Annual Review Debate — Agriculture

I’m very, very privileged to be able to give the annual review of the Ministry for Primary Industries on behalf of the select committee. I’d like to thank all the committee members for the hard work that they did. In particular, I’d like to acknowledge Mark Cameron, our chairperson, and also let him know that our committee is thinking of him at this time. I’d also like to thank the Office of the Clerk—they were sterling in the work they did for us—and also the Office of the Auditor-General and the briefing they did for us, and we found them particularly high-class in what they did.

The Ministry for Primary Industries provides policy and regulatory advice; market access; trade services; and manages the major regulatory systems for biosecurity, food safety, forestry, fisheries management, and animal welfare. It has five customer-facing business units: Biosecurity New Zealand, Fisheries New Zealand, New Zealand Food Safety, Te Uru Rākau - New Zealand Forestry Service, and agricultural and investment services.

Now, a summary of the various areas that our committee looked into this year would come under various headings. In the agriculture space, we spent quite a bit of time on cyclone recovery, increasing the value of exports, work to reduce greenhouse emissions, Māori agribusiness, and measuring the success of grant funding. In the horticulture space, we focused on the spray-free orchard programme, building the horticulture workforce, and work to detect biosecurity threats. In forestry, boosting domestic wood processing and reducing forestry slash were the two main areas that we addressed; in biosecurity, we reviewed the Mycoplasma bovis programme; and in pest management, we focused on wallabies and the management of other pests, as well as wilding pines. We also looked at Government - industry agreement for foot and mouth disease. In the fisheries sector, we looked at the amendment of the Fisheries Act, on-board cameras, and temporary closing of fishing area for restricted fishing, and also looked at the honorary fishing officers and bottom trawling.

Then we were fortunate enough to have the various Ministers in for comment and review. In the cyclone recovery space—[Interruption] Is that all? Ha, ha! So when we had the Ministers in for review, we heard from the Minister of Agriculture and Minister of Forestry about his ambitions for our primary industries in New Zealand. The Minister for Rural Communities talked about rural connectivity—

Hon Member: And wool.

MILES ANDERSON: Reviving the wool industry was a big focus, whereas, with the Minister for Biosecurity, Minister for Food Safety, and Associate Minister of Agriculture, live animal exports, biosecurity to prevent threats from the horticulture sector, and response to the foot and mouth disease were the major areas of focus. So I’m very happy to present this report to the House.

Thank you, Mr Chair. It’s a pleasure to stand up and ask the Minister some questions with regard to our annual review. But first can I just acknowledge all the Ministers for making themselves available to come to our select committees. I know that you’re very, very busy, and so it is really appreciated that you do take the time to come along and answer our questions. I just want to acknowledge my fellow committee members, and in particular Mark Cameron, our chair of the select committee, who does a really good job.

As the member who has just spoken, Miles Anderson, has just mentioned, we looked at various entities within the agricultural sector, but it was really great to be able to do an in-depth review of the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI). We had them for several hours, and at one point when we were deciding on the time we were going to have them in for, we wondered if we’d be able to fill that time. But it was absolutely incredible to have them there for that time and we managed to fill that time easily, and we could well have had them in there for a bit longer.

I think I’ll just cut straight to questions, because we are on limited time. The Minister guaranteed that reductions have not been made to MPI’s front-line services and statutory staff, such as veterinarians; animal welfare, fisheries, and food compliance officers; and biosecurity at the border. But can the Minister guarantee—absolutely 100 percent guarantee—that as part of MPI’s 10 percent reduction in staff, they will not be making cuts to those teams, who plan and prepare for potential biosecurity incursions?

Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you to the Ministers, again, for fronting up and talking to us about the review. I’m very proud to be part of a nation that has always had farming at its roots, from the first human contact. And we have also had biosecurity risks, but what we also have, at this point, are climate risks, and I’m really interested in hearing what support the Government is giving to farmers to diversify farm income and decarbonise, particularly through electrification. And we have had Mike Casey from Rewiring New Zealand talk about the potential and the opportunity there is to decarbonise rural Aotearoa. So will the Government, for example, refresh and expand the Community Energy Fund to enable farmers to host wind and solar farms with Māori and community partners? This seems like a really simple way to both diversify farm income and support rural communities and ensure that we decarbonise at the same time.

And I’m also interested in why this Government seems intent—at this point in time, but you could change track—in hanging farmers out to dry by not supporting farm-emissions reduction, not supporting biodiversity restoration, not supporting energy farming to provide resilience for remote communities, not supporting our farmers to adapt to the 21st century. Perhaps I’ve got it wrong, perhaps you are going to do all those things, but I’d like to hear some answers, please.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Minister, the Māori agribusiness team at the Ministry for Primary Industries plays a significant role in ensuring that Māori land owners are supported to access funding, expertise, and advice that is available to them. Can the Minister guarantee that these services will not be cut; if not, how is the Minister going to ensure that Māori land owners are aware of and accessing the support available to them?

