Estimates Debate — Primary Sector

Members, I understand that responsible Ministers are available to speak 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.

It’s a pleasure to stand up and take a call as the new chair of the Primary Production Committee, and I was involved through this process. We covered a wide range of topics, as primary industries tend to do, so I’m just going to go through and give the committee an idea today of those issues that we did cover.

One of them—the first one, really, often we jump to, because water’s so important—is actions for healthy waterways. I guess there’s been some concern about how farmers are going to meet those standards, and one of the things we asked was what the Minister, the Hon Damien O’Connor, would say to farm systems that can’t adjust. The Minister told us that farmers would have to take a fresh approach, and, while travelling around the country, he has seen farms where farmers are doing everything that’s expected of them in areas such as biodiversity management and protecting waterways. The Minister said he recognises that not every farmer has the level of capability, but he considered that sharing knowledge is very important.

We spent quite a section of time discussing reducing nitrogen input on farms in Canterbury, and there is a high level of concern that came through in our questioning of the Minister and of the ministry around that and the continued farming on land in Canterbury around the dissolved inorganic nitrogen levels, which led to further conversations around change in land use, because, obviously, there’s pressure for different types of land uses, and, of course, if some farm types are not able to be continued because of the inorganic nitrogen levels, then there would be a big drop in the value of the land related to those levels.

We talked also a lot and asked a lot of questions around land-use change to forestry. The Minister explained that the Government is watching the level of land-use change to forestry really carefully. He said he’s mindful that trees could end up planted on high-quality farmland. But we also discussed what amount of afforestation the Minister would define as massive, as it’s causing a lot of discussion out in our communities. The Minister said he had not set the threshold and would not do so; however, he would look at stepping in if it reached 40,000 hectares a year or thereabouts, noting that it is not only his decision.

We talked also about the class of land being converted to forestry. There’s quite a dilemma at the moment between good, productive land for food and land that’s being diverted into forestry. Te Uru Rākau told us that it does not distinguish between the trees that are planted solely for carbon farming and those that are planted for production forestry. That was a concern for the committee that that distinguishment is not happening.

The next thing we moved on was the primary sector’s response to COVID-19, supporting people into jobs in the primary sector and the skills needed to put those people into jobs that they currently have no skills for, which brought into the conversation the agricultural training establishments, well-known as Telford and Taratahi.

We also asked questions of the Minister about engagement with the primary sector. We commended the primary sector for its hard work during sustained operations being essential services through COVID-19. We also acknowledge the efforts of the Government and the ministry, which worked exceptionally hard with the sector over the last few months. I point to a couple of things that they really worked hard on that were mentioned. Certainly, moving day was one of them, because we went through a stage where we weren’t sure how well moving day, with Mycoplasma bovis and COVID-19, was going to work. The other thing is there was a level of frustration about bringing sheep scanners into the country, but the ministry worked very hard.

In my limited time I’ve got left as my chair report, I just wanted to point to one of the things in innovation that we had a chance to discuss, and that was the red seaweed that we’re pinning our hopes on to help our methane issues as an industry in the future.

So, all in all, a productive session with our select committee. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a couple of questions for the Minister, first of all in relation to Mycoplasma bovis. We’re making pretty good progress there, and I think it’s really encouraging to see the number of positive cases now being in the low single digits, which is fantastic news. But I’m just wondering if you can give us perhaps a bit more of an update around the planned changes in the team there that I understand are coming up. There’ll be, obviously, some impact to staffing levels, but also if you could give an insight into those remaining cases—when they might likely be clear. Presumably there’ll be some confidence around that date. It’d be nice to have an indication of that, and then his view on the likelihood of new cases coming up with this season’s spring milk in terms of bulk milk tests that are starting to flow in as calving is starting to get under way around the country, especially in the North Island. So that’d be the first part.

I appreciate time is getting limited on that side, so I might add in the next question as well, and that’s in relation to the biosecurity risk of incoming mail levels. We’ve seen through COVID-19 a significant change in the way we operate as a society in a number of facets. One of those is a significant increase in the number of mail parcels or packages coming through the mail delivery system, in particular from international locations, which presents an increased risk. So I’m wondering what thought he’s put into that and what consideration or action he is planning to undertake in relation to trying to mitigate any potential increased risk that may be flowing across our borders in relation to that one as well.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, I will take the opportunity to ask—and I just respect the, I guess, good summary that the member Barbara Kuriger, who’s the chair of the Primary Production Committee, has put before us in terms of the discussion. I think it was a very productive one at the select committee.

Can I just start at—Tim van de Molen asked questions around M. bovis, and I have to say we have made great progress in this area. I have to thank the team. I have to thank the farmers and everyone who’s made an adjustment. Those people who were caught with infected properties have had to do it hard. But we’ve done our best to compensate them properly, and I hope that—well, there’s over 250 farms now that have been infected, have been culled, disinfected, and have moved on and are now operating again, and that’s great. There will always be some glitches. We’ve learnt a lot, but I think we’re making progress. So I think we have four properties, and, in fact, it may be less than that today, because we’re making great progress, and that’s good.

