Estimates Debate — Primary Sector

Members, we come now to the votes in the primary sector volume—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. It gives me great pleasure to take this speech at this time, but at a very difficult time for farmers. This has been the worst attack on our agriculture, horticulture, and primary sector that farmers have known in any time through this parliamentary history of this place. They are under attack from a Government that doesn’t want them in business and has taken it upon themselves to do that.

💬 Kieran McAnulty: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. This is not the first time I’ve had to raise this point of order against this particular member. There is a convention in this House that when the chair of a select committee—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Yeah. I’m sorry. Yes, I do appreciate that the chair of the select committee is supposed to make a neutral speech, reflecting the discussions of the select committee. I do apologise that I was otherwise distracted—otherwise I would have stopped the member myself.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I was being neutral, in that case. If I had really said what I thought about the Government of the day, they wouldn’t be sitting there so nice and quietly. But the reason I did raise that is because there are a number of points—five main points—that have come out of the discussions, and they are the most important part of these discussions that I think we should draw to everybody’s attention, because they are the points where we have seen what has been happening.

The first is in regard to Mycoplasma bovis. That is the first attack on farmers. The Government came out and said that they were going to pay for this. There was a great hurrah around “Look at us standing up for our farmers, standing behind them in a time of need”—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I’m sorry to interrupt the member, but can I just ask him to report on the discussions in the select committee without the personal reflections that he’s making on the worth or merit or otherwise of those discussions.

So one of the major discussions was the biosecurity levy that was suddenly going to come upon farmers that the Minister and his officials had made clear that they had been working on but hadn’t made public under the discussions of that committee. We grafted it out of the Minister that there will be a biosecurity levy that will be coming on farmers, and that biosecurity levy will be to refund the Government for the money that they’ve spent through the Budget in looking at the Mycoplasma bovis issue. So it is a direct relationship, and it was part of the major questioning in the committee, and it’s important that the public out there listening know the facts about those issues that were discussed in the committee, and that is the first one that I think should be drawn to attention.

The second issue that was of importance, on page 255, is around the National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) system. That is an important part of the traceability of farm animals, and that’s very much related to the first issue of the Mycoplasma bovis outbreak. Now, the big issue around NAIT is the database of information, and that information is now held by the organisations that represent farmers, namely Livestock Improvement and suchlike. The Government of the day is proposing that that information is now owned—not accessed, but owned—by the Government. So that is a second crucial issue that came up in the Ministry for Primary Industries debate, and it is the second way that the Government is looking at having control through ownership—not access—to information that farmers already own and that is sensitive to them in the sense that other competitors now, and other Government departments, can easily access that information through this Government.

The third area that came up was in regard to forestry. That was another huge issue for members of the committee, and we looked at the forestry issue in regard to the one billion trees programme. The Minister of Forestry is in the chair, and I’m sure he’s going to talk about it. It was raised in the committee why there is an exemption for foreigners to come in and buy land just for forestry, and what effect that will have on farming communities as that land is taken out of sheep and beef farming or dairy farming and put in forestry. That was a huge issue that was raised by members in the committee because they see a loss of jobs; they see forestry that will not necessarily be cut down and used for wood products but sits there just to get carbon credits. That’s the incentive that is in the market, and there is an exemption for foreign buyers to come in and access land without any requirements.

💬 Kieran McAnulty: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson.

And I know that speaker’s going to say the same thing, but it’s just reflecting what the committee held.

💬 Kieran McAnulty: The member is reflecting his party’s view as that of the committee. I think that is a misrepresentation of the committee’s views.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): No, no—I’m listening very carefully. He’s on the edge—he is on the edge—but I am following the report that is in the journal, so I am making sure that he is debating the issues that are in the journal. But I have already warned him, and he is close.

Yes, and Madam Chair, if you look at page 260, it says that the committee says that we are interested—we remain interested—in various aspects of that scheme. So we want to see what is going to happen in forestry in that area.

The last part, on page 4 of that, is the emissions trading scheme.

I’m sorry, but the member’s time has expired.

Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā. Very pleased to take a call on the primary sector Estimates and recognise the significant investment in land that the Government is making through vote land information. The South Island high country is a taonga to many New Zealanders. It stretches over 1.2 million hectares, 8 percent of Aotearoa, 168 pastoral leases. In February, we set off some public consultation on reforms to the Crown Pastoral Land Act and we saw more than 3,000 submissions. So that policy development has been ongoing, but the engagement by New Zealanders has been outstanding. In Budget 2019, this Government is again doing what the last Government failed to do: investing $3.1 million over four years so that Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) can increase its engagement with pastoral leases so that it can visit leaseholders and do farm inspections directly, rather than relying on third parties to do that.

One critical aspect of good, sustainable land management is investing in biosecurity and tackling pests. Again, it’s a theme of Budget 2019: correcting and making account for the neglect of the last 10 years. This Government is investing an additional $7.5 million over four years, the biggest increase in Land Information’s baseline for 10 years for doing biosecurity work. So that $7.5 million is enabling LINZ to tackle some of the aquatic weeds in Lake Wakatipu, in the Te Arawa Rotorua lakes, and in Lake Karapiro for the rowers—investing in getting rid of those weeds like Lagarosiphon. So that’s a major investment, and it comes after years of neglect from the past Government.

Again, under this Government, Land Information has had a much-needed boost to the land bank—again, ensuring that when we go into Treaty settlements, the properties in the land bank are in a fit state to transfer across to iwi, because there are more than 900 properties in the land bank, and some of those were in very dilapidated condition when they came in in the 1990s and when they’ve come in subsequently. Those properties that are being used for either commercial or cultural redress need to be in a good condition. So that additional funding in the Budget, $16.8 million over four years, will mean that five of those big properties, like Masterton Hospital, can have asbestos remediated and can, in some cases, like the Tokanui waste-water plant, be demolished and have improvements done there so that those properties can be passed over to iwi in a good condition.

There are a number of properties which LINZ has picked up from Government agencies which no longer require them. There are around over 500 tenants in a lot of the residential houses that LINZ has. Those properties weren’t properly insulated, and, again, in this Budget, an initial $21 million over four years will ensure that those homes are maintained, that they have proper insulation, so that tenants can live in warm, dry homes.

There was also a significant investment of nearly $2 million for the satellite-based augmentation system, enabling New Zealand to work with Australia to tender for that, to ensure that GPS positioning can assist—people like helicopter pilots, when they’re going to recover patients in difficult terrain, can get access to those areas, pin-point them more accurately. So that investment in the satellite-based augmentation system is again a commitment by this Government to ensuring that our digital technology is up to scratch, that we’ve got a really innovative economy, and that we deliver those benefits for New Zealanders.