Can the Minister also guarantee continued funding for Māori-led and Māori-designed projects to help achieve emissions reduction in agriculture through the Climate Emergency Response Fund when his Government has plans to divert those funds in order to help pay for tax cuts?

Tēnā rā koe e te Māngai, o te ra tēnā koe te Minita. I’ve got a series of questions. The first question that I have is in relation—I seek an update from the Minister on his work with Māori development Minister Potaka on progressing the issues arising from the Wai 262 claim and if there’s any updates from the coalition Government in taking up on that claim.

The second pātai is whether the Minister can confirm that the Māori partnership and investment business unit with the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) has not been disestablished as a result of public sector cuts, and, if so, how the Minister intends to build the capability and support through the delivery of MPI’s Treaty settlement commitments and ensure advice to Ministers reflects these commitments.

Te pātai tua toru, the third question, is: I was a part of—alongside my whānau—the first ever project or pilot project with MPI through māra kai. So we’re the first ever project on our whenua to develop māra kai programmes with schools, with mātauranga Māori, and I’m wanting to get reassurance from the Minister if those programmes will still be carried out under this new Government.

The fourth pātai is on genetic engineering technologies. I seek an update on the Minister’s intentions, if any, on progressing regulations that foster research and innovation regarding genetic technologies. Tēnā rā koe.

Tēnā koe e te Heamana, nāku te whiwhi ki te kōrero i runga i tēnei rīpoata, arā, annual review of the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI). He mihi hoki ki te Minita kua tae mai i tēnei wā. Heoi anō, māku he tautoko i ngā mihi aroha ki tō mātou nei Tiamana, ki a Mark Cameron me tōna whānau i tēnei wā pouri rawa atu, e te hoa mahi, e te Tiamana tēnei te tangi aroha ki a koutou ko tō whānau i tēnei wā pouri.

[Thank you, Mr Chair. It is my honour to speak to this report, the annual review of the Ministry for Primary Industries. I would like to also acknowledge the Minister here today. And so, I would also like to share my loving support to our chairman, Mark Cameron, and his family during this very sad time. Dear friend, dear chairman, I share my sincere condolences with you and your family during this sad time.]

As a member of the Primary Production Committee, it’s my pleasure to be here to be part of the annual review of the MPI. My first question relates to forestry. The report notes that forestry export revenue is forecast to decrease by 9 percent to $5.8 billion in the year to 30 June 2024. MPI considers boosting domestic processing as one way of reducing reliance on the export market and that there are opportunities for new, innovative engineered wood products. Will the Minister take heed of this, and if so, what specific actions or investments will be made?

Furthermore, obviously land use is a major topic of discussion not only with regard to forestry, but throughout the report it’s raised in other industries such as the wool industry. What progress is being made there? Of course, slash and woody debris clean-up continue to be a major concern for Aotearoa Whānui, but in particular Ikaroa-Rāwhiti and flood affected areas. So can we have an update on the commitment to maintained investment in that, and how work will continue.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I just want to move now to live exports. Unfortunately, I was away sick when we had the Minister come to the select committee and I was unable to ask him the questions that I wanted to. Given that animal live exports have accounted for 0.2 percent of our primary sector revenues since 2015 and the industry is now worth over $50 billion, is the Minister concerned that returning to live exports could potentially damage our free-trade agreements or any ability to negotiate our future free-trade agreements?

We hear a lot about this gold standard that will be adhered to, and I would like to know what the Minister sees is the gold standard, because there is no definition. We don’t have a definition here of what a gold standard is. So I’m interested to know what his view or vision for a gold standard is.

I would also like to know if the Minister has put his mind to the cost to our exporters of moving to this gold standard. In regard to the ships, is the expectation that we will have ships that will be brand spanking new, purpose-built to meet these gold standards or does the Minister see that boats that are simply, I guess, renovated will do? There’s been no real information out there as to what that gold standard would look like.

Given some of the horrific photos and evidence that was shown to the select committee when we were looking at banning the live-export-by-ship legislation, how can the Minister 100 percent guarantee that the images that we saw would not be repeated should he undertake to have whatever this gold standard might look like?

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ll just respond to a couple of those questions. Firstly, on livestock exports: in terms of the updated standards, at the moment the advice is still coming. The work is still being done within the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) team on developing what that may be, before going to Cabinet and then consultation. The member asked whether this trade is worth it. It was worth $305 million—so it’s $305 million, or nothing. That’s an extra $305 million that New Zealand needs right now, so I think that is important.

In terms of reputation, if you can do something better than everyone else in the world, that is lifting the reputation. That is showing the rest of the world how we can do this job much better. Also, there is a reputational risk in terms of “We’ll just sell you our milk and nothing else.” We have a role in terms of getting these free-trade agreements, often, in terms of helping these other countries develop their dairy industries. So I think there is a win-win there.