So in terms of the flow on to other areas of biosecurity—and the first question is, as we move to a lower number of properties, clearly the number of people engaged can be reduced. Some of those people will be redeployed into other areas of biosecurity. In the area of parcels and of containers and scrutiny of those, we’ll be boosting that to ensure that we take the opportunity of having skilled people who may have picked up some knowledge of biosecurity systems that can be used elsewhere in our Biosecurity New Zealand and Ministry for Primary Industries responsibilities. So those adjustments will be occurring, and we’re having open dialogue with all the staff in that area.

The bulk milk sampling—yes, we do expect that there will be some positives picked up, as we have stressed, through the spring. Any cows that might have been in touch or in any way in contact with M. bovis, then, hopefully, they will then show up through bulk milk samples. We will then go and test and investigate and, hopefully, get to a point of, if necessary, culling—hopefully, they may not be infected herds. We do expect there will be some positive feedback and test results from that in the spring, and we will be ready for that.

Just, then, on the areas—because I know we have limited time. The good summary of, I guess progress—everywhere I go around the country, I think farmers are really looking forward to an exciting future. The fact that they’ve been able to operate through COVID has given them a new sense of, I guess, the value of it and, if not importance, responsibility to our economy as a whole. They’ve adjusted the way that they’ve operated, and that’s good.

If we look to water and to emissions, our goals in both water quality and in climate change, I think they’re up for it. What they need is some clear guidelines. People in Canterbury have been working through—actually, it was the previous Government’s guidelines. Environment Canterbury has been rolling out that, working in some areas that are quite challenging—high levels of nitrates, maybe the need for land-use change already. Then we have our proposals that complement that work that has been going on. I think clarity is what we need to roll out to farmers.

Of course there’ll be some areas of difficulty and challenge, but I think most people understand the need to make progress in these areas. We will back it up with, I guess, what we’d call a branding exercise—that is, accreditation and then acknowledgment of all that good work so, hopefully, we can get, in market, more value for everything that we do. I guess the collaboration that we’ve had with the sector leaders, with farmers themselves on the ground, I think puts us in a good place to seize the opportunities in a challenging COVID world to produce food that the world needs.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, I’d like to take the opportunity to ask the Minister a couple of questions in the time I have allocated. First of all, though, I would like to reiterate the constructive nature of the committee session, which has been enhanced somewhat by the new chair, Barbara Kuriger. There’s certainly a different tone within the Primary Production Committee and it has been working well.

We did traverse a little bit the issues of the strong wool sector within the Estimates hearing, and I know that subsequent to that there has been a report come out. You’ve taken a very proactive stance. You’ve recognised quite early on in your tenure and, of course, as a longstanding member of this Parliament, that it’s a sector that has great potential. It’s a product, in many respects, whose time has come—the sustainable properties up against the synthetic petrochemical-based alternatives that are wreaking havoc with our environment. So I would like to hear some thoughts—subsequent to the Estimates debate we have had this release of the wool report—and how you see this progressing from this date.

Madam Chair, thank you. I’m not sure how much time the Minister actually has in terms of asking questions, but if we run a bit short, in the spirit of primary production, we’re happy to give him a few of our minutes so he can answer our questions. I’ve just got three, and so I’ll ask them all at the same time, but I’d like to know from the Minister how the relocation of the workforce is going under COVID-19. I think it’s actually a commendable thing to do, but, practically, is a little more difficult. It’s a good idea but I’d like to know how it’s working.

My second question—and it’s related to that question, as well—is about the agricultural training establishments. I know some of them, particularly Telford, are doing some taster courses to get people into the industry, but in the long term we want more long-term trainees. So I’d just like a further comment on that one. And the third question I have is: what work is being done to bring native planting into our carbon farming, because there’s been millions and millions of native trees being planted voluntarily by farmers, and it would be great if that could be measured in some way so that we can take some credit for the work that we’ve done. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Firstly, on the relocation of the workforce, that’s an issue that, I guess, Ray Smith, as the director-general, is doing, and I know he’s working comprehensively with the team, acknowledging all the good work of those people. But there is, you know, obviously a reduction in the need at the border. So those people are being shifted, as I say, firstly into the areas where we can, I guess, lift the level of scrutiny, whether it be through containers or through the post, and fill some gaps across the system. The skills that they’ve learnt are ones we don’t want to lose, but we can’t pretend that just sitting around and waiting for people to fly into New Zealand is a good use of our resources. So that, I think, is going on very smoothly, and I trust the director-general to get that right.

Can I just talk on agriculture training courses. I’ve just been over this morning to Taratahi. We’ve reopened it. It’s been, you know, of concern—a wonderful establishment with much pride and heritage. It’s now up and running again, and that will build, from a small base, short taster courses. The DairyNZ course, GoDairy, is starting next week, I think. So we’ll build on that. Contractors are wanting courses for tractor—skilled operators, actually, not just tractor drivers, and so we’ll be rolling those out. Telford is doing so, and it’s had a wonderful uptake of trainees. So we’ve committed close to $20 million for that directly. Clearly, there’s money coming through the apprenticeships—over a billion dollars that the Government’s committed to that. Some of that will funnel down into, you know, courses with slightly higher standards. But at the moment, we’re doing as much as we can as fast as we can to get people into the jobs that are available now.