Madam Chair, with the Minister for Regional Economic Development sitting alongside you, I’m really grateful, as Minister for Land Information, for the investment that the Provincial Growth Fund has made through the Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) work. That will enable much better mapping in the regions because of the ability, through laser technology, using the LiDAR system, to more accurately map the potential extent of rising seas, to assist regional councils and district councils with their infrastructure planning, with planning for a changing climate. So I’m very pleased to commend this bill to the House because of the major investment in land information, from biosecurity through to improved insulation in tenants’ homes, through to increased investment in innovation like the satellite-based augmentation system.

Tēnā koe, e Te Kaiwhakawā. He tino hōnore ki te tū i waenganui i tēnei whare o Te Whare Pāremata i tēnei wiki o tō tātou nei reo rangatira, ki te āwhina tō tātou nei kaupapa o Te Reo. Otirā, tō tātou nei tangata o ngā rohe ki wērā, otirā ki te āwhina i ngā kaipāmu o ngā rohe katoa i Aotearoa i tēnei taupatupatu. Heoi anō, tuatahi, māku e whiu atu i ōku nei whakaaro ki tēnei tangata rongonui, ko te Minita o te Regional—what are you? Regional development—regional champion? Āe! Koinā te ingoa tūturu, te tino regional champion, anei mātou, pō huruhuru ngā kaiāwhina ki te tautoko tēnei tangata i ngā rohe katoa. Heoi, ka huri ake ki ngā take o tēnei taupatupatu, te primary industry.

[Greetings, Madam Speaker. It is a real honour to stand in the middle of this House of Parliament on this week for our Māori language, to assist our cause of the Māori language. Indeed, our man of the regions to those, actually to help the farmers of all the regions of New Zealand, in this debate. Firstly, I will expound my thoughts about this famous man, the Minister of Regional—what are you? Regional development—regional champion? Yes! That’s the real title, the great regional champion, here we are, your supporters, who are supporting this man in all of the regions. Furthermore, I turn now to the substance of this debate, the primary industry.]

It’s a privilege to be able to speak on this side of the committee as the deputy chair of the Primary Production Committee. It’s a privilege to speak on behalf of our Government and what we are doing, because when we listen to the Opposition and the āwangawanga that they display—I recall there was that statement: every issue that kind of passes by, they sit there and they yap. They’re whinging away, whinging away, and trying to rile up a storm in the regions, in the provinces of Aotearoa. But as a proud member of this here House who has the honour of living in regional and provincial New Zealand, I can tell you unequivocally that the sentiment in our regions and the sentiment of those that serve our nation in the primary production sector are doing well. They are thriving.

It’s absolutely beyond me when I listen to the contributions of the chair of the Primary Production Committee, which are supposed to be a recitation of the incredibly, I think, good discussions that we, by and large, have in our select committee. It’s disappointing to hear the contributions made in this committee of the whole House that make it sound like it’s all doom and gloom. Perhaps it’s all doom and gloom on that side of the House, but, on this side of the House, we are tackling the long-term issues that face Aotearoa New Zealand.

Whilst the other side let the regions suffer when they had the chance and they held the Treasury benches, we here on this side of the committee, it’s our time to restore the balance, and we are doing that across an array of areas when it comes to the primary sector. Right now, under the leadership and the stewardship of the Hon Damien O’Connor, we are tackling the real long-term issues that are before us. Right now, we are overhauling the Biosecurity Act. Now, in part, that has come about as a consequence of Mycoplasma bovis and the pain that has been suffered by many of our farmers throughout the nation. We are reforming the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act. We are making substantial investments in terms of ensuring that the regulatory environment that our primary producers in our nation, who contribute absolutely tremendously, who are the backbone of our nation—we are making sure that we are getting that regulatory environment right.

I want to turn to something that I’m pretty proud of in the Budget which was advocated by the Hon Damien O’Connor. We know that New Zealand has some of the worst mental health statistics in the country, and, for our regional folks, we have some of the worst in the world. Budget 2019 contained a $20.8 million investment over four years that will invest in mental health support for isolated rural communities as a consequence of the advocacy of many rural advocacy groups—in particular, the wives and the children of those that have endured loss as a consequence of whakamomori. I want to acknowledge this Government’s action when it comes to tackling things like mental health for our regional and provincial communities. Tēnā koe.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a great privilege to speak for a few minutes on the Estimates report from the Primary Production Committee. I wasn’t on it at the time; I am now, and enjoying the experience.

There are a few things that jump out, though, when you look at the report, and you’ve heard it with the Government’s contributions thus far: very high on rhetoric, very low on substance. The great example of that was when we tested with Damien O’Connor the idea of rural proofing, which was something that he put so much store into. He had very little understanding—and you can see it there in the transcripts—around what it actually meant. At best, he had to turn to his officials and ask for them to come to the table and assist and provide further context. But it largely looks like the opportunity for the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) to have their voice heard, hopefully around a table of various Government agencies.

What is interesting when you consider the work programme that’s talked about by the primary industries—and, clearly, water quality is now front of mind for most of rural New Zealand, if not all of them. Where was the rural proofing when that document was promulgated? Where was the MPI contribution to the economic impact, which that document is completely silent on? For 23,000 farmers, there’s no real sense of what it means for them, apart from some high-level numbers around farm environment plans and an assessment of stock exclusion. There’s no assessment of, actually, if you apply those in water values to the extent that this Government wants to see—that that will mean that dairy in parts of this country of ours will be decapitated: sheep and beef equity out the back door, only can plant forests. Where is that? If that’s rural proofing, if that’s real, if that forms part of what you think’s important, live it; don’t just talk it. What we saw was a whole lot of talking about it.

I go to the extension services. That was waved from the rafters—$35 million. Again, when tested, Damien O’Connor didn’t know how many people. Largely, he said it would be leveraged off the sector’s own people in the field. We didn’t really get a sense of what they would do, and then, when pushed, he said, “Look, we’ll target them to 2,000 farmers.” Well, what about the 21,000 other farmers? What about those who now sit around their dinner tables saying, “What on earth are we going to do now? How do we farm to these limits that are so onerous we can’t see a way there?” There’s not enough extension, not enough investment, and not enough clarity intellectually around what you’re trying to do. I think the Minister was found out to be quite light in his analysis around that Estimates discussion.

Then, when there was a substance that was already in place—the Global Research Alliance on Agricultural Greenhouse Gases, which the previous Government put together, which actually is realistic in terms of working with others around the world and with respect to identifying options to reduce carbon emissions on farm—he put in a bid for $50 million and he got $8 million, which is just a rollover of last year’s money. So if you’re really serious about climate change, wouldn’t you invest, actually, in the mechanism that exists today to actually create tools for farmers to make a difference?

See, this is the problem. There’s an enormous amount of rhetoric—and some of it, bombastic or otherwise, is at times quite entertaining—but where’s the substance? The global research alliance the previous Government set up, and all they could do was give them another year’s funding, when it is a critical enabler for farmers to actually be able to respond to emissions in a very real sense. I don’t think this Government gets agriculture.