In terms of the photos, now, I didn’t see what you saw in front of the select committee, but I have seen lots of photos recently, and I’d point out that—man, my eyesight is not the best at the moment, so there’s not much chance I can see that photo from here. But do they have a New Zealand National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) tag in their ears? That would be my question, if you know what one looks like, because there’s good chance that most of the photos I’ve seen do not have New Zealand tags in their ear and they are from offshore. They are not from the standards we’re used to doing in New Zealand, and we will be updating those standards.

In terms of the ships the member asked about, we will be putting standards in place. Now, whether or not people build a new ship to meet those standards or renovate a ship to meet those standards, they will need to meet the standards. The standards are the standards.

In terms of biosecurity, the focus will be on delivering outcomes. I’ve seen a lot of what the teams are doing. There is a lot of preparation going on right now for making sure we are ready for disease outbreaks if they ever do come, and, hopefully, they never do. The focus for the team is on being ready and achieving those outcomes, so I have full faith in the MPI team in terms of delivering that.

There was a question around what we’re doing in terms of biodiversity. So this is putting my other hat on, as the Associate Minister for the Environment—if I’m allowed to do that—we are looking at biodiversity credits. I’m seeking advice on that, and it will be a way to help farmers improve their biodiversity.

Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you, Minister, for speaking on the live exports. I have a few more questions in that regard, please. Those images that we showed at the select committee to Minister McClay were from a vessel called the Al Kuwait, which has operated under a different name from our shores before we banned live animal exports here. Those are images of animals in Cape Town existing in the miserable conditions of their own filth. Will you rule out that ship, the Al Kuwait, which is a purpose-built live export ship, a relatively new ship, I think, built in 2016, and yet it still has these miserable conditions on it? The South African SPCA investigators who went on to the ship described the unimaginable stench, the gruesome conditions of animals forced to live in their own faeces and exposed to dangerous levels of ammonia, rough seas, extreme heat stress, contaminated drinking water, and exhaustion.

Further, in light of recent decisions in both Australia, to phase out live sheep exports, and the United Kingdom, which has just passed legislation to prohibit live animal exports, have you taken into account the opinions of those other nations who have also recognised the inherent cruelty of live animal exports? I want to draw your attention to a couple of quotes from the British Parliament, from conservative members there: “The long journeys caused intolerable stress, injury and exhaustion, and the case studies we heard were harrowing. Once animals leave [these] shores, there is no control over how they are kept or slaughtered. Thus, it is important that we stop this practice once and for all.” Another Minister said, “The figures I have seen on live exports are absolutely horrendous. I cannot believe that people actually thought it was okay to treat animals like this—subjected to journeys of”—wait for it—“over 2,000 miles, lasting 70 hours.” The British parliamentarians were distressed at journeys of 60 hours from the UK to Spain, or journeys of 18 hours from the UK to Europe, and here we are talking about journeys of weeks at sea, the inhumane, crowded, exhaustion, dehydration, long, stressful journeys.

Is it not correct, Minister, that we have reached a time in our history where it’s no longer acceptable for us to treat animals so poorly? It is fundamentally miserable for those animals. Reputation aside, income aside, it’s about the cruelty to those animals, and the world is moving away from live animal exports. Will you consider changing this Government’s position and committing to keeping the ban on live animal exports in place?

Mr Chair, thank you so much. Colleagues, there’s been a range of questions and I’ll try and address them as quickly as I can. Of course, many will know this is a time-limited debate and therefore the time available to Ministers is much less than we want. I’m going to try and answer them very, very quickly and my apologies if I don’t get to them, we can always come back.

Of course, we’ve got my two colleagues, Minister Hoggard and Minister Patterson here, who have specific responsibilities—Minister Patterson, in this case, for wool, and he’ll be able to address that. We’ve heard from Minister Hoggard on biosecurity and of course on animal welfare.

I can give an assurance that there will be no cuts to the front line of service for the equivalent of the vets or the animal welfare experts who are there in the field, or biosecurity experts. But that doesn’t mean there are not going to be changes across the board. The reason for that is over the last six years we saw the workforce grow by 50 percent in the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI), but the output didn’t increase by 50 percent. And ultimately what we’re saying is we want to focus on the front line and do what most farmers in New Zealand are doing—and in fact every New Zealander that I can think of is doing—is having to do more with the same amount or with less.

But I can give the assurance, again, as I did in the House, as I will today, that those front-line services, not back office, but those front-line services—in as far as the vets who do a very important job, our biosecurity officers, and also animal welfare officers—remain the same.

Of course, colleagues, you will have seen the announcement there just at the end of last week from MPI, now that they’ve gone through their full consultation process. And, indeed, they have moved resource from what they had proposed into biosecurity and to another area of engagement with the rural community and catchment groups because they had feedback that more was needed to ensure that we could deliver in those areas. And they’ve taken that feedback on board.

In as far as Māori business and agriculture is concerned, ultimately where the changes to the amount of resource that’s being spent, decisions made will come forward in the Budget. But again, I can give an assurance that in all areas we have not closed down units. What we’ve done is we’ve had to accommodate changes done so in such a way as the main delivery can continue and the work that’s important will continue. And then as the Government gets to rebuild the economy, we can make bids in the future after engaging with members of the House and with the sector about where additional resource would be needed to be able to do more.

