s the land and water plan, with Minister Parker going on top, or whether it’s the methane emissions targets, where they want to reach 23 to 47 percent. Farmers have agreed they can get to about 5 percent at the moment. With the current technology that’s about, the current science available, they can reduce methane emissions for about 5 percent. But because they care about the environment, they’ve agreed to get to about 10 percent, but to get to 10 percent we need new technology. We can’t just dream up these methane emissions targets without getting new technology. And thank you, Mark Patterson, for your contributions.

Forestry is currently owned by about 73 percent foreign—foreign owned: 79 percent—and currently we have over 10,000 hectares planted in forestry. Just this morning, I met with a couple of mayors who came and visited the National Party. They’re so concerned about the forestry policy that they see communities getting completely destroyed, completely ripped apart, and so far we’ve lost about 95 workers from the pastoral sector because of forestry. Now, it’s not just the 95 workers we have to think about. One of those workers that came out publicly last week—they got a job on a farm, they brought their wife in, and the wife worked at a local school. Because that farm’s been bought by a foreign purchaser, both of their jobs are gone—their two kids—they all leave the communities. And that’s just one example of when a farm worker leaves because the farm’s purchased to be put into forestry. One size does not fit all with this one billion dollars tree programme. So that’s a huge concern.

I just want to touch briefly on Landcorp. We had Landcorp come and present to the Primary Production Committee, and this was around the time when Landcorp had put in a one-month late submission to the Tax Working Group. Now, what was interesting is when we asked the chair why the submission was a month late, he couldn’t really answer us. He had about half a dozen goes, and he finally said it was “Because one of our staff was overseas, offshore for a month, hence why we had to pay 11 grand to Ernst & Young to put in a submission to the Tax Working Group.” What did they submit on? They submitted: they weren’t opposed to a capital gains tax and they were quite open to four or five new environmental taxes.

I think this is a complete slap in the face to the average farmer out there, trying to compete with the Government farmer. Farmers out there are working hard. They get up early. They don’t have an unlimited chequebook, like the Government. And then to kick them in the guts, we have the Government farmer, Landcorp, come in and submit one month late to the Tax Working Group. Incredibly disappointing.

I just want to touch lastly on Mycoplasma bovis. This is a huge concern across New Zealand and there are some frustrations at the moment. The Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) staff and Assure Quality, who are on the ground, are working hard. I’d like to knowledge the Minister. He’s working hard with them. Communication: we need to work together to beat this, and often some of the problems come when we’re not communicating with each other. So I’d just like to acknowledge all the farmers caught up in this horrible beast and, in particular, the MPI staff, Assure Quality. I can assure farmers they are working hard, but it’s incredibly difficult and we’re all doing our part to try and beat this horrible thing.

Here we go again. It seems that Mr van de Molen was correct: I cannot get my head around it. I cannot get my head around how the National Party are quite happy to do one thing in Government and say another thing in Opposition; how they can stand up here, member after member after member, and accuse this Government of not caring about biosecurity, when in 2012, they cut front-line biosecurity staff—

💬 Andrew Bayly: That’s not right.

And they say that’s not right. Well, I say to Mr Bayly that perhaps he’d like to have a chat to 3 News, who reported this fact after doing an Official Information Act request to that former Government.

The thing is that with facts, members cannot hide behind them. They’re trying very hard, but they cannot. They have touched on many things tonight, including the fruit fly incursion in Auckland, and I would like to quote the Minister on this: “As the fruit fly discovery in Auckland shows, our biosecurity system is facing ever-increasing pressures due to factors such as growing international trade, greater mobility of people and increasingly complex global … chains.”, and “we need to acknowledge New Zealand will always face threats from unwanted pests and diseases. It is simply impossible to eliminate all risk.” I wonder, does the other side agree with that? They should, because that was Nathan Guy. That was Nathan Guy, the previous agriculture Minister.