💬 Kieran McAnulty: Ha, ha!

I don’t think they get it at all. They have a laugh—Kieran has a laugh—but when pushed—

💬 Kieran McAnulty: Speaking of substance, where is it? Come on.

Kieran McAnulty has a laugh, but when pushed and his own community says, “Actually, I think you’re right. I don’t think ag should go into the emissions trading scheme (ETS); more critically, I have real concerns around the ETS itself.”, he’s very strong in terms of his view and what he’ll say to the Wairarapa Age—less so in this House. You know, it’s going to be interesting to see how he positions himself on what will become quite a critical debate: agriculture into the emissions trading scheme. That was listed as a work programme. I suspect that’s signed off in a couple of weeks. Looking forward to fronting that, Mr Patterson? That’ll go down well.

💬 Greg O’Connor: Cheer up.

Well, I tell you: “Cheer up” minus 80 percent. They’re not my statistics, Kieran McAnulty. They’re the sector’s. It’s the most pessimistic outlook in 15 years. Do you think that’s a function of us? No, it’s not. It’s a function of your Government. It’s a function of the fact that you don’t understand farmers. You see them as a cost. You see them as an activity and a lifestyle to constrain. You don’t see somebody as a farming family contributing to their community. You don’t see them as part of the future. We do, and that’s the clear difference between that side and this side.

Tēnā koutou katoa e Te Whare.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Are you seeking a call?

Oh yes. Sorry, I was getting carried away with Māori Language Week. Thank you, Madam Chair. Tēnā koutou katoa e Te Whare. Kia kaha Te Reo Māori.

Just responding to that last speaker, I am a farmer. I have been a farmer for 30 years. I live in those communities. We absolutely understand farming, and this is a time of change. There is no doubt about this. We had come before us, in the Estimates debate, a number of Ministers. They are reforming Ministers. We have come up against the ecological limits of some of our farming practices. We have signed international agreements that we must honour—

💬 Kieran McAnulty: That’s right. Who signed those—who signed those?

—and, when I say “We have signed international agreements”—

💬 Kieran McAnulty: They did.

—the National Party signed the international agreements.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Sorry to interrupt the member, but can I just remind Mr McAnulty to just keep it down, all right? Let the speaker have a turn.

Thank you. I thought it was going so well. It’s a good chance to segue into the fact that we should not catastrophise what’s going on. We are sitting on, as Kiritapu Allan pointed out, record exports—$46 billion dollars last year—coming from our primary sector. This is not a time of catastrophe. I did start my farming career in the 1980s. I do know what dire situations look like, and they don’t look like what they are now. What we have is a period of uncertainty as we land some of these big issues. That’s the challenge for this Government. It’s to get these through the pipeline. Once farmers have got their head around where they’re going—they are problem solvers—they will get there. We’ve just got to get them to the right place.

Just addressing some of the issues in the Estimates bill, we have had a major biosecurity outbreak in Mycoplasma bovis, which was referenced by Minister O’Connor in his contribution. It’s important we do not forget those farmers. There are still farmers battling through this. There was a $900 million contribution—I heard that being trivialized before—$900 million! That could have been zero. We could have just left the sector to its own devices and let the disease go, but we took the courageous path, and we are supporting our farmers through that. And, of course, we’ve had a fruit fly incursion and we’ve got the brown marmorated stink bug that’s raging through Europe. So we’ve got all sorts of threats in our biosecurity space.

Minister O’Connor has outlined to us the changes to the Biosecurity Act that are coming through. There was new funding of $12 million in the Budget and $62 million, of course, to customs, which is also part of it, and we’ve got the National Animal Identification and Tracing Amendment Bill (No 2) coming forward. Of course, one of the problems we’ve had with our response to M. bovis is that the National Animal Identification and Tracing system was under absolute benign neglect by the previous Government.

Just to cover some of the other big issues: the Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Bill. We’ve had a lot of debate about that. The Global Research Alliance on Agricultural Greenhouse Gases: the funding going into that is good funding. The money that AgResearch are putting into the GE rye grasses, that is a debate that we absolutely need to have as well. Farmers are prepared to do their bit, but they want to have the tools at their disposal, and that’s a debate that I’m sure we’ll have through this House often and shortly.

In terms of landing that zero carbon bill, I would say that, having sat on that committee, there has been a wave of, particularly, business interests coming in—no; across the spectrum, to be fair—saying how important it is to get cross-party consensus. We need every party in this Parliament involved. We cannot have chopping and changing with such a far-reaching bill. So I hope that that consensus is something that we can still reach as we go through that committee stage and the second reading.

The freshwater stuff, the discussion document that was brought out yesterday: I just would like to emphasise that it is a discussion document. That is the nature of those announcements. I went to the first of those public meetings yesterday, where there was some very constructive dialogue, in Dunedin. It is a wide-ranging piece of work. We must work through the details, and, yes, we must look at the implications for our rural communities, and we will.

I will note the $230 million that was allocated in Budget 2019 to the sustainable farming package. That is there for that reason, to help those farmers to adjust and to, essentially, I guess, subsidise their response and their ability. But we must do this. We must get our agriculture back on a more sustainable platform.

Madam Chair, thank you for the opportunity to make a contribution. I want to cover off several things, but, first, I want to acknowledge what we’ve heard from the last two speakers. We’ve heard from a hearty, genuine farmer, an earthy Southlander, and we’ve heard from a former executive of Fonterra. Now, I know the public watching this debate will place a far greater level of emphasis on what an earthy farmer has to say rather than someone who graced the corridors, mahogany panels, and gold-plated toilet doors and then comes and attacks not only the policy makers but the Ministers on this side of the Chamber.

In fact, I’m beginning to wonder whether or not, from time to time, as Fonterra raises its head in its woozy financial state, the Speaker of the House may need to address the member for Bay of Plenty as to whether there’s a conflict of interest in his statements on anything to do with Fonterra. So I’d like to put that on the record and—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I’d also like the member to come to the Estimates, because he’s now spent a minute of his five minutes discussing an individual.

Of course, the most exciting part about the Estimates is the $46 billion, and growing, that has been recorded, which reflects the income to the nation from this very valuable agricultural sector. Now, a key part of the broader primary sector report pertains to forestry. Now, there is some confusion out in some sectors of the farming community. Of course, they are travelling furtively with that side of the Chamber—i.e., the Opposition side of the Chamber—but I’m all cool about that, because this is contested space. But the forestry contribution is well over 12 or 13 percent of that $46 billion in terms of export receipts. It was an area that was neglected, but now it is receiving the due level of attention and fiscal love which is required.