In some of the questions here around GMOs and so on, as Minister, I’m not responsible for that; that’s Minister of science and research, however. But what I can say when it comes to biotechnology and so on, is that actually there will be opportunities for us to meet environmental and climate change obligations through adopting and using new technologies. But in so doing, we must make sure that they don’t harm New Zealand, that they’re good for New Zealand, and that they are accepted and being used in other parts of the world. So the Minister, I know, is doing a body of work there to meet the commitment we made before the election. But we’re doing so mindfully in as far as we want to give the rural committee the tools that they need that are available to them through new technologies to meet those demands—environment, climate change. Take wilding pines as an example; there will be an opportunity for us to make the changes so that wilding pines no longer are a threat to native bush in New Zealand. We should be open to that, but we need to get those rules right.

Forestry was raised by one of our colleagues. You’re right that the forecast of revenue, exports in forestry is down. That’s the result of a commodity price being down and the logs are worth less at the moment than they were previously. But, ultimately you are right: there are opportunities for us to look into, lean into wood processing. What you won’t see this Government doing is what was tried in the past. They’ve taken large amounts of taxpayer money, and saying to the wood-processing sector, “We give this to you to just do what you’re doing.” Actually, what we want to do is work with them to be innovative, to find where the obstacles to them finding and using new products are, and how we can use more wood in New Zealand and add value to it. It’s good for climate change, it’s good for the economy, it creates jobs, it’ll be very, very good for exports. But we’re starting to work with the sector about how we would do that. In all cases, it’s actually not often always about just the money that you spend; it’s about the restrictions that are placed upon them and how we can get more for that. But we’re taking that very seriously.

In as far as slash is concerned, we’re breaking the work up into a couple of areas. One, the slash is there at the moment; how we get that cleaned up as quickly as we can in partnership with people in the region as opposed to us in Wellington deciding how it should be done. Secondly, the woodland biomass that’s on the hills, what we can do to make sure it doesn’t come down, to mitigate that.

The third part of this must be the rules in the future so that the likelihood of this happening again lessens. But the member asked about resource. The Government has committed $85 million. We’re going to make sure as much of that is used as well as it can to get as much wood up as we can. We owe that to the taxpayer and certainly the ratepayer in those areas. I’ll stop here to reserve some time for my other colleagues and other questions.

Tēnā koe, Mr Chair, and I appreciate the answers to date. I’d like to ask some questions now about cyclone recovery. It was really good in the report to see the acknowledgment of the value that marae and community halls had during the cyclone. That said, a lot of marae are now still affected by the cyclone and do not fit any current Government funding criteria, so it’s good to see and hear the acknowledgment that they need to be brought into scope. Will the Minister commit to meeting with all the marae still affected, and their hapū directly, to discuss their needs and their recovery requirements, given the value that they have not only in cyclone recovery but as a community hub and as just serving across their whole communities?

The second thing is about infrastructure. Obviously it’s great news; everyone wants to hear about their road getting fixed, but in smaller communities such as the East Coast, the supporting infrastructure that is required to help people get into those communities and fix those roads is very fragile, if non-existent. So what commitment will the Minister make to investing in infrastructure that can support these roads of significance being built?

Look, thank you very much, Mr Chair, and I’ll just take a couple of short questions. Regarding the live exports, the Ministers have spoken about gold standards and spoken about ensuring that high standards of animal welfare in market will be met. So the question is: how will they be met and how will New Zealand oversee those high standards in market when the animals arrive?

And the second is: if the current area allowance for a 300 kilogram animal over three weeks on a boat is 1.2 square metres, and for a 500 kilogram animal it is 2 square metres for three weeks, does the Minister consider that adequate and will the gold standard be an increase in the area on a boat, if he’s indeed to reinstate live exports?

Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to move now to the issue of wallabies. Wallabies in South Canterbury are a massive issue, and it’s something I keep harping on about in our select committee. The eradication of wallabies and the destruction that we’re seeing from wallabies with our crops and the devastating impact that that would have if they were to cross into mid-Canterbury. We’ve heard from the Ministry for Primary Industries that they are just sort of focusing their work on pest control for wallabies around those outer areas, but it is really concerning that that’s pretty much all that they are focusing on at the moment because, as we know, hunters can’t quite keep up with the rate of wallabies that we are seeing being born and continuing to procreate. So I would like to know what the Minister’s plans are for ensuring that the wallaby population doesn’t get out of control and what mitigations they are taking to ensure that they do not cross into that mid-Canterbury area, because, as I’ve said, that would be completely devastating for the arable farmers in that area.

OK, so just firstly on wallabies—yes, I had a briefing not so long ago. The programme, at this stage, is focused on the boundaries. The wallabies have expanded past the boundaries where we’d want them. We aim to get them back over those boundaries, and once that’s achieved, then it’s a case of squeezing them down and eradicating them.

