Muller ToddTODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's a great privilege to speak for a few minutes on the Estimates report from the Primary Production Committee. I wasn't on it at the time; I am now and enjoying the experience.There are a few things that jump out though when you look at the report and you've heard it with the Government's contributions thus far: very high on rhetoric very low on substance. The great example of that was when we tested with Damien O'Connor the idea of rural proofing which was something that he put so much store into. He had very little understanding—and you can see it there in the transcripts—around what it actually meant. At best he had to turn to his officials and ask for them to come to the table and assist and provide further context. But it largely looks like the opportunity for the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) to have their voice heard hopefully around a table of various Government agencies.What is interesting when you consider the work programme that's talked about by the primary industries—and clearly water quality is now front of mind for most of rural New Zealand if not all of them. Where was the rural proofing when that document was promulgated? Where was the MPI contribution to the economic impact which that document is completely silent on? For 23000 farmers there's no real sense of what it means for them apart from some high-level numbers around farm environment plans and an assessment of stock exclusion. There's no assessment of actually if you apply those in water values to the extent that this Government wants to see—that that will mean that dairy in parts of this country of ours will be decapitated: sheep and beef equity out the back door only can plant forests. Where is that? If that's rural proofing if that's real if that forms part of what you think's important live it; don't just talk it. What we saw was a whole lot of talking about it.I go to the extension services. That was waved from the rafters—$35 million. Again when tested Damien O'Connor didn't know how many people. Largely he said it would be leveraged off the sector's own people in the field. We didn't really get a sense of what they would do and then when pushed he said Look we'll target them to 2000 farmers." Well what about the 21000 other farmers? What about those who now sit around their dinner tables saying "What on earth are we going to do now? How do we farm to these limits that are so onerous we can't see a way there?" There's not enough extension not enough investment and not enough clarity intellectually around what you're trying to do. I think the Minister was found out to be quite light in his analysis around that Estimates discussion.Then when there was a substance that was already in place—the Global Research Alliance on Agricultural Greenhouse Gases which the previous Government put together which actually is realistic in terms of working with others around the world and with respect to identifying options to reduce carbon emissions on farm—he put in a bid for $50 million and he got $8 million which is just a rollover of last year's money. So if you're really serious about climate change wouldn't you invest actually in the mechanism that exists today to actually create tools for farmers to make a difference?See this is the problem. There's an enormous amount of rhetoric—and some of it bombastic or otherwise is at times quite entertaining—but where's the substance? The global research alliance the previous Government set up and all they could do was give them another year's funding when it is a critical enabler for farmers to actually be able to respond to emissions in a very real sense. I don't think this Government gets agriculture.Kieran McAnulty: Ha ha!TODD MULLER: I don't think they get it at all. They have a laugh—Kieran has a laugh—but when pushed—Kieran McAnulty: Speaking of substance where is it? Come on.TODD MULLER: Kieran McAnulty has a laugh but when pushed and his own community says "Actually I think you're right. I don't think ag should go into the emissions trading scheme (ETS); more critically I have real concerns around the ETS itself." he's very strong in terms of his view and what he'll say to the Wairarapa Age—less so in this House. You know it's going to be interesting to see how he positions himself on what will become quite a critical debate: agriculture into the emissions trading scheme. That was listed as a work programme. I suspect that's signed off in a couple of weeks. Looking forward to fronting that Mr Patterson? That'll go down well.Greg O'Connor: Cheer up.TODD MULLER: Well I tell you: "Cheer up" minus 80 percent. They're not my statistics Kieran McAnulty. They're the sector's. It's the most pessimistic outlook in 15 years. Do you think that's a function of us? No it's not. It's a function of your Government. It's a function of the fact that you don't understand farmers. You see them as a cost. You see them as an activity and a lifestyle to constrain. You don't see somebody as a farming family contributing to their community. You don't see them as part of the future. We do and that's the clear difference between that side and this side."