There are some areas that do deserve to be debated, and one of those areas is: what’s the appropriate mix of pastoral activity and forestry activity in a given location? There’s one side of the debate which is covered in this report back. Now, the language is slightly extravagant, but the point is well made that in a number of our rural communities there is a balance to be struck. But I would say to the public that it is not the Crown forcing farmers to sell their land. They value property rights. They insist on economic sovereignty to do what they like, when they like, with whoever they like, with their land, their main capital asset. So if they are choosing to sell their land to other purchasers who have other uses in mind, what does the Opposition want us to do?

Do they want us to regulate the pace and who farmers can sell their land to? No. Do they want us to introduce a new level of red tape, inhibiting as to what mix of forestry and farm land use should be brought forward? No, because they are the apostles. They are the Pharisees of property rights and that land use should follow the investment patterns as to where landowners feel they’ll get a better return, and this—adverted to in the report, I’m sure, by the members of the Opposition party—from a party that’s supposed to be into free enterprise.

Now, there will be some allegations—poorly thought-out and largely unsound—that the Government has unduly favoured forestry. In actual fact, the report is based on information provided by our officials that in actual fact, forestry land, for the last 10-15 years, has disappeared into farmland. So all we’re seeing is the pendulum slowly swinging back to where it used to be. Of course, the greatest amount of afforestation took place under the National Party in the 1990s. So what we’re seeing, really, is land use going through a transition, and forestry playing a role, to enable the nation to meet its climate change obligations. I say to the farmers: it was the National Party who put you on the hook for those imposts, not this side of the House. It’s this side of the House that’s been innovative with solutions.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Well, the last speaker, the Hon Shane Jones, said he enjoyed listening to hearty farmers, so here’s his opportunity, but I would like to go back to the previous speaker, Mark Patterson, who got up and he said that this is a period of uncertainty for farmers. It’s definitely a period of uncertainty, and it’s not around prices and it’s not around weather and it’s not around interest rates; it’s around a Green - Labour - New Zealand First Government. Right now, the period of uncertainty is about the future, and, if that member was out listening to the people in his electorate, he would work that out.

I’m looking through this report, and I wasn’t on the committee, but some of the things that stood out for me were the extension clusters, and it’s been mentioned before—$35.4 million over four years for 2,200 farmers. Interestingly, noting in here, it said clusters in farmers and growers will be set up across New Zealand to share knowledge and advice, and then down further we heard Beef and Lamb and DairyNZ have already developed their own extension system. Well, those extension systems have been going for years and years and years, way back to the 1980s and beyond, Mr Patterson—way back, probably to the 1960s. But what it says in here, and what’s quite concerning for me, is that, however, these are based on their industry objectives and may lack information about the Government’s objectives. So what are we creating? It’s like the industry doesn’t know what it’s doing, so the Government has to come along and tell it how to do better. Well, let me tell this Government that the industry’s actually done a lot of things without the help of Government—a lot of investment; a lot of time and effort. The other part of this was it says here the director-general told us that a range of extension services already exist. So where was the Minister? Missing in action—doesn’t seem to know that the work’s already going on.

There are the methane targets in the zero carbon bill. The Minister said he had not received any advice on the cost—this is what he told the committee—because he considers it nearly impossible to calculate a long-term projection to 2050. It also says that he’d asked for information about the most accurate model because he’s not yet seen a model that he considers reliable. So that, to me, is really concerning when we’ve got a bill up there, we’ve got people making submissions, and we’ve got all this talk about where the methane targets should lie—and they’ve been set pretty heavy, and that’s one of the main bones of contention. But this is really, really interesting: that the Minister hasn’t yet seen a model that he considers reliable to do this.

The next thing I noticed when I was going through this was the $8.5 million for Global Research Alliance on Agricultural Greenhouse Gases. Well, that’s great. We need that, but this is not a new initiative for this Government. This is another thing: it’s good to have some extra funding into it. The member Patterson mentioned genetic engineering and that before, around some of the pastures and things, and we do need to have that discussion. It’s a big discussion that we need to have, but, you know, this is not something new that this Government’s developed; this is something that farmers have been working on for a very long time. So, please, in announcing some of these things, don’t forget to give farmers and industry organisations the credit for where they’ve already been.

Then I get down to agriculture in the emissions trading scheme, and it says here the Minister can see the value from an international trading perspective. Well, I can see that other countries will be laughing all the way to the bank if the Minister can see the value from an international trading perspective, because the ball will be in the court of all of our trading partners and our farmers will not have anything left to bat with under the current conditions that they’re being exposed to.

Then we go down to the review of the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act. Well, currently one member’s going to be appointed to the Fonterra milk price panel; two had apparently been recommended. Again, Government knows best. Every part of this document that I’ve looked at, having not sat on the committee but going through it bit by bit, is Government knows best. The agricultural sector doesn’t know anything according to this Government, and it seems like the industry’s not meeting the Government’s objectives. Well, how about the Government start to think about meeting the industry’s objectives and provide some certainty. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. You know, I have been asked numerous times since putting my hand up to stand in this House why I am standing for Labour and not National. Here I am, a man of seven generations’ farming stock from Wairarapa, standing for a party that they believe does not stand up for farmers. I look them in the eye and I say, “Rubbish.” Over the history of New Zealand politics, it has been the Labour Party that has driven change that is needed in the agricultural sector, and that is exactly what is in this report and the funding that has come from this Government into the farming sector.

We could take the conservative approach—the “leave it alone and she’ll be right”, wishing-for-the-old-days approach of the National Party. And where is that going to get us? What is that going to do to delivering our vision of a high-value, highly productive agricultural sector, addressing the challenges of climate change and environmental sustainability? Nothing—absolutely nothing. They live in a dream world. They think that if we do nothing, it’ll all be OK—that we will be able to continue to demand the great value that we extract from our primary products just because we can continue, in this fairyland, to trade off our clean, green image.

We have a responsibility as a primary-producing nation to live up to our responsibilities under climate change and to make sure that our primary production is environmentally sustainable, because the consumers overseas do not want to buy the cheapest possible product from New Zealand. We have never targeted those consumers that want to buy the cheapest products. We have always targeted those most discerning consumers in the world. They want to make sure that their primary products, the products that they are consuming, are environmentally sustainable and are from a country that is living up to its climate change obligations, that is a country that looks after the animal welfare, that is safe, and, increasingly so, that looks after the workforce that helped to produce those products.

Barbara Kuriger stands up and says that there is uncertainty. Well, I’m not surprised. When the National Party stands up and says that the agriculture industry in this country has no future, no wonder there is uncertainty. No wonder the industry is screaming out for skilled staff. Why would a young person want to enter into agriculture when the party that is supposed to represent them says there is no future in that industry? We say there would be absolutely no future in the industry of agriculture if the changes that we are proposing are not made. How would there be a future in agriculture when no one wants to buy our products? This is a connection that that side of the House fails to recognise. Barbara Kuriger says there’s not uncertainty in interest rates. I agree, because they’ve never been better.