The third question, on native plants, is a very fair question: can we have some credits for native planting? In fact, two-thirds of the money that’s gone out from the billion trees programme that Minister Jones has been running—two-thirds of those have been native plants, and that’s great, and we’ve had it around waterways. We are working, and I understand Minister Shaw is working, on a way of calculating that that is, if not entirely accurate and exact, a fair kind of consideration of what sequestration through native plantings might be. To allocate, even if it’s a small amount, in my view, should be an acknowledgment for farmers that in planting natives, they are contributing to the sequestration of carbon. So that’s a work in progress.

Minister, can I just, first of all, thank you for the Government support in the recent Hawke’s Bay drought. It’s never enough money, but it was gratefully received. But I do want to ask you a question about TB in Hawke’s Bay and whether, in your view, you think we have the system and the set-up of Operational Solutions for Primary Industries New Zealand (OSPRI) in the right way, bearing in mind that half of Hawke’s Bay farms are under movement control at the moment. Almost the entire rural area of Stuart Nash’s electorate is under movement control—pretty close to it. So it’s a big issue at the moment. Whether we’ve actually got the structure and the OSPRI process right, the funding right, is a question I’d like to understand, or whether it needs more investment into the future.

Look, thank you. I’m more than happy to answer. I’m not sure I’ve had an update. The claim of the number of farms under movement control is far greater than I—and I’ll get clarification on that if I can. OSPRI has been—it’s an interesting entity. It hasn’t worked well at times for a number of reasons. I’m not going to go into them. I think the member might know it’s been through a bit of a faulty period that has led to, I guess, poor performance in National Animal Identification and Tracing, and some mistakes around TB. But the issue in the Hawke’s Bay related, I guess, to the reality of consultation and the right of landowners to contest the ability to get access for 1080 control. If people say they don’t want 1080 on their land, they just want ground control, then there’s a risk that if you’ve got a high population of possums and you’ve got, you know, some pretty extensive bush areas, then chances are you’re not going to get the possum numbers down to the point where you need them. That, indeed, is what happened in the Hawke’s Bay. Those possums seem to have moved into those farms, brought the TB with them, and, of course, we had an outbreak.

There’s extensive experience of that on the West Coast, my patch. You know, there have been splurges in outbreaks of TB and it’s taken a while to get them under control. I think there is some good cooperation in the Hawke’s Bay there. I’ve been up and visited. It is a challenge for farmers, if you’ve got it. You know, I can go back to the 1960s. I relate very closely to their dilemma, and so we’ll make sure the OSPRI is performing, and we’ve certainly made some changes to make sure—it’s such an important organisation. They’ve got to get it right.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll be very brief. I just wanted to make a comment that I noticed earlier in the afternoon session that Minister Nash got to make a comment about one Andy Haden, and I couldn’t resist making a comment about him myself, because, surprising as it may seem, I played a bit of rugby with and against Andy as a schoolboy. He was an intimidating man even as a schoolboy, but I think it’s significant that he was also from a Whanganui farming family, and it’s an appropriate time to acknowledge him. He was a great New Zealander, albeit controversial at times.

Very quickly, I just want to get on to the—

💬 Hon Stuart Nash: Only in Wales.

Quite a few times. I wanted to get very briefly on to the forestry sector and particularly the billion trees that I know Barbara touched on a minute ago, but I really want to understand—whether the Minister in the chair, the Hon Damien O’Connor, could tell us what number of trees have been planted in the billion tree project and also what number of those trees had been planted on class 6, 7, and 8 land. I realise that’s a complicated question and may not be able to be answered immediately, but those are the two things I think would be of great interest to us.

One other question in the forestry sector I’d like to ask, and that is why the Government is not currently recording the difference between trees planted for production forestry and those planted solely for carbon farming.

Thank you. Can I start with the last question first, and it’s one I asked myself of Te Uru Rākau, and I think we do have to define that. I think we’ve got clear figures on support from Government. In fact, there’s no support for carbon farming. The only support from Government is actually for forestry. But there has been investment by individuals buying farms to just plant them for carbon sequestration, and so we’re mindful of that. We have been working through, keeping a close eye on it, to make sure.

As I say, there’ve been indications that—we’re in a coalition Government but, I guess, certainly the Labour Party has indicated there’ll be a change in that policy, and that is that people who want to plant over 50 hectares will have to seek a resource consent on anything below class 6. So we’re mindful of the pressure there, and I don’t have the figures of the number of trees planted in those areas but I can get those for the member.

Can I just come back to—sorry, to answer the question that Mr Yule asked as to 570 farms—so it is quite a big number—under movement control. We acknowledge that, and that is a challenge—so I’m not trying to hide anything there and, yes, if we can get that down to a far lesser number, then we’ll all be better off with that.

