van de Molen TimTIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Close. He's far smarter than I am Madam Chair of course. Thank you Madam Chair. Look it's a pleasure to take a call on the primary sector section of this debate following on from all the urban Government members who have spoken on this. It is interesting to note—Dr Duncan Webb: Who? Bet she's spent more time on a farm than you have.TIM VAN DE MOLEN: Oh here we go. There's a flurry of activity. Apparently now they're all rural MPs. Well actually I think there's only one farmer over there—Mr Patterson—and he's openly bagging the Minister of Agriculture at meetings in the Waikato.Mark Patterson: Rubbish!TIM VAN DE MOLEN: So I don't see the Minister having a lot of support to be honest at this stage. Well he might like to refute that but that's not the feedback we're getting directly from members. So in relation to some of the proposals here he also said—actually Mr Patterson when Barbara Kuriger was talking earlier—Why sign us up to it?" apparently alleging that the National Government was responsible for some of these draconian measures under the zero carbon bill and now the proposed dairy change as well. Rest assured we are certainly not supporting those as they stand Mr Patterson. So no concerns there on that front. Now a previous list member mentioned as well that farmers want change driven by Government. How arrogant is that coming from members of the Government: to stand up from their urban ideals and suggest that rural New Zealand—that farmers—want change driven by the Government? They are so out of touch so disconnected to rural New Zealand it's embarrassing. I feel embarrassed for them listening to that sort of outcry. There is $229 million from the Government to assist with environmental improvements. Great—but only a fraction of what's needed. Much more with some of the proposals they're putting forward now with these latest water announcements that we're hearing around the standards that might have to be put in place. A billion dollars is more like it. That's the sort of figure—not to mention the economic impact which actually we have no data about because there's been very limited analysis done on it which is again hard to comprehend when we're talking about such drastic changes for a major contributor to the economic wealth and prosperity of this country. Mr McAnulty clearly demonstrated before that he is unable to listen. He suggested that there was no future—that comments from this side had claimed no future for the industry—and yet that is the absolute opposite of what has been espoused by this side of the House. We have been and continue to be strong advocates for rural New Zealand and to suggest otherwise—well I know he wouldn't knowingly mislead the House so clearly he is uninformed and cannot listen to any of the commentary out there. Now we heard through these debates around some of the anticipated improvements required and yet just last week we also heard around the massive raft of changes that are being proposed with some of these water standards. The two are not aligning when we hear the Minister say he wants the primary sector to be successful to be focused on value-add and to be thriving. Those are all nice words but the action simply doesn't line up. And now we've got the Government trying to talk their way out of something they've acted their way into which simply cannot be done. Those water standards in particular stifle innovation. To suggest that one farm should not be able to undertake a particular land use simply because of the categorisation of it is ridiculous. Dr Duncan Webb: Because it's polluting our streams—killing our whitebait hurting our trout.TIM VAN DE MOLEN: If they can produce a particular land use and be farming in a particular way that is more efficient than others then that's their competitive advantage. Mr Webb I'd encourage you to get out on a farm. You're welcome to come to the Waikato and I'll take you around some and show you because you clearly have no understanding of the impact that's been proposed by the Government here. To suggest that a blanket rule on land-use change is an appropriate measure is totally inaccurate and not at all in line with where the innovation in the sector allows us to go. So that's one big change we need to see. Again the grandparenting right that's been proposed is encouraging those people who have been leaching more by rewarding them by enabling them to just reduce a bit and they'll still be able to operate. Well how does that align with any clear message around improving quality? If someone's been leaching at 35 kilograms of nitrate per hectare and someone else at 20 kilograms well a reduction to 34 is progress versus staying stationary at 20 not being. Clearly that doesn't align either. The Government again says nice things but they're not thinking through how to actually achieve this. Time after time the rural sector is being let down by this Government and they are sick and tired of it. There is no understanding of rural New Zealand on that side of the House and New Zealand deserves so much better. CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Can I apologise to the member and to Tim Macindoe again for mistaking you."