Barbara Kuriger says that there’s no uncertainty around prices. Again, I agree, because they are historically high. The facts are that the way that the industry, the primary sector, is performing in this country does not live up to the doom and gloom that that side of the House is spouting out. There is export performance up nearly $7.5 billion in the last two years, but there’s no future in agriculture if you listen to Barbara Kuriger, nor is there no future in agriculture if you listen to Todd Muller. But he’s changed his tune. He stood there today and talked about the $229 million put into the land sustainability fund and says that this Government is not doing enough and is moving too quickly for farmers across this country.

It’s interesting that he has changed his tune, because he says here that improving the productivity and sustainability of this sector has the potential to drive significant economic benefits for the regions. So they say one thing when they’re talking to one group, and they say another when they’re pandering to another. That sums up the National Party. They are willing to go around, when they were in Government, and sign us up to international agreements on climate change and do absolutely nothing to meet those agreements, because they are trying to keep support from their support base. They know that farmers actually are doing something and actually want to see some changes driven by Government, so that we can continue to command the most value for our products. That is a backward-looking Opposition, and, as long as they keep doing it, I suspect this Government will continue to attract support of farmers, because they know that we are forward-looking and we have their interests, and the interests of rural communities, at heart. That is what the guts of these provisions in the Budget are all about.

I just want to actually talk about a few things. My philosophy is actions speak louder than words. We’ve heard a lot of talk from this Government over the last couple of years, and let’s actually look at some of those actions. I’m just referring to 18 June, when the Minister of Agriculture came in and spoke to the Primary Production Committee. I think I actually feel sorry for the Minister of Agriculture. He needs to have more respect, more decency, from his caucus and from his leadership—to actually treat him with respect, so he can actually stick up for the agricultural sector.

I just want to talk about a question that I did ask him. It was around the Labour Party 2017 campaign promise of, “We will rural proof every single policy that goes through caucus, to ensure that it works for the rural sector, and, whatever policy we get through, we will use our lens.” So I asked the Minister: “Your rural-proofing policy: where are your roads tests? Have you got evidence anywhere, on any documentation, to show us evidence of a rural-proofing policy?” His answer—what was his answer? “Oh, where can you find that, Charlotte?”, who was his adviser. He couldn’t even point to any evidence at all where the rural-proofing policy has been applied. He actually went on to—looking at his transcript—talk about the Mental Health Act. Well, if you want to talk about mental health, you only need to look at what’s happening currently in Southland, but I will come up on to that next.

The next question I asked him, after he said, “Well, we don’t actually rural proof anything, but it was a 2017 Labour Party promise.”, was, “Are you aware of any upcoming campaigns, Minister?” This was 17 June, so this was a few months ago. His response to the question, “Are you aware of any upcoming campaigns?”: “I understand there’s one being thought out, about to start around winter grazing. I heard about it within the last week or so.” This is extremely concerning because we know, over the last two or three months, there has been an orchestrated campaign by this Government on farmers in Southland around winter grazing. If you just look at the answer here, look what’s happened since then. A winter grazing taskforce has been established, and—what do you know?—the individual driver in that has been appointed by the Minister of Agriculture to that winter grazing taskforce.

I think that’s incredibly disappointing. If you look at the work that farmers have done around water quality in Southland over the last 10 to 15 years, yes, water quality did slightly decline between 2000 and 2012, but it’s improved since 2012, over the last seven years. If you only look at the Pomahaka water catchment group, and the improvements they’ve made, they’ve been raving about their success—

💬 Mark Patterson: Six—there’s only six out of 40 swimming holes that meet the standard.

What’s that, Mark?

💬 Mark Patterson: Six out of 40.

Where have you been, Mark Patterson, over the last four months? Voting against a rural maternity birthing unit closing down. That’s incredibly disappointing. Where have you been around winter grazing recently? The mental health concerns—where have you been with Southern Institute of Technology (SIT)? You should have crossed the floor on SIT, but you haven’t.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Don’t bring me into the debate, please, Mr Walker. Thank you.

But if we just come back to the Estimates, I think it’s incredibly disappointing. Farmers have fenced 98 percent of waterways across New Zealand, a distance from Wellington to Chicago and back. There’s around 25 to 28 water catchment groups in Southland, these groups of volunteer farmers that work together to improve water quality. The huge investment—about $1 billion of investment—farmers have made to water quality, that counted for nothing last week. There was a water policy announcement.

To be fair to the Government, John Key always said that a good policy is in one sentence. “We want to have waterways that are swimmable.”—it all sounds great, but the most polluted waterways are urban centres. We know that in Auckland; the Minister even stated that in his Estimates. We know the most polluted waterways are in urban centres, yet the farmers are the ones who’ve been making huge improvements in water.

Just lastly, I want to talk about the Government-industry agreements (GIAs). David Bennett is doing a wonderful job—a very fair, balanced chair of the Primary Production Committee. He’s doing a wonderful job. He spoke briefly about the GIAs. These were set up seven years ago by Minister Nathan Guy. Disease outbreak—farmers contribute 12 percent. The reason for this is so farmers declare early if they believe there’s a disease incursion. What did the Government do when Mycoplasma bovis came along? They increased this 32 percent, which cost the industry an extra to $220 million.

Tēnā koe, Te Māngai o Te Whare. We’ve had a number of speakers across this House stand up and say that they weren’t on the Primary Production Committee, which, actually, heard these Estimates hearings for the primary sector. They have, nevertheless, read the report. I count myself among those members. I did not hear the Estimates hearings myself, but I have read the report. What is astonishing is the different attitudes towards this report that have been demonstrated across this House: on that side, a tale of negativity and woe; on this side, a tale of what we are doing positively for the agricultural sector.

When I read this excellent report from the Primary Production Committee, what I hear is a story about sustainability, a story about sustaining agriculture, a story about sustaining farming, a story about sustaining our environment. This Government is about the long-term problems, and solving them. It’s about putting in place change that will last for 30 years, not just three, and it is about sustainable change. So let me talk about sustainability that is in this report. It’s not some thin, attenuated notion of sustainability that relates only to the environment, or only to conservation, or only to business. It’s about an integrated package that makes farming sustainable for the long term in this country.

In fact, it’s about ensuring that all New Zealanders thrive, that we operate our businesses, our cities, our non-governmental organisations, and our Government in ways to have careful, due regard for the other, including for the environment and including for our farmers. It is no longer enough to have a large bank balance if life cannot be sustained. So what is exactly about sustainability in this report? Let’s look at what’s being done in biosecurity—biosecurity that protects our farming practices. When the bugs make it into the country, the people who are affected are our farmers. Improving our biosecurity contributes to the sustainability of farming practices. That’s why the improvements to our biosecurity system in this report are so important. That’s why the response to the discovery of fruit flies in Auckland was so important. It is about sustaining our primary sector industries through an improved biosecurity response.

