Bennett DavidPrimary SectorHon DAVID BENNETT (Chairperson of the Primary Production Committee): Thank you Madam Chair. It's a pleasure to speak in this debate. It was a very illuminating session which the Primary Production Committee had when we had our annual review process. I want to start with the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) who was probably the biggest part of our annual review sessions. There was one really important thing that came out of that meeting and that was that the ministry had been working on a levy for farmers. This levy was going to be a new biosecurity levy that was in addition to what farmers already pay. So farmers already pay through their industry organisations funds to the Government for biosecurity.Hon Tracey Martin: Are you sure you're in the right year? You're sure you're in the right place?Hon DAVID BENNETT: Now we all heard what a great Government we have that was going to give money around the M. bovis outbreak and I'm just referring to the review of the Biosecurity Act that is on page 6 of the annual review of MPI.The question to the CEO of MPI was Will there be a levy that your organisation is investigating?" and he said yes—he said yes in the committee. Then within half an hour of that committee ending we had an email from the Minister's office to the ministry basically telling them to retract from what they said in that committee meeting. That is completely against—CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Can I call the member—Kieran McAnulty: I raise a point of order Madam Chair.CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Just a moment I can deal with this.Hon DAVID BENNETT: —what happened in the committee.CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Can I just call the member to order. As chairman of the select committee you are to report back to the committee according to the reports. It is to be a non-political discussion.Hon DAVID BENNETT: Yes. And that's why I'm reporting the facts of what happened in that meeting when the CEO was asked directly are they investigating a new levy and he said yes—that was his exact words. He said "Yes we are." Then the department came back to the committee later to change their opinion. Farmers out there need to be aware of what that actually means. That means that this Government isn't putting the money up for M. bovis they're actually going to—CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Yip. Can I just—Hon DAVID BENNETT: —charge farmers for that over time. And that was an important part of the MPI one.Another part of the MPI one was the one billion trees programme. Now we have this and there's a grant to landowners. Now one of the issues raised was that the particular loss of jobs for that transition from farming—you know that could be in dairying it could be sheep and beef—going into forestry. It was said that there would be a thousand jobs that could potentially be created from the one billion trees programme.Kieran McAnulty: I raise a point of order Madam Chair. You gave the member a very clear directive and in my view he is absolutely trifling with that directive because he is ignoring everything that you've asked him to do.CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I tend to agree with you. I have asked this to be a non-political report back to the committee from the select committee.Hon DAVID BENNETT: And I'm just reading what was said here that the billion dollar programme would create one thousand jobs.CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): But take my direction in how you present this report back to the committee.Hon DAVID BENNETT: OK. So thank you Madam Chair. So that positive issue for the one billion trees programme would be the jobs created. But then there's the potential loss of jobs of the land use change there. We heard about them in committee. When we reflect on that it's interesting to relate that back to another part of our committee hearings which was around Land Information New Zealand (LINZ). So we had LINZ come in front of the committee as well and that was really interesting because they talked about the approvals for the sale of sensitive land. If you want to refer to page 3 of their report it will go through that for you. Ninety-four approvals given; that's a 96 percent approval rate under this Government for applications to LINZ. We knew that New Zealand First had come into this House in the election campaign saying that they would stop foreign investment. Billions of dollars. It says here "We noted overseas investment had risen by over a billion dollars and sales at gross value by over $2 billion from the previous year." This is a Government that was going to stop foreign investment and they have increased it by $2 billion. There is no consistency in that approach and that's one of the things that we have seen in recent weeks.CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Order! Was that reported back from the committee?Hon DAVID BENNETT: Yes I've got it here—page 3 if you want to have a look.CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): OK. Just for clarity.Hon DAVID BENNETT: Page 3—it says there in the second to last paragraph that gross value had risen by over $2 billion since the previous calendar year since this Government had come into being. When we consider that that's about a 96 percent approval rate. Then when we look at some of the things that weren't approved—it's really hard to see how in some cases like we had last week where the Associate Minister of Finance approved a deal and then the Minister disapproved a deal on her behalf saying that a $350 million investment is not of economic value to this country. We have seen an over $2 billion increase in investment and yet a $350 million investment on 178 hectares in Waihi was not considered to be of economic value. That shows the inconsistency of the New Zealand First Party and the approach of the Green Party."