Cameron Mark; O'Connor DamienMARK CAMERON (ACT): Thank you Mr Chair. Well Minister I'm one of those people that actually goes home wondering why the hell I do it to be quite frank with you. I'm a dairy farmer—operational dairy farmer. I don't evangelise and offer priestly sermons about how other people should run their businesses but I can tell you: $339 million on the Centre for Climate Change Action on Agricultural Emissions—what does that look like when an emissions pricing scheme is being asserted on a primary sector? Minister can you please tell this committee today what annualised costs in terms of productivity losses we're going to see? To speak to the sheep meat sector Minister; the wool sector—one in five of those people is potentially going out of business. Can you please reconcile that statement in a Government discussion document as proposed that suggested one in five people are going to go out of business? Now I've got to go home to these people and tell them it's all good—that this Government actually cares. I can't reconcile that.And what of methane mitigation technology Minister? When is it going to be commercially available? Boluses into 2.5 million animal ruminants in the beef sector that happen to be 600 and 700 kilograms? What kind of malarkey are we talking here? I understand mitochondrial DNA and ruminant bacteria; I work with it every day—every day. I understand what I put down my animals' necks comes by virtue of outcomes as methane. What interventions are you asserting here in this Centre for Climate Change Action which will help ameliorate those emissions and not drive people off their farms? Minister can you please answer this House?Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): I'd hate to think that I don't answer any of the questions the relevant ones. Can I just firstly point out the ranting and rhetoric of the idea that one in five would go out of business.Mark Cameron: It's your document.Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: It is not the document. What the document says—Hon Members: They were your numbers.Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: Can I read for the—would you like to listen? Would you like to listen? The discussion document models that sheep and beef net revenue and production could drop by about 20 percent. That makes no reference at all—no reference at all—to the viability. Can I suggest to the member if he is a proper farmer that he's probably incurred that kind of drop in production through drought or through adverse events; the member's still in business. The reality—and I have to acknowledge the resilience of New Zealand farmers and farming systems—is that they do incur without subsidy some huge variations in production costs from year to year because of a whole lot of climatic conditions. They've been able to mitigate that with some supplementary feeds at times but through droughts and through floods and through the kinds of things that we're now seeing in Hawke's Bay there are massive impacts sometimes on farmers' production. This discussion document—on a model which I personally think should be challenged this is just modelling—said that net revenue could drop. That's all it says; not that 20 percent are going to go out of business. That's the kind of irresponsible leadership from members in the House for political purposes that has understandably caused concern across the farming sector.Can I just go on to the $335 million—yes we did commit that to climate change initiatives to the Global Research Alliance and the Centre for Climate Change Action on Agricultural Emissions that we have here; $170 million in partnership with progressive New Zealand agribusiness firms and more are interested in coming on board and there are many areas of international research. I've just come from the biggest gathering of agriculture Ministers in the US that they've seen last week talking about climate change and about how we progress these areas of science. There are boluses being worked on that can be put into the animals and reduce methane.Mark Cameron: Rubbish.Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: There is—no it's not rubbish at all. If the member would lift his head up a little bit there's work going on with thanitropes. There's selective breeding programmes. There's monitoring of both cattle and sheep in New Zealand to identify those that just because they are different emit 20 percent less methane from the sheep or the animal beside them—just because of genetic difference. If we can identify those as we have across all other areas of farming—we have the Livestock Improvement Corporation arguably being one of the best genetic livestock organisations in the world. They have identified those that produce more and selectively bred from them just as we can with lower methane emissions from ruminant livestock.This is one of a number of areas that is being worked on. There is Dutch technology that if fed on a regular basis to animals can reduce methane from those animals by up to 30 to 40 percent. We can't apply that at the moment to a pastoral farming system but those are the areas that are being investigated by the partnership by the Global Research Alliance. And indeed in summary from the few days I had in Washington none of us had the magic answers but I suggest that we as a country have a huge opportunity to lead the world to share the technology and to ensure that livestock ruminant farming can produce high-quality protein and lower the emissions satisfying the expectations of consumers and of our customers to be better producers of food for the world.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Nicola Grigg—can I say that the National Party have seven minutes and 30 seconds left.