Tanczos Nandor: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3) — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTanczos Nandor: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3) — First Reading[Sitting date: 11 October 2007. Volume:642;Page:12330. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]NANDOR TANCZOS (Green): Although I welcome the gains that my colleague Sue Bradford has made in securing a review of the problem-gambling levy I have to express disappointment in another matter—specifically the commodity levies in relation to organic production.It seems to the Greens a basic issue of fairness that levies collected from a sector should be spent on activities that support that sector and that principle does not currently apply to organic producers. This issue was raised with me when I attended the inaugural conference of Organics Aotearoa New Zealand at Lincoln University a month or so ago. Organic producers are subject to commodity levies like other producers but although some of the activities funded by the levy money do have generic benefits across say the pipfruit industry the bulk of the benefit actually accrues only to conventional producers.The needs of organic producers are quite specific and are largely not addressed through conventional commodity levy spending. Research advice assistance marketing and support for organic producers and products are largely different from that needed by conventional producers. As I have said there are some benefits to organic farmers from conventional levy funding and I do not propose that the full proportion of a commodity levy paid by organic producers should go to the organic representative body. But it does seem fair and right that a proportion—perhaps 75 percent—of the money paid in by organic producers should go to organic representative bodies. So the Green Party is not voting for this bill because we could make no progress on that matter. We will however be abstaining in order to recognise other gains made by my colleague Sue Bradford and I intend to pursue further this matter of the commodity levy for organic producers.There are a couple of other matters worth relating in relation to that. First the organic sector’s advisory programme consists of $2.15 million over 3 years funded through the Government - Green Party co-operation agreement and includes specific support for applied research and extension-project work. This project support is managed through Organics Aotearoa New Zealand and in effect as a levy would be. The Greens acknowledge that support for organics but we also note that that funding is temporary and there are obvious questions about how to sustain it over the longer term. That is especially relevant as the organic sector becomes increasingly important in light of climate change—the carbon-sequestering properties of living soils are enhanced through organic production methods—and also because of challenges to conventionalfarming from imminent peak oil. RichardHeinberg spoke in the Beehive today about that very matter.Secondly the Ministry of Economic Development’s sector initiative fund which is $1.5 million over 3 years anticipates putting the sector in a position to consider and seek support for a levy referendum under the Commodity Levies Act or similar arrangements within the industry levy organisations at the conclusion of the contracts at the end of this financial year. Again although the Greens would welcome that we would be very unhappy to see such a levy put in place in addition to any current levies paid by organic producers. That would be unfair and the Green Party must insist that any commodity levy on organic producers must be in place of any levies they are currently required to pay rather than additional to them. There may be a need to recognise the benefits that organic farmers gain from conventional levy spending through some kind of split-funding arrangement—and we accept that—but simply to increase costs for organic farmers on top of what they already spend in terms of both levies and the additional costs they have to bear for organic certification and the like would be unacceptable and we could not support that.