I was intending to be down in the South Island and helping out with some wallaby eradication. Unfortunately, I had to have eye surgery instead, and I probably wouldn’t hit a wallaby in the future.

Hon Mark Patterson: You might have a better chance.

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: Well, I might have a better chance now, yeah. Going back to the livestock exports and the mention of the Al Kuwait boat, what I would say is that when it was in Cape Town, it was carrying 19,000 head of stock; when it last left New Zealand, it was carrying 11,000. So that is part of the problem—you know, our standards were for much fewer animals on the boat. Those were our old standards, and we will, obviously, be updating those standards.

In terms of specifics, the member asked around what those might be. That is all still being worked on. When it is out, then we’ll be able to discuss those updated standards and whether or not everyone believes they are good enough, and make suggestions around whether further improvement is needed. But at the moment, I can’t go into the details because they’re still being developed.

Thank you, Mr Chair. My question is to the Associate Minister of Agriculture. Really, I’m interested in Jobs for Nature. The Minister has said that the tools that farmers need are things that the Government can provide. My enduring experience living on a farm and working in the community was that farmers want to do the right thing. Jobs for Nature has provided rural jobs, has helped build that community, has helped families grow in our rural communities, and it’s such a successful programme. Will the Minister commit to continuing and expanding the Jobs for Nature programme? Thank you.

I’m still seeking an answer from both Ministers, or any Minister, on the Wai 262 claim and whether or not they have been working alongside Minister for Māori Development, Tama Potaka, in making sure that this claim gets picked up with this Government. Are there any time lines? At any point are they going to meet with the claimants of the Wai 262 claim?

Thank you, Mr Chair. I would just like to take the chance to take a call on my wool industry delegation. It was a question that came up earlier from the member for Tairāwhiti. So good news: the North Island auction price lifted 17 percent last week for second-shear wool, so the surge is on. The second New Zealand wool boom is under way.

So, in all fairness, we are in the 2022/23 Estimates, so I will acknowledge the investment that went in by the previous Government to look at various options. I would describe it a little bit like throwing a dish of wheat at the side of a bus, but some did hit, and it’s acknowledged that some of the initiatives are starting to show some progress. So, essentially, what I have done within my delegation, to answer the member’s question—the first thing is to get out and about and see what the industry is up to, what’s happening, where the opportunities are, and how we can help.

It turns out that there is a lot of innovation going on out there. There are a lot of manufacturing businesses that have got some new products, new end uses for wool that potentially could sustain a higher farm-gate wool price, which is the absolute key. It’s not so much that we need to grow demand and that is the only way to lift the price of wool, but it has to be in products for a higher farm-gate wool price, because this is not so much about wool, as you might think; this is about the profitability of hill country sheep and beef farming. We’ve got the land use challenge from forestry, and they’re doing it really tough out there at the moment, as I’m sure the member knows, so it is imperative that we get wool from being now a cost on a business into being a major profit centre. With a swing back to natural fibres, we absolutely have that opportunity in front of us.

So, beyond that, I’ve attended and led a delegation to the International Wool Textile Organisation conference in Adelaide, where there were some 25 New Zealand delegates. We had a specific New Zealand afternoon for strong wool. It’s an organisation dominated by fine wool, but this was specifically for New Zealand strong wool, and we absolutely knocked that out of the park. The Autexes, the Bremworths, the Wool Impacts—we showed a level of positivity with the fact that we had a plan, the fact that we had the motivation, and some collective will to turn what was a pretty sombre conference around.

We did meet with the Chinese delegation, who take 30 percent of our wool through the Nanjing wool market. We had respectful and constructive conversations with them, looking to address some of their concerns around some of the wool quality. Also, we were expressing our concerns about the lack of a sustainable price for the fibre.

I have also brought together an industry leadership group alongside Wool Impact, which was a group that was formed under the previous Minister. The group that hadn’t really had much consultation within this was farmers and the farming leadership, and we have to start looking at how we can transition Wool Impact and the good work that they have done, in fairness, into something that can be sustained by the wider industry itself—by farmers, by the wool manufacturing companies, and wool-interested companies. What does that look like? So I’ve tasked this group with coming up with that outcome.

I’ve also tasked them with looking at different pathways to market, because the auction system has clearly failed us. I’ve tasked them with coming up with an industry goal—a credible industry goal that we can put towards doubling exports, which is a Government goal. But wool can do much more than that, so how can we contribute to that overall Government goal? So that’s a summary of some of the actions we’re taking. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to take a call in the annual review debate. Just at the beginning of my contribution, I do want to note for the committee the changes in the Standing Orders that occurred last year that have led to a change at annual review so that as well as looking back over that previous financial year, we can also look to strategic intent, and it’s that strategic intent that I wish to put my comments on the record on this evening.

I want to specifically ask some questions around live exports, and I understand my colleagues have already asked some questions tonight. But this is a critical issue for New Zealand, from both a “New Zealand Inc.” point of view but also an animal welfare point of view.

