McKelvie IanIAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you Madam Chair. I just wanted to follow on on a couple of the topics raised by the previous speaker the Hon Nathan Guy. One of the things I'm particularly concerned about I think as a result of where we've got to in the last few months and obviously Crown Irrigation reported to the select committee of which I was the chair at the time and I think that—Hon Nathan Guy: A very good chair.IAN McKELVIE: Absolutely. Thank you Mr Guy. But I think the challenge I find with the irrigation situation is that there's a gap in any irrigation scheme proposal and the gap is the community input into that scheme and the benefit that the environment will get as a result of that. I think it's a pretty far call to expect the commercial operations to fund that up front and that was the reason for the irrigation fund largely—it funded the piece that the community couldn't fund to get those schemes off the ground because the environmental benefits of those schemes are significant. Whilst I accept that the users of those schemes in due course should pay the costs—I have no problem with that—it's getting those schemes off the ground initially that was the challenge and that's the real loss I think we've suffered as a result of that. So that's my little bit on irrigation.I want to talk a little bit about one or two other issues that came up in the course of those discussions and I wanted to specifically focus on forestry. We currently have around 50 million trees per annum planted as replacements for the trees that are cut down so that's around about 50000 hectares—if we put it in rough figures—of trees milled every year exported every year or used in the industry every year. So 50 million trees take that up. We need another 50 million trees to reach the Government's target and I guess the challenge I see in that is that if we start to use land that I consider—and I guess I'm talking about class IV land and better. If we started to use that for planting trees it'd be one of the great tragedies of New Zealand history because that land has much more value in other areas than trees. So the reason I raise this is if you think about the potential to put whole farm blocks into trees then you straight away run the risk of capturing a whole lot of very good quality land in that proposal. That would be a tragedy for New Zealand's future.I just want to point out one or two of the challenges we've had with policies like that in the past where Governments have I guess initiated measures that at the time they thought were logical and I guess if you go back to the time of supplementary minimum prices they were the thing that created most of the challenge we've got with erosion in the hill country now. At the time the Government of the day thought that was a sound policy but history has proved it to be significantly flawed. I also think there are some elements of the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act which is another topic that is very topical at the Primary Production Committee and in the primary sector—some of that is flawed as well when you think about it. It caused perverse behaviour to occur in the industry because it forced Fonterra effectively to pick up milk wherever it was viable to grow it from a farmer perspective—it didn't always create the right decisions.So Governments interfering in natural processes have got to be very careful how they do that and I think that's quite dangerous for our futures.Greg O'Connor: Does that include subsidising irrigation Mr McKelvie?IAN McKELVIE: I'm not talking—you didn't listen clearly. You should listen more carefully when you're sitting in the Chamber because I talked about exactly the piece of the irrigation scheme that was necessary to be initially subsidised to get it off the ground. It's got nothing to do with the commercial operation of irrigation.I also want to talk briefly about some other areas that I think are really important to us and that's both the funding of biosecurity and the control and operation of our fishing industries. They are really important things to fund but it's very important that we also retain the knowledge and expertise of people in those areas because it is a significant piece of New Zealand's history and it's also a significant piece of our income. The fishing industry returns about $2 billion in export earnings a year to New Zealand and we need to manage—and I think we do manage it very well. But we need to ensure that it continues to be managed in an extremely positive manner and to enable both recreational and commercial fisheries to operate in tandem and to do it very well. I hope that the Government continues to do that.Finally the one thing I just wanted to very briefly talk about is the honey industry because I think that's a significant concern to New Zealand's future. The Primary Production Committee over the years have had numerous inquiries and views on this and it's very important that this industry gets its challenges resolved and that it continues in the future. Thank you Madam Chairperson.