Ardern Shane: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Ardern Shane: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:637;Page:7296] 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
: 
 That was a very good call. I wish you a happy New Year Mr Assistant Speaker; this is my first opportunity to say that to you at the beginning of the new sitting. 
Last year’s statement from our Prime Minister was all about economic transformation and we know how that went; we know which way we have been transformed economically. This year is all about sustainability—another slogan. Well I say: “Yeah right!”. Just like last year there was no substance no depth and—like the Government—absolutely no sustainability in the speech. The Prime Minister needs to understand what sustainability is about. I can tell members what it is not about. It is not about cutting down more trees than we are planting. For the first time in living memory we are now cutting down more trees than we are planting. It is not about slamming the door shut on our forestry industry. 
The Kyoto Forestry Association—which people will remember was set up under this Labour Government—when describing this Labour Government stated: “Imposing massive retrospective taxes on the one industry capable of sequestering carbon is sheer idiocy”. Who could not agree with that? The work done with this Government has been totally ignored by an arrogant incompetent Government. As a result it will have more deforestation thereby taking us farther away from the Prime Minister’s vision of carbon neutrality. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: Who wrote this? 
SHANE ARDERN 
: It is interesting to note that the member for New Plymouth is in the House tonight. That was written by the Kyoto Forestry Association which was set up under the Labour Government. The Minister may not have known that. Existing forest owners are likely to decide that it is better to bulldoze spray and burn down their trees than to allow this socialist thieving Government to take more tax from them. How does that help? The Prime Minister has had her chance today to put that right but still no—the arrogance carries on. There is no resolution. 
What the socialists forget—they always do; this is not new and it happens around the world whenever we have a socialist Government—is that no matter what the industry is unless we have a sustainable bottom line of profitable industries we cannot have sustainability. “Profit” is the word that socialist Governments hate most of all. It is called a triple bottom line. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: Wake up! 
SHANE ARDERN 
: Actually that member who is one of the members on the Prime Minister’s hit list is certainly not sustainable; I can tell people that. What he needs to know is that a triple bottom line stands for most of the things that his Government stands for but it misses the profitability bit. It imposes taxes on industry like zealots with an environmental programme that will never succeed and the evidence shows that that is the case. 
We should just look at what is happening in Australia. We have afforestation going on in Australia. This will surprise the Minister. In Australia they market their timber into the same markets as we do yet they are growing more trees and we are chopping them down. How is that? Why is that happening? The Kyoto Forestry Association described the Government’s process as a manipulative sham—just like the Prime Minister’s speech today which was yet another sham. It had more words more slogans and nothing of any substance. So we can talk about gas emissions and about fixing the environment but when the very industry that needs to be given a leg up has been kicked about then none of that stands up to scrutiny. 
It was a Labour Prime Minister who described agriculture in the 1980s as a sunset industry. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Who was that? 
SHANE ARDERN 
: The Prime Minister the Rt Hon David Lange described agriculture in the 1980s as a sunset industry. And what do we have today? We have a Labour Prime Minister who has appointed a sunset Minister from the 1980s—Jim Anderton—as the Minister for Biosecurity and the Minister of Agriculture. There was not one mention of biosecurity or agriculture in the Prime Minister’s speech today. 
I will talk about biosecurity for a moment because we have seen 229 new incursions in the last 5 years under this Government. It has totally changed; it is a totally failed policy. With that number of incursions and that amount of biosecurity risk neither the economy nor the environment is sustainable—the new cliché. So it is time that this Prime Minister did something about replacing her good friend and colleague from the 1980s Jim Anderton because he clearly is an incompetent Minister. 
I just say to the Prime Minister that her good colleague is up to his neck in didymo in varroa bee mite and in GE corn. He is up to his neck in it. His ignorance of the biosecurity portfolio is costing us and it is a cost that this country will have to pay over many years to come. There are both financial costs and environmental costs and they are not sustainable. Yet the Prime Minister refuses to take action and sack someone who is clearly an incompetent old friend who is in his twilight days and who is clearly a sunset Minister on his way out. When the Minister was asked about didymo he stated that he did not agree that didymo was a threat. Can people believe that? That is why didymo is now in 30 rivers in the South Island and it is only by good luck not by good management that it has not spread to the North Island by now. I guess that the question we must ask tonight is how long it will be before didymo will spread to the North Island. 
The Minister ignored advice from Biosecurity New Zealand officials to eradicate the varroa bee mite from the South Island even though they said there was a very high probability that eradication could be successful. Further he said that he would set up an industry programme and run it through the Beekeepers Association. But he then forgot that the insecticide recommended by Biosecurity New Zealand was not available. Words absolutely fail me! “Incompetent” is not a very good way to describe him because the word is not strong enough. I cannot think of a word to describe such a Minister—certainly not “sustainable”; that is the one word I would not use. This Minister is not sustainable and this Government must go. 
To those who support this crippled Government I say “Shame on them!” because there are a number of people in this House who do that. Those people have no right at all to come into this Parliament and talk about the environment the economy and the issues of education and health because it is they who keep this Government in power. Those people need to think about what they are doing. The only true message on sustainability is that we can take on board that this Government is unsustainable. There is no question that the public will not allow it to stay much longer. The Prime Minister has completed her agenda. She has run out of ideas. The only recycling that is going on in this Government right now concerns the Ministers and certainly there are a lot of retreads over there. They are coming around and around. There is a lot of recycling of Ministers going on in that Government. 
The Prime Minister speaks of biofuels as an answer to the problem of greenhouse gas emissions and she mentioned them again today. Yet in my own electorate right now—and the member for New Plymouth will be interested in this—there is a constituent who has set up a biofuel plant. When he was doing so he went to the Minister for Industry and Regional Development and the Minister said: “No sorry. No can do. Can’t help; you don’t fit the criteria that is set down by us.” So the constituent said that he would do it himself—that he would carry on. This is a guy whom this Prime Minister has had a lot to do with because he set up a major tourist venture in the electorate. So they know all about him and they know his track record. He then said he would do it himself but what did he find? He found that the Government required a standard that had to be tested in Australia. It would not provide the services here even after he had approached them on numerous occasions to do so. But the cost of those tests has been so prohibitive that that business will probably not be sustainable. So I say to the Minister that he should have a look at that. 
The Prime Minister needs to back up her rhetoric with some action. This entrepreneur is well known to the Labour Government and he is a Maori descendant as well—he fits all the criteria the Government would like. But he probably will not be able to stay in business producing biofuel in the King Country because this Government’s costs are so high. So the Prime Minister to quote herself is a victim of her own success but there is no question in my mind that Labour does not understand the triple bottom line. This Government is not sustainable.