O'Connor GregGREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): I've sat here this afternoon getting quite angry—or certainly agitated—with the speeches of those Opposition members. However as usual Mr McKelvie has somewhat calmed me down. He is something of a voice of reason there. But Mr McKelvie has probably used his years to see that there have been changes in the agricultural sector. He can probably remember when the dip used to be poured straight into the river or straight on to the field and outside because certainly growing up on farms I reflect on some of the practices that I was aware of—not only on the farm I grew up on but on the farms of relations and the farms of those in the neighbourhood. They are practices that the current crop of farmers laugh at—they couldn't believe it. I liken it to people who you tell now that we used to smoke on aeroplanes. People laugh—the current generation—and that's the analogy I use for some of the farming practices of the past. I'm talking about things like as I've said pouring the dip straight into the creek after it had been used to dip the sheep that had gone through. I'm talking about pouring the pig manure straight into the rivers which is something that I was very aware of and the outrage when the local council came and made us dig a settling pond and the double outrage when they came and made us dig another settling pond just so that there was some sort of straining before the effluent went straight into the river and upset our whitebaiting practices I might say. When it was cleansed not only did it not go straight in but it actually improved the whitebait practices. But the point I make—and I go back to what I've seen today—is the attempt to weaponise the rural-urban divide because that's exactly what's happening. It's a terrible terrible thing to do because fortunately this year—and it was very apparent at Estimates—we saw two things that showed the absolute necessity for urban and rural to work together.One of them is the M. bovis. Now that was something that was actually threatening this country's industry. It was going to threaten our export industry as much as anything else that is possibly going to happen this year. We made a very courageous decision and it was paid for. There was some local funding some rural funding but actually it was paid for by the taxpayer because actually New Zealanders understood the need that if that were to get out of control—if we didn't get it under control—it was going to affect us all. I liken that to the fruit fly outbreak in Auckland—again an absolute necessity that New Zealanders particularly those in Auckland those who were inconvenienced by that understood fully the impact on the rural sector if the fruit fly was going to get out. They were the ones who were inconvenienced directly. However those who would be infected if that fruit fly goes beyond Auckland—who is going to be affected—is going to be the farmers of New Zealand it's going to be the croppers of New Zealand and it's going to be the orchardists of New Zealand. So that is why it's absolutely essential that we understand.I see it being weaponised. In fact Barbara Kuriger—I really have to say it was probably summed up by what Barbara Kuriger said—she said that there is no problem in the rural sector with farming everything is booming nobody has a problem with interest rates and nobody has a problem with the prices but they have a problem with the change of Government. That's essentially what she said and that sums it up in one thing. There's actually nothing wrong. Everything is fine except you have got a National Party who are down there scaring the bejesus—with absolutely no evidence—out of the rural sector. It is going to be them.What I'll say to those who now may be watching farmers saying how terrible it is that we're being made to maybe change some practices when we talk about methane and when we talk about cleaning up our water is well what I say to you is the next generation of farmer will look back at those practices and they will laugh. They will say Did we really make no attempt to reduce the amount of methane? Did we really advocate that that should happen? Did we really advocate that there shouldn't be any of the other changes to cleaning up our water?" These things are not about farming—I think again one of the speakers here said that this is about damaging farming. No; it's not. This is about ensuring the sustainability of farming. This is making sure that we aren't doing the practices that we did.If we don't change these practices you will be laughing—I'm sorry Madam Chair; I shouldn't use that word.DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's correct.GREG O'CONNOR: Mr van de Molen will be laughing at the practices of his parents and grandparents on the farm as his sons and grandsons will be laughing at his practices if they're not changed. This is a good Government doing good work and the ultimate beneficiaries will be farmers."