Can I just go and finish on Andy Haden and say that he has played with the Parliamentary Rugby Team too, and I would like to take a brief opportunity to acknowledge him—his connection to agriculture and to rugby and, I guess, to the culture that is a big part of rural New Zealand. He will be a loss.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m in anticipation of my answer on my wool question to the Minister earlier, but I would like to just switch it up a little bit. I know your part of the Vote here is lands, and I know you’re not the Minister for Lands, but you have been integrally involved in the Crown pastoral lease situation—the bill that passed its first reading the other night. The controversy around that, of course, is in terms of the potential for significant bureaucratic overreach into the day-to-day farming activities of the lessees, with—from my perspective, anyway—not a great deal of evidence that they are in any way farming to standards that aren’t protecting the land. Often they are now heavily tourism orientated, and there’s a huge incentive, actually, to protect those natural landscapes. So it is a little bit of a point of contention with us at New Zealand First, whilst supporting strongly the end of tenure review and the privatisation of those leases, but the balance being struck by having Land Information New Zealand, essentially, having too great a role in the day-to-day running of the pastoral leases.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m sorry I missed the wool question. Actually, it’s timely now, I guess, to connect both the high country and Crown pastoral leases and wool, because, I guess, if we want a model of excellence, many of those farmers are connected through icebreaker and other high-value products to fine wool. The story, and, I guess, the system of production, and the location—it’s wonderful. It puts New Zealand at the forefront of pastoral farming and images of high-quality products.

So the wool report. Look, we will work through that. I’m meeting with people involved in the industry. I have to say, I will be pointing out to them that actually, if they think they have a solution now, they had 20 years to work on it and they didn’t. So I’m not saying I have the solution, but I know that this coalition Government is committed to try and progress their situation, which is pretty dire. Farmers will not continue to focus on wool if it costs them more to shear than they get for the wool. So it is a fairly acute situation that we have to move on.

Can I just draw out the Crown pastoral lands. I think the point the member makes is that, absolutely, most of those farmers are managing their land in a sustainable way, but, actually, tenure review has led to intensification. Some of it’s been retired. The rest of it’s been farmed more intensively to run a viable operation. The end of tenure review, I think, is a sensible thing. Most high country lessees I speak to now think that they just want to be able to continue on, but things are never the same, and so there are some adjustments. The legislation as proposed—and I know it was scrutinised by all parties of Government—has the right balance between protecting the rights of those pastoral lessees and protecting, I guess, the inherent intrinsic values of the high country, which are the responsibility of every one of us. It’s Crown land, ultimately, and it’s held for the purposes for which it was originally negotiated—that is, that it’s a spectacular part of the high country of New Zealand and the image of our country. But the lessees have rights. They need to be able to continue to farm. There has been a bit of discussion in the media about what this might do.

My oversight at this point—and the select committee will take a closer look at this—is that most of the day-to-day activities of high country farming will be able to continue without necessarily the request to go to the commissioner. It will be easier for them, but there will be other areas of farming where it may be part of intensification that there will be discretionary consent required. So ensuring that the commissioner understands the needs of those high country farmers, the needs of their farming operation, but understanding, too, the objectives of protection of the intrinsic values, I think, is the balance that a wise person—and we certainly had one in Sam Brown, going way back to when this process started. He was someone who was highly respected, who understood that balance, and I think we had a good system. But tenure review led to intensification, which has led to concern, which means that we’ve got to take a fresh look at the balance between the impacts of those operational issues.

Minister, thank you for your answers to my questions on TB. I just want to come back to them for a minute, because the scale I’ve mentioned is significant in Hawke’s Bay. But one of the new issues that’s emerged is that plantation forest owners do not pay a levy, a TB levy, and what happens in the growth of the forest is that the possums all go and live in the forest, and as soon as the harvesting operation starts, they are, obviously, disturbed and they all leave and go out into the fields. So my question, really, is: is the Ministry for Primary Industries doing any work, or is Operational Solutions for Primary Industries New Zealand doing any work, on whether in fact we need to review the structure of payments, particularly around forestry operators, and the need to poison prior to harvesting? In Hawke’s Bay, as I understand it, that is one of the factors that has made the spread way worse than what was anticipated.

Can I acknowledge that that’s a very sensible question, and it’s one I discussed when I was in Hawke’s Bay. Of course, there should be an obligation on all landowners to contribute to pest control. As I say, normally—and the forest owners have reassured me indirectly that they do that pest control as part of normal operations. I guess the issue of harvest time—I mean, clearly, if the trees are coming down and the possums want to get out, then what is the best way to control that? Look, I haven’t engaged in a discussion on that, but I can commit to the member that I’ll see from Operational Solutions for Primary Industries New Zealand what conversations they have had, because it clearly can lead to, and, in the future, will lead to, the movement of possums and, if they have TB, then a very rapid transfer into farmland. So I’ll commit to do that.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d just like to come back to my earlier questioning in relation to the M. bovis situation—so winding back a wee way. I just want to get an update on the compensation situation. So it’s great that we’ve got down to only a handful of infected properties and we’re now looking to downscale the team. I think that’s appropriate. As I understand, that compensation team itself isn’t being downscaled, which is good, but I wonder whether there’s any consideration being given to injecting a little additional resource in there to try and catch up on some of those.