Let’s talk about, again, that biosecurity. Looking at the way that there was a review of the passenger and mail pathways, that was about ensuring that the bugs don’t get into our country—sustaining our primary sector. Let’s look at the response to Mycoplasma bovis. That, again, is about sustainability, ensuring that that disease does not take permanent hold in this country. This Government, unlike the previous Government, poured time and money and effort into ensuring that we can control Mycoplasma bovis. Why? Because that is what our farmers need. It is ensuring that our rural communities thrive.

Let’s look at the use of land. We have a fund of $229 million for sustainable land use, to improve waterways, to reduce carbon emissions, and to support farmers and growers. On this side of the House, it is about supporting our farming industries. When it comes to issues like the extensions pathways, it’s about finding the best practice on farms and enabling farmers to share that knowledge—again, contributing to the sustainability of farming practice in this country.

When we think about it in terms of waterways and the work that is being done there, water is a precious resource and it is a precious resource that belongs to all of us. The work that is being done on waterways is to ensure that best practice prevails. When we’ve announced our waters package, many of our farmers said, “We can do that.”—“We can do that.” Why? Because they are already engaging in best practice and what we need to do is to spread that best practice further to other farmers.

We know that our farmers are resilient. We know that they want to engage in the best practice they can. We are sure that this will work for them. So, despite the doom, the gloom, and the negativity that comes from the other side of the House, on this side of the House we are positive about the future. We are about governing for all New Zealanders and we are about putting in solutions that will last for 30 years. It is excellent work that we are doing in the primary sector.

I call Tim Macindoe. Oh, sorry; I was looking at Tim.

Close. He’s far smarter than I am, Madam Chair, of course. Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, it’s a pleasure to take a call on the primary sector section of this debate, following on from all the urban Government members who have spoken on this. It is interesting to note—

💬 Dr Duncan Webb: Who? Bet she’s spent more time on a farm than you have.

Oh, here we go. There’s a flurry of activity. Apparently now they’re all rural MPs. Well, actually, I think there’s only one farmer over there—Mr Patterson—and he’s openly bagging the Minister of Agriculture at meetings in the Waikato.

💬 Mark Patterson: Rubbish!

So I don’t see the Minister having a lot of support, to be honest, at this stage. Well, he might like to refute that, but that’s not the feedback we’re getting directly from members.

So in relation to some of the proposals here, he also said—actually, Mr Patterson, when Barbara Kuriger was talking earlier—“Why sign us up to it?”, apparently alleging that the National Government was responsible for some of these draconian measures under the zero carbon bill and now the proposed dairy change as well. Rest assured we are certainly not supporting those as they stand, Mr Patterson. So no concerns there on that front.

Now, a previous list member mentioned as well that farmers want change driven by Government. How arrogant is that coming from members of the Government: to stand up from their urban ideals and suggest that rural New Zealand—that farmers—want change driven by the Government? They are so out of touch, so disconnected to rural New Zealand, it’s embarrassing. I feel embarrassed for them, listening to that sort of outcry.

There is $229 million from the Government to assist with environmental improvements. Great—but only a fraction of what’s needed. Much more with some of the proposals they’re putting forward now with these latest water announcements that we’re hearing, around the standards that might have to be put in place. A billion dollars is more like it. That’s the sort of figure—not to mention the economic impact, which, actually, we have no data about because there’s been very limited analysis done on it, which is again hard to comprehend when we’re talking about such drastic changes for a major contributor to the economic wealth and prosperity of this country.

Mr McAnulty clearly demonstrated before that he is unable to listen. He suggested that there was no future—that comments from this side had claimed no future for the industry—and yet that is the absolute opposite of what has been espoused by this side of the House. We have been, and continue to be, strong advocates for rural New Zealand, and to suggest otherwise—well, I know he wouldn’t knowingly mislead the House, so clearly he is uninformed and cannot listen to any of the commentary out there.

Now, we heard through these debates around some of the anticipated improvements required, and yet, just last week, we also heard around the massive raft of changes that are being proposed with some of these water standards. The two are not aligning when we hear the Minister say he wants the primary sector to be successful, to be focused on value-add, and to be thriving. Those are all nice words, but the action simply doesn’t line up. And now we’ve got the Government trying to talk their way out of something they’ve acted their way into, which simply cannot be done.

Those water standards, in particular, stifle innovation. To suggest that one farm should not be able to undertake a particular land use simply because of the categorisation of it is ridiculous.

💬 Dr Duncan Webb: Because it’s polluting our streams—killing our whitebait, hurting our trout.

If they can produce a particular land use and be farming in a particular way that is more efficient than others, then that’s their competitive advantage. Mr Webb, I’d encourage you to get out on a farm. You’re welcome to come to the Waikato and I’ll take you around some and show you, because you clearly have no understanding of the impact that’s been proposed by the Government here. To suggest that a blanket rule on land-use change is an appropriate measure is totally inaccurate and not at all in line with where the innovation in the sector allows us to go.

So that’s one big change we need to see. Again, the grandparenting right that’s been proposed is encouraging those people who have been leaching more, by rewarding them by enabling them to just reduce a bit and they’ll still be able to operate. Well, how does that align with any clear message around improving quality? If someone’s been leaching at 35 kilograms of nitrate per hectare and someone else at 20 kilograms, well, a reduction to 34 is progress versus staying stationary at 20 not being. Clearly, that doesn’t align either. The Government, again, says nice things, but they’re not thinking through how to actually achieve this. Time after time, the rural sector is being let down by this Government, and they are sick and tired of it. There is no understanding of rural New Zealand on that side of the House, and New Zealand deserves so much better.

Can I apologise to the member and to Tim Macindoe again, for mistaking you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m delighted to speak in this Estimates debate on the primary sector. This is a Government of focused action. We are tackling the big issues. We know that the prior Government sat on their thumbs. They’re not prepared to tackle the big issues around climate change, around environmental sustainability. They like to talk the talk, but they don’t walk the walk, and that’s what this Government is doing.

I want to commend Ministers O’Connor, Jones, Nash, and Sage, who fronted to our Primary Production Committee, who’ve made tremendous investments in their respective areas. If we look at the agriculture, in total $848 million has been going right across those portfolios into agriculture, biosecurity, food safety, and fisheries and lands. There is tremendous work going on in this primary sector. I’m very proud of that work. We are tackling the hard issues. We are tackling dairy industry restructuring. We are looking at freshwater management. We are looking at climate change and zero carbon. We’re tackling the hard issues because we need to because of the number that has been spouted this afternoon: $46 billion of exports are generated by our primary industries. We want to not only protect that; we want to grow that, but we have to do it in a sustainable way. We can’t just carry on with current practice. That’s why we are tackling those hard issues.

