Carter David: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Carter David: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:4149] 
Hon DAVID CARTER (Chairperson of the Primary Production Committee) 
: 
 I want to raise two questions in my brief contribution to Vote Agriculture and Forestry and acknowledge that with regards to the Minister Jim Anderton I am also addressing an issue that probably traverses biosecurity. I want to comment on the recent discovery of the varroa bee mite in the South Island and on an incredible report in the Christchurch  
Press 
 yesterday stating that the Minister of Agriculture who is also the Minister for Biosecurity has on his desk a report about the feasibility of whether it is possible to eradicate the varroa bee mite from the South Island. The report went on to state that the Minister was not able to read that report and make a decision because he was embarking on a week-long trip to South America. I want to say to Mr Anderton that the issue of the varroa bee mite is far more important than his jaunt to South America. 
The Government should have learnt from when the varroa bee mite was first discovered in the North Island that we need to act quickly on biosecurity incursions. In that particular case the hapless Marian Hobbs was the Minister for Biosecurity. I believe strongly that there was an opportunity to eradicate the mite from the North Island but for 13 weeks Marian Hobbs kept calling for report after report and by the time the final report came forward 3 months later it was of course too late to do anything. We are probably now getting into the same position with regard to the varroa bee mite in the South Island. Mr Anderton should have stayed in New Zealand had a look at the report and made a decision. There may then have been a chance to eradicate the mite from the South Island. 
Secondly I want to find out from the Minister of Agriculture what is going on with the public access debate in this country. Prior to the last election we had Helen Clark with her agenda saying that Labour was going to open up private property to public access. There was outrage not only from the farmers of New Zealand but from private landowners throughout the country. Helen Clark quickly backtracked on that issue and hid it as we went into the 2005 election. Now with the election over a series of meetings on the access issue is taking place around the country with John Acland John Aspinall Bryce Johnson and other members of the access panel and the debate is alive and well. 
Last week I attended a meeting in Christchurch and though the panel members may well stand there and say there is no risk to private property rights they have no ability to say that because all they are doing is conducting a series of public meetings. The actual agenda still lies in the hands of Helen Clark—and we well know how much respect she has for private property rights; she has no respect for private property rights at all. 
I want the Minister to tell us today what is going on with this debate and what the process will be once the access panel has reported on the meetings it is holding throughout New Zealand. I know what the conclusions will be. There will be a general “touchy-feely” conclusion amongst property owners and those recreationists wanting better access rights. But guaranteeing better access rights to waterways and to the public lands of this country must by necessity impinge on the private property rights of New Zealand landowners. If that is Helen Clark’s agenda if that is Jim Anderton’s agenda if that is Damien O’Connor’s agenda then I ask them to be honest and have a debate and not to hide behind the sham meetings that John Acland is conducting around the country at the moment. 
Those are the questions I raise. New Zealand farmers have had a gutsful of the Labour Government and policies such as “fart-taxes” public access on to their private land and the microchipping of farm dogs. The farmers of New Zealand have won every debate so far. We thought we had the security of knowing the public access debate was off the agenda but we are now very suspicious that Helen Clark has rekindled her agenda and it is back for debate.