So it’d be good to know what the average time is now. I understand it’s north of 20 days’ average compensation claim time, and the target had been only a couple of weeks, so I wonder whether there are any particular issues the Minister can share that are key sticking points in these compensation claims that are coming up as regular issues or whether an additional injection of resourcing might clear a bit of a backlog there—if that has been a consideration point, because, of course, whilst we all acknowledge the great progress that’s happened, that is one of the toughest areas. For those impacted farmers, compensation is a really important part of the process, and it can be a particularly stressful part if it has been delayed or contested. So I really would like to see a stronger focus on clearing away those remaining compensation claims. I understand there are still over 100 in the mix, but it would be great to get some insight around what’s happening in that space, please.

Thank you. Look, very briefly, the compensation programme is running pretty smoothly, and I have to say there are not many longstanding or outstanding claims. Some of them are complex because they relate to, I guess, the assessment of what is potential loss of milk production. But payment directly for animals and that—straightforward—is pretty streamlined at the moment. If there are any particular claims—and I often was contacted when there were outstanding or difficult ones. I’ve now had direct emails from people. This might lead to a few of them, maybe. But, actually, the compensation system has been working very, very well, and I acknowledge the team that had been working through some quite complex ones, but it’s a small pool and it’s a declining number of them, thankfully.

Moving on to a slightly different topic, and again the Minister touched on this briefly. We might just continue, if we’re able to, for another few minutes on this. In relation to your comments around Taratahi being back up and running, that’s great. Part of their training focus, I think you mentioned, was around rural contractors.

Now, that’s an area that’s becoming increasingly important. There’s a real shortage of rural contracting staff available. Typically, we see a real influx of international workers coming in—a lot of UK lads come over and do the harvest season, for example. What I’m hearing from a lot of rural contractors is they’re getting very nervous around their inability to bring those staff in when we’re looking at only a short period of time before they’re cracking into it for the season, and that’ll go right through six-odd months, or more, actually, through to the maize harvest early-mid next year.

So I’m really keen to understand what work’s being done in that place. I appreciate a bit of retraining will help, but, actually, I’d suggest it’s well more than 350-odd. I don’t have those numbers; the Minister may do. But there are cries for help from rural contractors around the country. We really need to see support coming in. Is there any way they can be classified as essential workers? Would that have to be a case by case scenario? Can we look at some exemption, like we did for the sheep testing scanners, to make sure that this gets done?

This becomes an animal welfare issue if we’re not getting the feed harvested through spring or the crops in the ground, for example, when we look at potentially another drought or whatever may happen in six to eight months times. We really need to have a bit more certainty for our farmers and contracting businesses.

Look, thank you. I wouldn’t pretend that we’ll get trainees from Taratahi to solve this season’s problem, I have to say. From Telford, yes—we’ve got a course running at Telford, and I think it’s been very successful so far. We’ll have quite a number of people who are competent that can move into that contracting business.

Yes, there will be a shortfall, and it’s unlikely that we’ll get people from overseas through the system, given the COVID reality of the world. But I’ve committed, and I’ve certainly been in close contact with the contractors association, saying, “Look, let’s work together on some innovative solutions here.”

As we’ve got through COVID and continued our primary production, some would have said it’s impossible—they did, actually, at the start. Innovation and lateral thinking got us through this. I’m sure that the same will happen here, and there may be people who come for a short period into contracting through those peak periods that have all the ability—whether it’s from off a big farm at a period, a lull, after spring, where they can go and work for a contractor. So we’ll be doing all we can to help facilitate that. There are migrant workers in the country who have been working in horticulture who may have those tractor skills. We’re certainly looking to have the work permits flexible enough to enable people with the right skills to move in and fill those jobs. We understand the need; we’ll do everything we can to work with the contractors to fill it.

So in relation to that, how will that be facilitated? So if there are workers who have been harvesting fruit, for example, and there are people in the Waikato crying out for contractors, how do we join those two up? The Minister, I think, may have been contacted in relation to a field day by BlueGrass Contracting in the Waikato, who are doing something innovative in trying to encourage new workers in. They’re having an open day and spot prizes to get people along to see the sorts of jobs and what’s involved, to try and encourage some new participants into the industry. They’re getting desperate. So if we are potentially able to shift some of these workers around and that can fix some of the problem, then great. What’s the mechanism for facilitating it? How will they be able to contact—is it going to be some sort of app or a programme that will link those two sides of the employment equation?