When the fruit fly came to Auckland, he said it was impossible. Now, the National Party are in Opposition and they are laying blame at every opportunity they can and pointing fingers to the Minister. Well, once again, the facts have caught up to chase them. The fact is that this Government is delivering for the primary sector. Exports hit a new high in March, driven by dairy, meat, and forestry products. Exports of dairy products led the rise in exports, up $264 million—that’s a 22 percent rise—to $1.4 billion in March. But if we were to only listen to the National Party, we would hear doom and we would hear gloom and we would think that this side of the House is out there for one sole purpose, and that’s to drive down the agricultural sector.

They’ve accused us of not liaising with the rural sector, despite the fact that on this side, we have a farmer as a Minister, we’ve got a farmer as a spokesperson for our coalition partner here in New Zealand First, and we’ve got regional and rural representatives right across the caucus in all three parties. But that doesn’t fit their narrative, so they go on and they go on.

Another thing that I find amazing is that they stand here tonight and they lament the fact that there are some farmers selling their private land to people that wish to grow trees. Now, I actually share their concerns, as does Minister Damien O’Connor, as he said earlier. But I have to point out the hypocrisy here of the party on the other side, when they opposed any approach to restrict foreign ownership—

Tim van de Molen: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. The member may be new, but he should surely know he cannot use that word in this House.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Look, I’m the arbiter of what is acceptable in this House, so we’ll continue.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. Are you now saying that it’s OK to accuse the other side of the House of hypocrisy and that’s all right?

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): It is up to me to determine what is—

💬 Hon Judith Collins: It’s now OK? All right—OK, then.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): That is not a point of order. I thank the member, anyway.

Tim van de Molen: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. That was the word used, and the previous rulings have been very clear that that is an inappropriate word to use in this House. If you are now ruling otherwise, we would appreciate your clarification on that ruling.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Look, I go back to what I have said before. It is actually up to me to make that judgment, and—

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Oh, right.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): It is, Ms Collins—it is. We’ve had this conversation before. I will caution the member. This is a robust debate. We have had many, many very stirring speeches over the course of the last hour or so that this debate has been running, but I will caution the member. We are coming to the conclusion, I hope, of this debate.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. Can I just get this really clear: is it now in order in this Parliament, or should we call the Speaker?

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I can help the member with that—thank you. As I’ve said before, it is up to the judgment of the Chair to decide whether that is a term that is appropriate in the context of which it is delivered. If the member had been here prior to this debate commencing, she would have realised that this debate has been very robust. There have been many discussions—quite heated—across the Chamber. I think in the context of what we have been discussing since this question was put about an hour ago, I have deemed it to be within that context. I have cautioned the member to be a little more circumspect. That is my view.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. A new point of order—thank you, Madam Chair. Is it now in order for the Chair or a Speaker to refer to the absence of a member?

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I would just like to say to the member that I’ve made a ruling on that particular comment. You are now bringing up a matter that is hypothetical. I will not entertain that. I will call Kieran McAnulty to continue with his call.

Thank you, Madam Chair. What I was saying earlier was that the National Party have been caught out, yet again, saying one thing when they were in Government and saying another thing now they’re in Opposition, and a prime example of this is the one billion trees programme. When this Government sought to assist those who wanted to buy productive land by putting in reasonable rules on restricting foreign ownership, that side opposed it. That side is also opposed—they get down and they jump on it at every opportunity—whenever the discussion outside this House talks around restrictions on land use. Now they’re standing here tonight and they’re saying that the Government should be telling farm owners and landowners what to do with their land.

💬 Mark Patterson: Property rights.

Property rights. This is the party of individual responsibility and of property rights, but when it suits them they say one thing, and when it doesn’t suit them they say another, and I call them out on it tonight. The fact is that despite Hamish Walker talking about it being 79 percent of foreign ownership in forestry, how much was foreign-owned when that Government was in power nine years ago? That’s the question I pose to that side.