The concerns that the Labour Party have about the reintroduction of live exports are numerous. First of all, there are the animal welfare issues, and we’ve all seen images of ships where we have cattle up to their knees in their own muck, in cramped conditions, reports and photographs from vets who have been on these boats showing absolutely appalling conditions for cattle. Particularly for us in New Zealand, when we are exporting animals across to the other side of the world, they have to pass across the equator, and it is in incredibly hot conditions. No matter what occurs with the ships, we are sending cattle through conditions that are detrimental to their health and wellbeing. We’ve seen recently Australia having ships returned because of the ongoing conflict in Gaza and Israel, and ships not being able to get through to port. They’re having to return to Australia, and having cattle then observed with a significant number of health issues.

The other point I want to make around that is the risk that that presents to New Zealand’s international reputation. We are seeing global trends change in terms of the type of products people wish to purchase and consume. People are making choices around environmental decisions. People are also making choices around animal welfare positions. I note in my own electorate of Nelson a company called SnapIT doing amazing work, first of all on cameras on boats but also other technology that can help track an animal from the beginning of its life through to the moment it arrives on the plate. Consumers actually want to have access to that information, and there is a genuine concern that people will stop purchasing New Zealand products if we’re not upholding the highest environmental and animal welfare standards.

Furthermore, there’s the issue of intellectual property (IP). Why would we give away our IP in terms of our best breeding stock to countries on the other side of the world? Why would we do that when we have such a proud industry here in New Zealand that we should be supporting?

But what I did just want to come to is that I have asked the Minister of Agriculture, through written parliamentary questions, about custom-built boats. The previous National Party spokesperson Nicola Grigg went on television last year and said that if live exports were reinstated, there would be custom-built boats. Now, she never said who would pay for them—they’re billion-dollar boats—or who would build them. The concern I have is that the questions I’ve put to the Minister through written parliamentary questions state that he is still seeking advice on that specific issue.

Now, the National Party actually made a commitment to having custom-built boats. Having said that, we’ve also seen that with some of these custom-built boats, we’ve had examples of where the stench from the boat can be experienced throughout the whole area, and, actually—

Hon Member: Oh, I’d go on a billion-dollar boat.

Hon Member: I’d go on a billion-dollar boat.

RACHEL BOYACK: Yeah, maybe we should put the National Party on some custom-built boats—that sounds like a great idea. So my question, first of all, is: is the Minister going to backtrack from that position of the National Party around custom-built boats, and if he does proceed with custom-built boats—as I’ve asked him, but have not had a response—who is going to build them and who is going to pay for them?

Thank you. Just before we continue, I’ll just give folks an update on our times, because the clock is literally ticking. We’ve got five minutes and five seconds with the National Party; 25 minutes and 30 seconds for the Labour Party; four minutes and 54 seconds for the Green Party—this is at 5.31 p.m.—eight minutes and 53 seconds for the ACT Party; three minutes and 39 seconds for the New Zealand First Party; and 10 minutes and nine seconds for Te Pāti Māori. So just a bit of an update there.

Just on the two points that were raised there in terms of the custom-built boats issue. As you may have realised, this is a coalition Government. We signed a coalition agreement. I am not responsible for commitments made by parties before the coalition agreement was made. As I said previously, it’ll be a standard. Now, maybe it’ll take a custom-built boat to achieve the standard or maybe it won’t; the standards are what matter. That’s how you drive changes on farm or anywhere in the agricultural industry—you set a standard and people have to meet it. In terms of your question around intellectual property (IP)—

Hon Damien O’Connor: That’s called a regulation.

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: Yeah, whatever. In terms of IP, you asked the question: “Well, are you also then saying that we should stop sending frozen semen offshore, because is that not also giving away our IP?” Now, it’s important to realise that most of these countries we would be trading animals with will not be operating the same farm system we operate here in New Zealand. We operate a pasture-grazing system here in New Zealand—

Rachel Boyack: Exactly—terrible animal welfare standards.

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: —if you wanted to listen, you might learn a bit about farming—and so these animals are bred for that purpose. We’re not giving away any IP, because what we’re sending to them are animals from a very low-disease country, OK? So that’s the benefit they are seeing. They are seeing good traceability and good welfare from a trading partner they can trust, so I don’t believe there’s any IP given away.

You know, at the end of the day, farming is pretty simple: you feed the cows; they produce milk.

OK, thank you for that, and just to highlight as well that this debate—despite the times that I’ve told you—will end at 5.51 p.m.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I just want to speak to Minister Patterson and say that you may find on your select committee that you have multi-party support for the wool industry, and I just published an article in Canterbury Farming saying that we’d be fools to not back wool.