Look, there’s telephone, emails, basic communication—I’m not being flippant—but ensuring that we have the right survey. I think the contractors association has gone out. The chairman had rung them to say to each of the contractors “How many people would you need?”—not what you think would be convenient; actually the hard-core needs. We’ll work through, be it the Ministry of Social Development or be it the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, in terms of oversight of some of the work programmes that we have, even to the Recognised Seasonal Employer scheme. We will enable the flexibility. We’re working through the details of the technical regulatory changes that might be needed. We will do everything we can, but I’m not going to pretend that the border will be open to the numbers that they’ve originally indicated are needed. We’re going to have to look internally to fill those gaps, and, as I say, we’ll be flexible to enable that to happen.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. Just in the interests of the administrative functions of the committee, I thought it may be useful just to illustrate that we have two minutes remaining on this side. We are enjoying the collaborative nature of the discussions, but I did want to just make it clear that we have one more Minister to go, and fisheries is that portfolio. But if the Opposition wanted to make—

It is actually up to each party to determine how they manage their time. I indicated at the start of the debate how much time was available.

On this side of the Chamber we’re happy to, and very gracious, to extend some of our additional allocation of time to enable the Ministers to answer questions. I think we have 29 or 30-odd minutes of total debate left, and we still have about an hour of allocation, I understand, so they’re welcome to 20 minutes if that’s going to help to respond to the robust question coming up from Mr McKelvie.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): So you’re allocating 10 minutes to Labour for fisheries and 10 minutes to Labour for forestry. Is that correct?

Do you want any more for forestry?

💬 Lawrence Yule: I have more questions for the Minister.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): No, no—sorry; I just need to be clear on this. When we’re allocating time, we should communicate it clearly.

I understand the forestry questions have been asked and answered. [Interruption] We have one more question for forestry, so let’s do five minutes there and the rest for Mr Nash.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): What is the rest, sorry? How many minutes are you allocating to Labour for fisheries?

They’re welcome to an additional 10.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Ten, OK. Thank you.

💬 Mark Patterson: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. Will it be allocated across the Government benches or is it specific to the Labour Party?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): No, it’s specifically to Labour, and if you want to go and negotiate with Mr van de Molen, I’d say the time is perfect.

💬 Mark Patterson: OK, thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Minister, I just want to refer to what Mr van de Molen just said about Recognised Seasonal Employer (RSE) workers. Next week, under urgency, we’re going to look at a charging regime for people coming into New Zealand. Has the Minister given any consideration to how that’s going to work with RSE workers and, in fact, whether RSE workers from countries that are COVID-free are likely to be caught up in the charging regime?

Very simply, no, I don’t believe at all that they’ll be caught up.

OK. I think we’re just going to slide into the next part of this sector. There don’t appear to be any further contributions. A relatively seamless transition between Ministers.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just on the topic of fishing, on Sunday night on one of the television programmes, there was a documentary called The Price of Fish, and that’s going to drive a little bit of my questioning today, because I think that documentaries like that are unhelpful to anyone, and particularly unhelpful to industry in New Zealand. One of the Government’s challenges, whoever the Government is, is to actually protect, or not “protect”—and it’s a bad word—but to put in place measures that enable industries to continue to operate in a manner that’s acceptable around the world and it’s acceptable to our own people. I guess the point I’m making is that when you get documentaries like the one I saw on Sunday night, or Sunday afternoon, I think that puts an unfortunate taint on an industry that, frankly, is a pretty good industry.

So my question really relates—and, clearly, it relates to cameras to some extent. But, no doubt, the Minister might want to go further than that, because I think there’s some challenges for us—and that documentary highlighted that, whether we like it or not—around the ability of us to ensure that the fishing industry is both sustainable and is being managed in a manner that’s acceptable to people, not only in New Zealand but in our market place. I think it’s very important.

I understand the challenges of introducing some of this technology to the industry and those sorts of things, and I don’t have an issue with that. I think the real issue we’ve got, though, is that we’ve got a duty in this House to protect that industry and to protect our market places, and also to ensure, ironically, that we can feed people in the future, whether it’s fishing or whatever it is.

So I think that’s basically my question. It’s an interesting sort of dilemma, I think, so that’s my first question of the Minister.

Thank you. I didn’t see the programme, but I’m well aware of it.

The fishing industry is an interesting one, because there are four key sectors. You’ve got, obviously, your commercial sector; you’ve got your recreational sector; you’ve got the environmental non-governmental organisations, who are advocating on behalf of conservation; and you have your customs sector. But what I would say is every single one of those sectors starts at the same place: we all want abundant fisheries. I think that under the quota management system—which was world-leading at the time, and we have worked over the last three years to sort of bring it up to 21st century—we do have a system under which we can manage our fisheries. I mean, the vast majority of our fish stocks are managed in a sustainable way.

I have the October sustainability round coming to my office today, I understand, and that’s based on a whole lot of science. It’s based on robust consultation with anyone and everyone who’s keen to have input into this, so I do think that Fisheries New Zealand does work very hard to consult but also take on board the views of every single one of those sectors.

The other thing I would say with regard to cameras is I believe they serve two purposes. The first one is, obviously, compliance—so keeping in mind we have 20 cameras out in the Māui dolphin area already, just in a proof of concept trial—but they serve two purposes. The first one is, obviously, around compliance, and that is to check that what is being recorded as being caught is actually being caught, and whether that’s legitimate, or bycatch or not.

