O'Connor Damien: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
O'Connor Damien: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:640;Page:10405] 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister for Rural Affairs) 
: 
 I stand as Minister for Rural Affairs and as Acting Minister of Agriculture to respond to some of the ridiculous claims made here in the Chamber. I have to say that it was rather rich of the previous speaker to get up in this Chamber and criticise Biosecurity New Zealand. When we came into Government in 1999 the National Government had spent $86 million or thereabouts on biosecurity. This year $186 million has been spent. That is why we are catching more people who are trying to bring in goods. That is why we are catching more at the borders. I say that that is a measure of success. 
The speeches we have just heard clearly identify a party wracked with division. It really does not know whether it should advocate for more spending and more people in agriculture and forestry—an area in which over 17 percent of the GDP in this country is created and generated. It is a party that does not know whether it should criticise the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry for increasing the number of staff by 40 percent or whether it should cut its spending and see that number of staff reduced to the point where they are not able to undertake the tasks before them. 
I will go through just a few things. I think the select committee report correctly identifies a few of the issues facing the ministry. It is a key policy department it has huge responsibilities in the areas of biosecurity and food safety and I think it has done an exceptional job through the year. 
I would like to look at what we might consider as the alternative policy. What would those critics who we have just heard in this Chamber put up by way of an alternative to the current management— 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Nothing. 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: Not nothing if I can challenge that assertion. In fact Mr Key announced a keynote address—“note” being the important part of that I would have to suggest because it certainly was not a substantive document—at the Fieldays and the National Party released its rural policy document. Here it is in my hand: the alternative to the current management of agriculture and forestry in this country. We have to remember that this was launched by Mr John Key a person who in 2005 said with regard to Kyoto given that we now accept I think that climate change food miles and a number of other issues are challenges before us and Kyoto is an international agreement that we are all looking to for guidance: “this is a complete and utter hoax if I may say so. The impact of the Kyoto Protocol even if one believes in global warming—and I am somewhat suspicious of it—is that we will see billions and billions of dollars poured into fixing something that we are not even sure is a problem”. 
I think the world accepts that we do have a challenge ahead of us—certainly the people of Northland do—and we are prepared to move forward. That is why when we came into Government we set up the Sustainable Farming Fund. That is why we have poured more money into research and development. It is absolutely essential in an area that produces 17 percent of our GDP that we should have a sustainable production system in place. 
 So what we will have now is an alternative policy or so we are told. I flicked through the rural policy document. There is a lovely photo of Mr John Key and one of Mr David Carter in it. It moves on through into key areas. On sustainable agriculture there are no proposals—absolutely no policy proposals at all. On forestry there are no proposals but it states: “National believes Labour’s 10 percent deforestation cap should be abolished because it has become counterproductive to both the economy and the environment.” So I would ask Mr Carter how National would put some limits on deforestation in this country. 
In research and development there is another one-pager from the National Party. There are absolutely no policy proposals from the National Party. 
It moves on to another area that the National Party has made a song and dance about for years: the Resource Management Act. National brought that Act into legislation and the only thing that I can see here is a proposal to introduce new mechanisms to eliminate vexatious and frivolous objections. Well if National had done its homework it would have found out that in 2005 just prior to the last election that is exactly what we did and we changed the legislation. 
We move on to rural infrastructure. There is nothing absolutely nothing stated by way of policy other than a statement regarding rural telecommunications. It states: “National will be looking closely at this issue.” Well I wish Mr Carter good luck. There are one-pagers on property rights and land access and nothing by way of policy proposals. However moving on to the next one Landcorp it states: “National favours a carefully staged process of selling Landcorp farms”. I guess that National members will have to fund their tax cuts in some way. I do not think that Landcorp the agricultural sector in this country or indeed Mr Ardern think that selling Landcorp is a smart idea because I know that the member understands full well the value of being a participant in what is a key part of our economy. 
There is another page on accident compensation. I think it is important that in spite of the absence of anything coming from the previous speakers we identify some indications of where National should it ever come into Government could possibly take us in some key areas. National will reintroduce competition to the accident compensation market. Those members will privatise accident compensation. Let us get it out on the table and put it out where people can understand it. In an area of the economy such as in agriculture where farmers are—[ 
Interruption 
] Yes Mr Chairman I will keep it tight; it is I know a waste of time trying to refer to National Party policy. 
This Government full well understands the need to support agriculture and forestry through the proper investment in infrastructure and in research and development. They are things that cost this Government money. We consider it to be investment. The National Party’s only proposals—to sell Landcorp to privatise accident compensation and to cut taxes—mean only one thing. That means key cut-backs in areas of rural health rural education and in roading. In this document we have a question from the National Party about how they think rural roads should be funded. Mr Williamson put a proposal out there to have private funding for roads and perhaps my colleague Mr Duynhoven could explain that because I am sure the National Party— 
Hon David Carter 
: Good proposal. 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: Mr Carter says that is a good proposal. It is really important that when National releases its agricultural policy those members say exactly what they mean— 
Hon David Carter 
: Oh we will. 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: Well that is great because that member has not said it with regard to any other policy area. 
Hon David Carter 
: You’ve just been announcing it. 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: If I have been announcing National Party policy I am sure that the country would be pleased to hear that. 
The Minister of Agriculture is indeed focused on and dedicated to agriculture. The summit that has been referred to rather flippantly is the first time in 30 years that all parts of the agricultural sector will be brought together to discuss and to focus on the huge challenges that face us as we move into the market about value-added agriculture about proper infrastructural investment and about proper biosecurity. This Government is very proud to stand on its record of investment in biosecurity in rural roading and in rural health care and of supportive legislation that has seen the agricultural sector grow and prosper under this Government. 
Vote agreed to.