As we refer to the topics and discussions that came up in appropriations in the Primary Production Committee, the forestry is clearly one that’s stuck with them. But I do say to the other side that if they want to oppose it, oppose it on grounds that are consistent with policies you’ve opposed or supported previously.

The other issue is that we’ve heard no vision from the National Party tonight, unlike the Minister, who wants to bring this country from a country that is talking about volume to value. We’ve heard no vision. All we’ve heard is a cry for the good old days—the conservative approach of “Leave it alone and she’ll be right. We know best.”—but where has that got us? I commend this Minister for leading this Government and moving this industry where it needs to go.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Talofa lava. Kia ora. Ngā mihi ki a koutou. Kia ora. I agree with the previous National speaker, Hamish Walker, who talked about hard-working farmers in New Zealand. They are getting up early and working late in the day, but I don’t believe those hard-working farmers are served by the tenor of the debate we’ve seen tonight, because what they don’t want to hear after the hard day in the fields is more platitudes and more slogans, in fact, highlighting the very failings of the previous Government when it comes to animal welfare. My message to the opposition is that while you’re in Opposition, take the time to do some big thinking about the challenges to our primary industries. These are the challenges that this Government is grappling with.

You know, I don’t know if members are aware, but recently, the Beyond Meat company, who do the Beyond Burger—the lab-based burger—had the largest initial public offering of any company in the US since the dotcom bubble. It’s simply incredible, the disruption our agricultural industries face in the coming years, so I challenge the Opposition to do some heavy lifting, intellectual thinking, about the challenges.

What we know from consumers, who are increasingly embracing plant-based diets, vegetarian diets, is that what they’re wanting is more discernment in their choice of food products. What they want to see is sustainability and animal welfare and to have climate emissions accounted for, and not just more empty slogans and opposition for opposition’s sake. Just today, I met with the egg producers’ board, who are rolling out a national network of individual egg labels, which are going to say for each individual egg whether they’re free-range or whether they’re barn-raised, because they know that’s what their consumers in their markets are demanding.

You know, we see Zespri with a single variety of kiwifruit exporting a billion dollars per annum as part of the $3 billion kiwifruit exports. We’re seeing incredible sustainability initiatives which were replete in these documents about what the Government’s spending. I think of great farmers such as Our Land of Milk and Honey that are really embracing sustainability principles as a way to reach those more discerning consumers in New Zealand and around the world.

When it comes to biosecurity I’m proud to be part of a Government that’s stepped up when it comes to Mycoplasma bovis and is improving the National Animal Identification and Tracing system, which the previous Government knew was falling over.

When it comes to climate change emissions, what we’re hearing from National was just genetic engineering. It’s the only thing they’re proposing, which is simply incredible given they didn’t actually change the regime under the previous royal commission on the environment. Now, we don’t need to risk our fast-growing $600 million - organic industry—it’s grown by 30 percent in the last three years—by chasing the shimmer of genetic engineering which hasn’t been proven to actually work. We know we’ve got the tools already from feeds and from breeds. We’ve already got the tools available.

When it comes to animal welfare, here’s an area where we can provide top quality food products to the rest of the world to the animal welfare standards they’re demanding. That’s why I was proud last year to pass the country-of-origin food labelling bill—because Kiwi consumers want to be able to choose our high quality food products. But when it comes to issues such as rodeo, which don’t reflect modern farming practices, international consumers are questioning animal welfare credentials.

Then you look at issues such as live shipment and the scandal of what happened in Sri Lanka under the previous Government, with more than, I think, 10 percent of those cattle dying in Sri Lanka after that very long voyage from New Zealand to Sri Lanka. We know we can do better. When it comes to the issue of winter grazing, which we’re going to increasingly see this winter, with animals literally giving birth in knee-high mud paddocks. Those aren’t the animal welfare standards our Kiwi or international customers want to see. So here’s some areas where the Green Party has been really proposing stricter animal welfare standards. This is part of embracing the future trend of agriculture because those customers are more discerning.

