McAnulty KieranKIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Here we go again. It seems that Mr van de Molen was correct: I cannot get my head around it. I cannot get my head around how the National Party are quite happy to do one thing in Government and say another thing in Opposition; how they can stand up here member after member after member and accuse this Government of not caring about biosecurity when in 2012 they cut front-line biosecurity staff—Andrew Bayly: That's not right. KIERAN McANULTY: And they say that's not right. Well I say to Mr Bayly that perhaps he'd like to have a chat to 3 News who reported this fact after doing an Official Information Act request to that former Government. The thing is that with facts members cannot hide behind them. They're trying very hard but they cannot. They have touched on many things tonight including the fruit fly incursion in Auckland and I would like to quote the Minister on this: As the fruit fly discovery in Auckland shows our biosecurity system is facing ever-increasing pressures due to factors such as growing international trade greater mobility of people and increasingly complex global … chains." and "we need to acknowledge New Zealand will always face threats from unwanted pests and diseases. It is simply impossible to eliminate all risk." I wonder does the other side agree with that? They should because that was Nathan Guy. That was Nathan Guy the previous agriculture Minister. When the fruit fly came to Auckland he said it was impossible. Now the National Party are in Opposition and they are laying blame at every opportunity they can and pointing fingers to the Minister. Well once again the facts have caught up to chase them. The fact is that this Government is delivering for the primary sector. Exports hit a new high in March driven by dairy meat and forestry products. Exports of dairy products led the rise in exports up $264 million—that's a 22 percent rise—to $1.4 billion in March. But if we were to only listen to the National Party we would hear doom and we would hear gloom and we would think that this side of the House is out there for one sole purpose and that's to drive down the agricultural sector. They've accused us of not liaising with the rural sector despite the fact that on this side we have a farmer as a Minister we've got a farmer as a spokesperson for our coalition partner here in New Zealand First and we've got regional and rural representatives right across the caucus in all three parties. But that doesn't fit their narrative so they go on and they go on. Another thing that I find amazing is that they stand here tonight and they lament the fact that there are some farmers selling their private land to people that wish to grow trees. Now I actually share their concerns as does Minister Damien O'Connor as he said earlier. But I have to point out the hypocrisy here of the party on the other side when they opposed any approach to restrict foreign ownership—Tim van de Molen: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. The member may be new but he should surely know he cannot use that word in this House. CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Look I'm the arbiter of what is acceptable in this House so we'll continue. Hon Judith Collins: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. Are you now saying that it's OK to accuse the other side of the House of hypocrisy and that's all right? CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): It is up to me to determine what is—Hon Judith Collins: It's now OK? All right—OK then. CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): That is not a point of order. I thank the member anyway. Tim van de Molen: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. That was the word used and the previous rulings have been very clear that that is an inappropriate word to use in this House. If you are now ruling otherwise we would appreciate your clarification on that ruling. CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Look I go back to what I have said before. It is actually up to me to make that judgment and—Hon Judith Collins: Oh right. CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): It is Ms Collins—it is. We've had this conversation before. I will caution the member. This is a robust debate. We have had many many very stirring speeches over the course of the last hour or so that this debate has been running but I will caution the member. We are coming to the conclusion I hope of this debate. Hon Judith Collins: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. Can I just get this really clear: is it now in order in this Parliament or should we call the Speaker? CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I can help the member with that—thank you. As I've said before it is up to the judgment of the Chair to decide whether that is a term that is appropriate in the context of which it is delivered. If the member had been here prior to this debate commencing she would have realised that this debate has been very robust. There have been many discussions—quite heated—across the Chamber. I think in the context of what we have been discussing since this question was put about an hour ago I have deemed it to be within that context. I have cautioned the member to be a little more circumspect. That is my view. Hon Judith Collins: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. A new point of order—thank you Madam Chair. Is it now in order for the Chair or a Speaker to refer to the absence of a member? CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I would just like to say to the member that I've made a ruling on that particular comment. You are now bringing up a matter that is hypothetical. I will not entertain that. I will call Kieran McAnulty to continue with his call. KIERAN McANULTY: Thank you Madam Chair. What I was saying earlier was that the National Party have been caught out yet again saying one thing when they were in Government and saying another thing now they're in Opposition and a prime example of this is the one billion trees programme. When this Government sought to assist those who wanted to buy productive land by putting in reasonable rules on restricting foreign ownership that side opposed it. That side is also opposed—they get down and they jump on it at every opportunity—whenever the discussion outside this House talks around restrictions on land use. Now they're standing here tonight and they're saying that the Government should be telling farm owners and landowners what to do with their land.Mark Patterson: Property rights. KIERAN McANULTY: Property rights. This is the party of individual responsibility and of property rights but when it suits them they say one thing and when it doesn't suit them they say another and I call them out on it tonight. The fact is that despite Hamish Walker talking about it being 79 percent of foreign ownership in forestry how much was foreign-owned when that Government was in power nine years ago? That's the question I pose to that side. As we refer to the topics and discussions that came up in appropriations in the Primary Production Committee the forestry is clearly one that's stuck with them. But I do say to the other side that if they want to oppose it oppose it on grounds that are consistent with policies you've opposed or supported previously. The other issue is that we've heard no vision from the National Party tonight unlike the Minister who wants to bring this country from a country that is talking about volume to value. We've heard no vision. All we've heard is a cry for the good old days—the conservative approach of "Leave it alone and she'll be right. We know best."—but where has that got us? I commend this Minister for leading this Government and moving this industry where it needs to go."