With the scourge of plastic polluting our oceans from fibres and products and building products and carpets—even in our own schools—we certainly need to back the wool industry. One of the messages that we got in the current briefing before us at the select committee was from some of those quite inspiring operators who are doing incredible things with wool domestically. One of the strong messages was that we need to do domestic manufacturing for the industry to be viable, rather than sending our high-quality product as a commodity into the global market, where somebody else makes the money out of turning it into a suit. Are you—and this is my question—as a Government going to put actual dollars towards things like manufacturing plant in the wool sector so that we can build that manufacturing sector?

I’ve got a quick follow-up question for the other Minister, if that’s OK? Mr Hoggard, further to your point about listening to farmers about farming, will you take into account the multitude of animal welfare experts who tell us time and again, across the board, that there is no way to do live animal exports other than in a way that is cruel? I’ll quote but one of them, the New Zealand SPCA chief science officer, Arnja Dale, who says, “It is very clear from the research that there is absolutely no way to achieve good animal welfare on long and complicated journeys.” Will you take all of that into account and take that as the primary leader of experts in terms of your determination on proceeding with live animal exports? Thank you.

Thank you, and I just remind members to not bring the Chair into the debate.

Thank you, Mr Chair—pleasure to have another opportunity to take a call. My question is around the time frames that the Minister has indicated in order to develop the supposed gold standard that live animal exports will need to follow. My question really is why would industry seek to invest, given that from my latest written parliamentary question, the Minister has indicated that live animal exports are not likely to be reintroduced through legislation until 2025? Given that there’s a high likelihood of a change of Government in 2026—certainly that’s what we’re hearing—

Reuben Davidson: Maybe sooner.

RACHEL BOYACK: It could be sooner, actually. I mean, it could be sooner—I think that’s a very fair point, Mr Davidson; it could well be sooner.

Why would industry be seeking to invest in such an activity, given that the Government is going to take two years since the election to actually reintroduce the legislation, never mind actually reintroducing the practice? Surely the industry would be looking for some certainty from the Minister. I mean, I guess, is it not an element of wasteful spending—isn’t that what we’d call it? We’d call it wasteful spending, I guess, getting officials to do work on this, knowing that, actually, once we see a change of Government, which we do expect to have, I think, sooner rather than later, it would be a complete waste of money for industry to be investing. So that’s my further question to the Minister, thank you.

Mr Chair, thank you. I’m going to go very quickly because there were points raised earlier I’d like to address, in case colleagues have any follow-up questions they’d like. Around cyclone recovery, this is something we’re taking very, very seriously. A lot of the things the member raised fall outside of my competence as agriculture Minister. But, just to say, as far as agriculture and horticulture and forestry are concerned, we’re looking to work with the sector and many others, particularly experts that actually know what’s going on, on the ground; the best way to sort these things out; the harm that’s been done and how to stop it in the future. I would be very open to working with anybody that has input into that.

As far as the rural infrastructure is concerned, particularly roading, Minister Patterson has a responsibility for rural infrastructure in that area—although, with that in mind, he’s not the Minister who gets to make the decisions as to where funding is concerned. But the rural sector now has a dedicated advocate for rural infrastructure, roading, and so on.

Jobs for Nature, also, as admirable as it is—I’d like to speak at great length on it—it’s not an agricultural responsibility. So, unfortunately, that would have to be addressed to the environment Minister.

On Wai 262, that, equally—the responsibility of that sits with another Minister, around intellectual property. But I would say we take our responsibilities and obligations seriously. In the last term of Parliament, there was a Plants Variety Rights Act that was put in place to update that, to make it modern and available to the agricultural sector. Within that, there was support for Wai 262 and recognition of indigenous plants and processes. So there was a say in that, and that’s something that’s set aside that the agency responsible has to take account of.

To the member for Nelson, 26 votes doesn’t suggest to me that the Government’s going to change anytime soon.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ve got a couple of questions: one for the Minister of Agriculture and then some for the Minister for Rural Communities.

So my question to the Minister of Agriculture is this: in the Ministry for Primary Industries’ (MPI) annual report, they said that industry transformation plans are a mechanism for building a more integrated and shared understanding of how to make the most of New Zealand’s food and fibre strength, maximise new opportunities, and respond to challenges on the horizon. Given that all work on these has now ceased, what is the Minister’s plan for taking the industry forward, if not with the support and understanding of the sector?

My questions for the Minister for Rural Communities—the first one being this: as he will be aware, since 2019, 32 rural community hubs have been established, with seven new ones in the last financial year; can we expect support and seed funding from MPI for these hubs to continue in Budget 2024?

My other question for the Minister is that when the Minister came before our select committee for annual review, we asked him whether he was actively advocating to maintain and fix State Highway 35 and keep the East Coast connected to the world. The Minister acknowledged that we needed to have roading infrastructure that was fit for purpose and that food security needs to be a factor when deciding how to divide infrastructure spending. The Minister said he had spoken to the Minister of Transport about this matter, and I’m wondering if the Minister could please give us an update following the conversation that he’s had with the Minister of Transport about that matter. Thank you.