I want to acknowledge the Ministers, and Minister O’Connor particularly, in the decision to eradicate Mycoplasma bovis. We could have thrown the towel in and said, “Oh well, we’ll just live with it.” But, no, this Government has made the decision to eradicate Mycoplasma bovis, and we’re putting the investments in place to achieve that: an extra $17 million of compensation this year, and $68.5 million in total. Yes, the industry will be required to chip in, but that’s what it’s all about. We’re all in this together.

Likewise, biosecurity is so huge. We need to maintain that fortress, to protect our primary industries and protect that $46 billion in export receipts. What are we doing in that regard? Huge props to our Ministers for what we’ve done in terms of flies and insects—marmorated stink bugs and the like. If you mention the letters P-s-a to the kiwifruit industry, that sends shudders down all of the Bay of Plenty, and let us not forget that those incursions occurred under the previous National Government. So there were holes in the defences and the fortress under their watch, but this Government is taking the hard decisions to actually eradicate and deal with those incursions.

I want to acknowledge Minister Jones, the champion of the provinces. Massive investments going into forestry all around the motu, a 58 percent increase in support for forestry—and we’re seeing that in the one billion trees programme. We’re seeing that in forestry grants and partnership programmes, up and down the motu, and also complementing with the Provincial Growth Fund. But we’re not only just stopping at the tree-planting phase; we’re looking through all the way down the value chain through wood-processing and the like, so I want to acknowledge Minister Jones for that.

I want to speak to fisheries and Minister Nash. We often forget about the fishing industry, but it is a very important part of our coastal communities and also the export receipts and the wealth that it generates. I want to acknowledge Mr Jones again. We’re coming up to 30 years of the Māori fisheries settlement, which came about with the introduction of the quota management system. Right at the heart of our fisheries industry are Māori, and I know that our Minister Nash is very well respected by all stakeholders. He’s making some hard decisions. You can’t please everyone in every particular sector, but he’s making some really sensible decisions around dolphin threat management plans and around cameras on board vessels—particularly in those areas where we have endangered species. So I want to acknowledge Minister Nash for that.

I want to also acknowledge Minister Sage, our Minister for Land Information—in particular, one very welcome policy initiative, and that is the ending of land tenure review. For the South Island, in particular, where I represent Te Tai Tonga, the privatisation of those high country leases has been a real mamae for us in the South Island. To actually bring an end to that land tenure review is very welcome, and that just demonstrates we are focused and we are forward-looking.

Unlike the forlorn side over there, this Government is fizzing. We are getting the results, and it is very welcome, right across the primary sector. I wholeheartedly support the work of our Ministers and this Government.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s a pleasure to follow Rino Tirikatene. I always respect most of what he has to say. I’ll have some comments to say on his friend Mr Nash a little later.

First of all in this call, I want to comment a bit on the breeding industry in New Zealand and how important it is to this country, but I want to comment particularly on a piece of that breeding industry in the great New Zealand mare Melody Belle, who, on Sunday night, won the New Zealand Horse of the Year. The attention she’ll bring to this country will be far greater than anything that happens in this House today or tomorrow or next week, interestingly. It just shows what one animal can do for New Zealand. I think her success is hugely important to New Zealand, and I congratulate her connections and her breeder, Marie Leicester. Out of the Manawatū, it originated in Taranaki, interestingly, and that horse’s great-great-great-grandmother was born on a dairy farm in Taranaki, so it shows how important that sector is to the horse-breeding industry. I also want to briefly comment on the success of Murray Baker, who’s the New Zealand personality of the year in the racing industry, and who does a great job for New Zealand.

But before I leave this sector, I just wanted to comment on a couple of things from the Minister. I was going to hand a bouquet out to the Minister for Racing, but I decided that in light of someone’s experience over the last few weeks, it’s not a great idea to hand bouquets to the Minister for Racing. He doesn’t altogether appreciate them, and I thought even if picked off a racecourse he might not appreciate it. But, none the less, I was pretty keen, because there’s not an opportunity to bring this industry into its real place, which is primary production, because it is a great part of our breeding sector, and I think Mr Tirikatene talked about the contribution that sector makes to New Zealand. This part of the sector makes about a $1.6 billion contribution to the New Zealand primary industry sector.

So, having done that, I wanted to move on and talk a bit about the fishing sector, of which I certainly have a much greater—well, not a greater interest, but I certainly have an interest in that. The fishing sector, like much in our primary industries, is under what I’d call increasing pressure to change its ways and to, I guess, perform in a manner that some in our society would see as appropriate. I think the fishing industry has done a great deal in recent years to bring itself to a standard that both is respected and treats its environment in a manner that it should. There is always with these sectors room to improve, as there probably is with all parts of our primary sector, but we’re working very hard to do that in those sectors, and I think that the fishing industry plays a very important part in our primary sector—for a couple of reasons, actually. One is that we have one of the largest economic zones in the world, and that is primarily ocean. So we have an opportunity in New Zealand to make an industry work better than anyone else in the world can.

The issue I want to talk about here relates to what I’d call the public-private good and how we appropriate funding and how we use that funding in our particular sectors. I think the fishing sector is a little different from a lot of our sectors in that it has a very, very large recreational portion to it. That recreational portion currently has no charge on it, and I would never advocate that it should have a charge on it, but, none the less, the Government has a responsibility, in my view, to fund the research and development around our recreational sector. I think, at the same time, they have a responsibility to ensure that our commercial sector is operating in a manner that’s sustainable and that can be assured for the future.

The reason that there is a shortage of funding going into that sector and that I think we should consider in the future the way that what I’d call the public-private good part of that funding balance is achieved is because of the huge recreational sector—the huge interests that they have in being able to catch a fish on a daily basis. Because of the way in which our commercial sector currently funds a lot of their research and development, they go beyond the norm in a lot of ways to fund what goes on in that industry, and there’s increasing pressure on that. We have a very large economic zone, and then we have some species in that area that need protection, but not at all costs.

I think that’s where we’ve got to get the balance right, and I think that with respect to our Minister, he needs to make some decisions. He doesn’t currently make those decisions, and I think he needs to make those decisions in the interests of our long-term environmental and economic future, and I’d like to see that happen as we move forward. There are some species, as I said, that need protection, but we’ve got to find ways of protecting them so that the rest of our society can move on and live its life with them and not in opposition to them. Thank you.

I’ve sat here this afternoon, getting quite angry—or, certainly, agitated—with the speeches of those Opposition members. However, as usual, Mr McKelvie has somewhat calmed me down. He is something of a voice of reason there.