At the highest level, I think in the macro picture for New Zealand in the primary sector is when it comes to two of our biggest exports, tourism and agriculture. Is it simply cramming more tourists down in Fiordland? We are seeing the infrastructure pressures. Is it cramming more cows on paddocks? We’re seeing the impact on our waterways. I’d say our pathway is where there’s no limit to the exports on innovation, which I’ve talked about; higher standards, which I’ve talked about; research and development, which I’ve talked about; and sustainability. That’s our future for a richer New Zealand and a richer agricultural sector.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Well, I’ve just arrived into the Chamber, and I heard the end of a very fine speech from Hamish Walker, and then I heard a rather confused rant from the other side from a new member. The only positive thing he had to say—you would think that an ambitious member, clearly ambitious, trying to climb the greasy pole would really glow positively about the Government’s policies. But we didn’t hear anything positive about their policies at all. But we did see, you know, a quite embarrassing currying up to the Minister in the hope that that will elevate his pitch further up the ladder. You never know; there could be a little titbit in the upcoming reshuffle. But, anyway, it was quite embarrassing.

Then we heard a talk about GE from the Green member who clearly doesn’t understand genetic engineering whatsoever. It is a wonderful opportunity for New Zealand and it should be something that we pursue. Agriculture would be the main beneficiary of it, as would climate change. But, no, science they believe in only when they agree with it. We already have 70 products on supermarket shelves that are genetically modified, something that seems to be forgotten. Anyone who’s ever been to the dentist or had an operation will most likely have had cotton wool in their mouths or in their body wiping things up, which will almost certainly be genetically modified. And the number of medicines in this country in use that are genetically modified is quite a long list. So we have it here, we should be pursuing it, we have excellent grass potential with it. That ridiculous situation where the apple had to go to the USA to be tasted—it couldn’t even be tasted here; the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act needs to be upgraded.

But I want to talk a little bit about mātaitai, and the issue that has happened with mātaitai that was gazetted last year. But the process started back in 2015—they’ve been working through the process. Mātaitai is for a customary fishing reserve which is over South Island fishery waters. However, in Kaikōura 450 square kilometres of land has been identified, privately owned land, within a boundary of a mātaitai. Now, it can’t be in a boundary, but that’s identified in the maps. None of those landowners were consulted; not one.

I met with the Minister, Mr Nash, and I wanted to know why they had chosen not to notify those members. They advertised in newspapers that are not circulated in the area where these people live: a clear gap in the process. The Minister said “Well, do you expect us to go and knock on everyone’s door?”, and I said “Well, I at least expect you to write to them.” And the Minister said, “Well, how am I going to find out who they are?” I said, “Well, I know and I have far less resources than you do.” And that is a clear breakdown in process. Not only that, there’s a legal opinion saying that the whole process is ultra vires. It will be challenged, and the Minister will not look good as a result of this.

If you step over people’s property rights without consulting them, then that’s a very dangerous road to go down, and yet the Minister has gone down that road. I think what is partly to blame is when the Minister signs off on it, he has to check that all of those processes have been followed as the law requires, and that wasn’t the case. So there are some very angry people, quite rightly. I have no issue with mātaitai. I think they’re a wonderful vehicle, and it’s a great process for customary fishing that should be adhered to. But the process is all important. You don’t right one wrong by creating another, and that is what’s happened.

I also want to touch on the billion trees, as has been talked about clearly while I haven’t been here. But the important issue here is around property rights, as was talked about quite extensively in the banter across the Chamber. Actually, the issue is this is a separate property right to the forestry interests as to everybody else. They have up to a thousand hectares without virtually any process to go through, whereas any other land holding in New Zealand is a fraction of that. Foreign investment has been good for New Zealand, but we have one sector favoured over the other and it’s going to kill rural communities. And we know who’s done it, and the rural sector know who has done it, and it really is an appalling process. Thank you.