Right. I’ll take a couple of those questions. Firstly, the wool one: I thank Mr Abel for his support, and, yes, we are going to be bringing wool back into Government buildings. That piece of work is happening now, in terms of shaping up that policy. You do raise a really good point. We have got a cluster of businesses that are reaching a point where they’re, kind of, really ready to go, but it’s access to capital in this country. We can start them up, but how do we scale them? And one of the things—and it’s not necessarily Government funding that’s needed for this. I mean, we can use our influence within this place to help bring people together and maybe package up something for commercial—and I note your colleague; in fact, one of the people I’m going to be ringing is your colleague, or former colleague, James Shaw, who’s now looking at green investments. So there could not be a more green investment than into the wool industry.

So around that new wool scourer at Awatoto, there’s a $50 million investment there. My vision is for a big wool cluster of businesses developing out of that area; whether that happens—but you can see that. In terms of some of the work around rural hubs, I think a lot of that came out of the COVID money, and then, I think, in cyclone recovery. I think it’s been really successful and—no, it came out of the COVID money, but in the cyclone, it was shown to be really successful, and other adverse events, because there was somewhere to go, there was somewhere that had connectivity, there was somewhere that had a commercial kitchen. That’s probably something that sits probably more in the regional economic development portfolio. I know it’s something that’s being looked at there, but I do want you to know that I recognise the good work that has gone on there, both investing in marae and community halls.

And, in terms of the roading thing, that is a bigger piece of work, and the Minister outlined some regional roading priorities earlier, but I do agree that we need to put GDP and access to markets as a big weighting in terms of how we allocate our access to roading infrastructure. Thank you.

I just want to follow up on that answer from the Minister. My question was: can he give us an update, following the conversation that he had with the Minister about that particular road?

Well, that’s an ongoing discussion. I can’t give you an answer, but I recognise and he recognises that important arterial route for the East Coast.

Mr Chair, thank you so much. On the last question around industry transformation plans (ITPs), well, what the Government’s doing to transform the industry is working with them. You see, over the last six years, there were more than 20 pieces of legislation or regulation thrust upon rural New Zealand that didn’t achieve what the owners of those rules and regulations, the last Labour Government, said they would. They had a cost and complication. It didn’t drive the outcome—didn’t drive the outcomes in the environment, certainly not in climate change, certainly not anywhere. And all it did was add cost to what is the most productive food-producing sector in the world.

So we don’t need big studies to sit and work with the agriculture sector and decide how to transform them. They actually know how to do this; they’re innovative; they’re hard-working; they’re men and women of New Zealand that grow the economy and who are actually going to help New Zealand pay back the large amounts of debt that the last Labour Government ran up for them. And we’re going to do that by working with them and focusing on the outcome, not just the process. We don’t want more rules; we want fewer rules. We want better rules that achieve what they need to, that allow the rural committee to get on and do what we want them to, which is work hard, farm hard, take those risks in their businesses, care deeply about the environment, meet their obligations, help New Zealand meet its climate change obligations, and, in so doing, grow the economy, creating jobs and a future for any New Zealander who wants it.

And so when we get asked about, you know, “What are you doing around industry transformation?”, this industry doesn’t need transforming; it just needs backing. And you have a coalition Government that trusts farmers, backs them, and will work with them to drive the outcomes that we need. And, with that in mind, I’m very, very proud of the work that my two colleagues and I have been able to start—and the coalition Government—in making changes early on that actually will drive better outcomes for water quality and that will back farmers to be able to do the things that they want to, which is farm well and care about their land. Because to any member on my left from the Labour Party that says they know best about the land, they’re not the owners of it or the ones that are working on it every day, they’re not the Māori organisations that actually care about the land, they’re not the men or women that get out of bed every day that will make sure that their land does what it needs to because that’s where they get their livelihood from.

And so we campaigned on getting Wellington out of farming, and Mark Patterson, Andrew Hoggard, and I, on behalf of rural New Zealand as the Ministers responsible for that, will make sure that we not only get Wellington out of farming but that farming is strong and the environment continues to improve and it continues to get better. And that job is something that will have to be enduring; it will have to continue; it’ll have to every day, because these two colleagues of mine and I care as much about the environment as we do agriculture. And that’s something that I hear as we’re out in rural New Zealand—farmers talking about the environment, what they need to achieve—more than they talk about production. So what we need to do is get the rules right, get the framework right, build some trust, get the decision making from the small buildings of Wellington without windows out of the way, back rural New Zealand, and allow them to take responsibility for themselves. You’ve got a Government to partner and do that.

The question is, That the report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the annual financial statements of the Government for the 2022/23 financial year be noted.

Motion agreed to.

Report noted.

The question now is, That the reports of committees on annual reviews be noted.

Motion agreed to.

Reports of committees on annual reviews noted.

The question now is, That clauses 1 to 8 and Schedules 1 to 6 stand part.

Clauses 1 to 8 and Schedules 1 to 6 agreed to.

Bill to be reported without amendment.

House resumed.

Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the Appropriation (2022/23 Confirmation and Validation) Bill and reports it without amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

This bill is set down for third reading immediately.