But Mr McKelvie has probably used his years to see that there have been changes in the agricultural sector. He can probably remember when the dip used to be poured straight into the river or straight on to the field and outside, because certainly, growing up on farms, I reflect on some of the practices that I was aware of—not only on the farm I grew up on but on the farms of relations and the farms of those in the neighbourhood. They are practices that the current crop of farmers laugh at—they couldn’t believe it. I liken it to people who you tell now that we used to smoke on aeroplanes. People laugh—the current generation—and that’s the analogy I use for some of the farming practices of the past.

I’m talking about things like, as I’ve said, pouring the dip straight into the creek after it had been used to dip the sheep that had gone through. I’m talking about pouring the pig manure straight into the rivers, which is something that I was very aware of, and the outrage when the local council came and made us dig a settling pond, and the double outrage when they came and made us dig another settling pond, just so that there was some sort of straining before the effluent went straight into the river and upset our whitebaiting practices, I might say. When it was cleansed, not only did it not go straight in but it actually improved the whitebait practices.

But the point I make—and I go back to what I’ve seen today—is the attempt to weaponise the rural-urban divide, because that’s exactly what’s happening. It’s a terrible, terrible thing to do, because, fortunately, this year—and it was very apparent at Estimates—we saw two things that showed the absolute necessity for urban and rural to work together.

One of them is the M. bovis. Now, that was something that was actually threatening this country’s industry. It was going to threaten our export industry as much as anything else that is possibly going to happen this year. We made a very courageous decision, and it was paid for. There was some local funding, some rural funding, but, actually, it was paid for by the taxpayer because, actually, New Zealanders understood the need that if that were to get out of control—if we didn’t get it under control—it was going to affect us all.

I liken that to the fruit fly outbreak in Auckland—again, an absolute necessity, that New Zealanders, particularly those in Auckland, those who were inconvenienced by that, understood fully the impact on the rural sector if the fruit fly was going to get out. They were the ones who were inconvenienced directly. However, those who would be infected if that fruit fly goes beyond Auckland—who is going to be affected—is going to be the farmers of New Zealand, it’s going to be the croppers of New Zealand, and it’s going to be the orchardists of New Zealand. So that is why it’s absolutely essential that we understand.

I see it being weaponised. In fact, Barbara Kuriger—I really have to say it was probably summed up by what Barbara Kuriger said—she said that there is no problem in the rural sector with farming, everything is booming, nobody has a problem with interest rates, and nobody has a problem with the prices, but they have a problem with the change of Government. That’s, essentially, what she said, and that sums it up in one thing. There’s actually nothing wrong. Everything is fine, except you have got a National Party who are down there scaring the bejesus—with absolutely no evidence—out of the rural sector. It is going to be them.

What I’ll say to those who now may be watching farmers saying how terrible it is that we’re being made to maybe change some practices, when we talk about methane and when we talk about cleaning up our water, is, well, what I say to you is the next generation of farmer will look back at those practices and they will laugh. They will say, “Did we really make no attempt to reduce the amount of methane? Did we really advocate that that should happen? Did we really advocate that there shouldn’t be any of the other changes to cleaning up our water?”

These things are not about farming—I think, again, one of the speakers here said that this is about damaging farming. No; it’s not. This is about ensuring the sustainability of farming. This is making sure that we aren’t doing the practices that we did.

If we don’t change these practices, you will be laughing—I’m sorry, Madam Chair; I shouldn’t use that word.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: That’s correct.

Mr van de Molen will be laughing at the practices of his parents and grandparents on the farm, as his sons and grandsons will be laughing at his practices if they’re not changed. This is a good Government doing good work, and the ultimate beneficiaries will be farmers.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m very excited to speak on this primary sector. I just wanted to tell Mr van de Molen that I was in fact in the Waikato last Tuesday, and I had a fantastic time there. I’m sure Mr van de Molen would agree with me when I say to him that we have a world-class economy but none of our world-class economy that supports our schools and our hospitals is worthwhile if we don’t have a good environment. Do you agree with that, Mr van de Molen? Oh, you do agree with it. I’m glad you agree with it.

This sector is committed to conservation and environmental sustainability. You don’t agree with that? I’m surprised you don’t agree with that, Mr van de Molen, because—do you know what?—farmers do not get enough credit for their sustainable credentials. We’re not doing anyone any favours if we can’t have a robust conversation. Isn’t that the case, Mr van de Molen? Those are not only this party’s position; those words, which you cry foul over, are the words of your leader.

So he is entirely onside—at least he was last time he spoke at the national Fieldays. I’m not sure what his position is today—certainly not sure what it’ll be tomorrow. But he is very much on board with Labour Party policy.

If we look at these Estimates, we can absolutely see what progress this Government is making to put this sector into shape. We know that the National Party didn’t keep its eye on the ball. We know our fresh water. We can look at six of the statistics around fresh water, but, if we look at all of the others, we know we’ve got problems—problems with nitrates and problems with sediment. I was very pleased to read the Estimates for agriculture, in particular, and look at the work that’s being done.

The Minister was asked about the freshwater policy that’s coming and the fact that we’re consulting on that and that it’s not just a one-step policy but a policy that looks at water from beginning to end—from the trees that we plant on the hills to stop that sediment runoff to putting money into systems on farm so that farmers can have a better understanding—

💬 Mark Patterson: And urban—and urban.

And urban. You’re right, Mr Patterson. Urban as well—but here we’re talking about the primary sector, and, whilst I have a vegetable garden, I don’t think it counts. More than that though, not only on farm but also assisting with measuring what’s going on on farm and having clusters of excellence so that what’s going on in DairyNZ already can be extended to other parts—actually putting real money into farms.

Now, we know how important the farming sector is to our economy and the primary sector generally. We know that it generates billions of dollars, and, despite what the naysayers over there would say we hear, we know that it’s in very good shape—that, in fact, exports are up $7.5 billion in the past two years. Milk prices—a lot of analysts are saying that’s going to go up too. Horticulture: doing fantastic. Kiwifruit was, for example, up 25 percent. It’s great to see that notwithstanding the naysayers who talk down business confidence, in fact, our primary sector is strong, it’s thriving, and it really is the backbone of our economy, and it’s great to see.

What’s more, we know—I sit on Finance and Expenditure Committee as well—there’s a lot of debt out there. We know some farmers are under stress. But it’s great also to see particular funding to look after the mental health in our rural communities: $20.8 million for expanding mental health, essentially, in and around farmers. So for mental wellbeing, expanding telehealth and digital health supports to get to those otherwise hard to reach areas.

I must say, as Rino Tirikatene noted, I was very excited about Vote Lands and the discussion there that was had about preserving our pristine natural landscapes in the South Island in particular by the placing of tenure review on hold—not only for the landscapes themselves but also to ensure we preserve biodiversity, preserve our indigenous species, and look after our landscapes not now but for years and years to come, because this is a Government which is taking action today, tomorrow, and for the next three and 30 years. Thank you, Madam Chair.