The other thing for me, though, is it’s about “Brand New Zealand”—it’s what we stand for. I firmly believe that if we get this right, we can go to the global market and position ourselves in the ultra-premium end of that market. The value proposition around our seafood brand is that if you’re buying seafood with “Brand New Zealand” on it, you are buying it from the only fully sustainably managed fish stock or fishery in the world, and I think that having cameras just improves that integrity.

So, for me, there are two value propositions around that. I’ve worked hard over the last two years to sort of articulate that vision of mine for us being acknowledged as the most sustainable fishery in the world, and I think that that adds significant value. But, again, as in every industry, you get those who are staunch conservationists, which I do believe the vast majority of fishers are—you know, they want to be able to fish in perpetuity. You get a couple of rogues, but you get that in every business. But, by and large, I think our commercial sector does a very good job—by and large—of protecting the fish stocks that they go out there every single day and catch.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d just like, in my brief time, to ask the Minister around progress of the south-east marine reserve. I attended a candidate’s meeting, as it happened, on Sunday, at the Tautuku Fishing Club, that esteemed establishment, where there’s general widespread concern within both the commercial and the recreational fishers about the process in particular, which has been kind of expanded under their nose from what they started submitting on to what they now find themselves submitting on. So the process is one; also, I guess, the degree of evidence to support the reserve in the first place, or certainly to the extent that it is being proposed.

Thank you. What I would say is the south-east marine protected area—the whole process started in 2014. So this has been going now for six years, and a long time. What happened is there was extensive consultation. There was a working group put together, extensive consultation. The group came up with two proposals, and at the very end they digressed, so it wasn’t a unanimous proposal put forward.

There were two options in that. The first one was more extensive than the second one, but on both those proposals it’s gone out to further consultation before the community. I can promise you, as the Minister of Fisheries, I have not come to any firm conclusions. This is true consultation and I am listening. I’ve had a meeting with Kāi Tahu. I understand their views, I also understand the views of the crayfishers down there as well, and I’ve taken those on board in my thinking about where we’ll end up with this. What I’ll say with that second round of consultation on the options that were developed is it started pre-COVID, but because of COVID it’s actually had to start again.

So I think submissions may well have closed now. If not, then they’re about to close, but, obviously, this won’t be decided by myself or this Government. It’ll be a decision that will have to be made in the end by the next Government and the next Minister of Fisheries and the Minister of Conservation. But there is true and meaningful consultation gone on in terms of this.

I’ll just touch on that topic for a second before I get on to another topic I want to raise. One of the things I think—and the Minister in the chair, the Hon Stuart Nash, can either answer me or not on this, but one of the observations I’d make about this process is that it’s putting significant cost on fishermen, or it could potentially put significant cost on fishermen or fishing people to go and catch fish in much more remote areas with no significant benefit to the fishery or to the marine reserve, in fact, because you could shift that. I think that’s the real challenge they’ve got with that, and I accept that that’s an issue.

I just want to go back to the last issue as well, because I think that the point I raised with respect to that—to the issue of cameras and technology we might use to overcome, I guess, the doubts about or the credibility of the commercial sector particularly—I think it’s most important that we ensure the credibility of our commercial sector, which will then get the confidence of our recreational sector in a much better space, which I think would take a lot of the friction out of the industry, because for some reason there seems to be friction in that area.

So my question there is: are we going to actually implement technology to improve the recording and whatever of the commercial sector? The second one is: what is the potential for the sectors to join together? We’ve got, I think, it’s called Fish South or something like that. There’s an attempt that was made in the South Island to get all the sectors operating together—not operating together but working together so Fisheries New Zealand, for example, has got an entity they can deal with collectively rather than dividing and ruling. I think that’s quite important for us.

So that’s the two issues I want to raise there. I want to get on to a couple of other questions, but if the Minister wants to answer those I’ll get on to the next one in a minute.

First of all, yes, I would agree, potentially, depending on the final decision on the south-east marine protected area (MPA). It may impact upon fishers. As mentioned, no decision has been made, but, in my view, this does show that legislation around creating MPAs is clunky and it does need to be modernised—of that there is absolutely no doubt.

In terms of your second question, actually, it’s been compulsory to have electronic position reporting, position monitoring, and reporting since December last year, and so that is already in place. There are a couple of exceptions. So by and large, we are moving into the 21st century.

In terms of the groups coming together, let me give you an example. There is a camera working group that has been formed at the moment working on the issues, and that contains officials, members from the commercial sector, and members from environmental non-governmental organisations. So there are projects where they do work together. The seabird action plan that was released by myself and the Minister of Conservation a couple of months ago—again, representatives on that were across all sectors. So there are a number of examples where, actually, the environmentalists, the commercial guys, the recreational guys, and customary all do work together for common outcomes.

Thank you, Madam Chair. My next topic I want to just get on to briefly relates to the COVID restrictions on immigration. The fishing sector has some specialist boats—I suppose fishing boats, for want of a better word—quite big ones, and bigger than the boat that I go in, anyway. They have some specialist fishing boats, which generally require crewing by overseas crews. Now, they’re obviously New Zealand chartered boats, because we passed the legislation that ensured that happened some years ago, despite the doubtful nature of some of the evidence I saw on that programme on Sunday night around our foreign fishing vessels, which clearly aren’t operating out of New Zealand—well, they shouldn’t be, under the rules.

But the significant challenge is bringing those crews into New Zealand to crew those fishing boats. So we have a number of them potentially—well, we have them tied up the moment, and potentially tied up for quite some time, which is a huge cost to the industry, impeding the productivity of the industry as well. I wonder whether the Minister was doing any work on that with respect to those fishing crews, because clearly we’ve had issues in other sectors of our economy which have been fixed up pretty quickly—some, and some slowly. But there must be an opportunity to do that.

You imagine with the fishing sector there would be a much easier opportunity, because you can leave them on the fishing boat, turn up—you could quarantine them on the fishing boat, because those ships or fishing boats need to be out there from a productivity perspective. So I wonder if the Minister in the chair, the Hon Stuart Nash, has done any work in that area and whether he was wondering whether there’s potential to get that resolved.

First of all, the member is right. Every single fishing boat fishing in New Zealand waters must comply with New Zealand labour laws, and that includes wages and salaries. So, you know, the bad old days where they were “slave ships”, that’s well and truly gone.

The second thing I would say is we are well aware of the issue, and there are a number of Government departments working on a potential solution. We haven’t got there yet, but it is more complex than simply bringing people in. But we are well aware of the issue.

I’m getting to the end of my—I’ve never got up and down so many times in this place. The last issue I want to just get on to quickly was aquaculture, and I know that you think the same thing so I’m not questioning your loyalty to the aquaculture sector at all. I think aquaculture is probably the shining star in our food production sector in New Zealand. The challenge we’ve got is getting it operating in a manner that’s sustainable from its perspective and also that allows it to grow in a manner that I think is hugely exciting for the future of New Zealand. I was wondering if the Minister in the chair, the Hon Stuart Nash could just give us a quick rundown on where he’s at with his aquaculture strategy.

Also, the other issue that’s been raised a number of times is where we’re at with the consenting processes, which are extraordinarily complex at the moment. Clearly, we’re in new territory with some of those potential consenting processes, because they’re asking for something that’s never been asked for before in New Zealand. I wonder if the Minister would want to just give us a bit of a rundown on that.

Sure. I mean, I released an aquaculture strategy earlier this year at the aquaculture conference. We have a very, very strong vision for aquaculture. My vision for aquaculture is to be acknowledged as the most sustainable and best practice in the world. Very high—but you are right, there’s huge potential. I mean, export value is, I think, at the moment around $600 million. The vision is to get to $3 billion, and so we’re doing a lot of work in the space.

As the member’s probably aware, there’s been a number of Provincial Growth Fund investments into aquaculture infrastructure. There’s work going on at the moment with different organisations consenting—the member is right when he says consenting can be drawn out. There is one in particular that the member is possibly alluding to. Possibly, there are other reasons why that has taken longer than may be necessary, but one of the things that we are aware of in this space is—I suppose the best analogy I can use, even though, you know, it’s not quite right, is a land-grab. We don’t want to see a grab when we end up with one company, for example, going out there and putting a holding consent over huge swaths of ocean.

I’m a big fan of spatial plans, getting out there for the Government to determine where we can actually develop open-water aquaculture, for example, because I think that is the future of aquaculture—open-water aquaculture, where it is appropriate, where it isn’t, and then working with the industry through this to see what the future of open water looks like. We’re not quite there yet in terms of technology. They do have some in Scandinavian countries, and I’m well aware the member visited—was it Norway?—a couple of years ago.

That’s the ultimate. I mean, we do want to get there and I do believe we will get there. But we are on a little bit of a journey at the moment. We have an incredibly good team in Fisheries New Zealand looking at aquaculture, working very closely with the industry. I do believe that the industry has bought into our vision and is supporting everything we’re doing around the infrastructure to ensure that this is futureproofed going forward. But everything we’re doing in aquaculture, from, you know, physical infrastructure, i.e., wharves, through to science and research at places like Cawthron, to me says that we really—I certainly, but I think the Government buys into the potential that aquaculture is, and we’re doing everything we can and we will continue to work in partnership with the industry to be able to realise our vision in this space.

I was going to say I told a lie; I didn’t quite. I’ve got one more question. Before the Primary Production Committee for at least the last year—probably the last year and a half, and probably not the first time since I’ve been in this place—there’s a petition been discussed around the potential for trout farming in New Zealand. I know it’s a touchy subject—has been for a long time, but I also—

💬 Hon Stuart Nash: Sorry, what was that?

Trout farming. But I also have to say that when I did visit Norway, the best fish I tasted was sea-farmed trout—much better than sea-farmed salmon, I thought. So, I guess, my question is: has the Minister in the chair, the Hon Stuart Nash, given any consideration to that petition, and is it likely to progress in any way?

I mean, I’m well aware that the petition has been in front of the Primary Production Committee. You’ve had a number of submitters, and my officials have given you an officials’ report. At this point in time, it’s not in my work programme, though.