Patterson MarkMARK PATTERSON (NZ First): Thank you Madam Chair. Since my name was referenced in that last speech I do appreciate the opportunity. I will start with the contribution on the Mycoplasma bovis situation in terms of how the Ministry for Primary Industries represented it to us within the annual review and I just would like to talk about the politics of that. I would acknowledge Barbara Kuriger over there who has played a role in taking some of the politics out of it—Opposition members that have put their farmers first—and I acknowledge the Minister because I'm sure that if the other members' experience is the same as mine when you're taking cases—he's actually reached into cases personally and tried to get resolution which is not necessarily his role in an operational matter but I think it shows that he is concerned about the individual farmers concerned. I do want to go back to that billion trees strategy and I thought Mr van de Molen obviously wasn't listening to my previous contribution on this because I did outline that it's not the billion trees strategy that is leading to mass afforestation; it is only a 300 hectare maximum. There has not been mass afforestation because of this policy. It is about right tree right place and right purpose and there's lots of rules and stipulations that you have to go through before you can get those grants.Now talking about being out amongst the farmers well I was actually one of seven coalition MPs at the Farm Forestry Association conference about 10 days ago at Rotorua. There was not a single National Party MP there. It's actually turned into a bit of a quiz question Who is the National Party's forestry spokesman?" because nobody seems to know and he certainly was not—or she was certainly not—at that conference while we were there listening to those farmers and to some very sensible contributions about how forestry as the Minister outlined before dinner can fit into a more profitable farming system.That's not to say that we're not concerned and I was pleased to hear the Minister reference that in his contribution as well. We don't want to see huge swathes of countryside turned into pine trees and we haven't got a tin ear to that. We have heard and are hearing—and I know the Minister in the chair and I know Minister Jones and other senior Ministers Minister Sage I believe as well have received a delegation just yesterday—from mayors. We are very engaged in this. If we pull the levers too hard as a Government—we won't be arrogant enough as the Minister said and we will make some adjustments but it is about acknowledging that concern.If we go on from that part of that of course is our response to the climate change stuff. It's really important that we do our bit. We have made those commitments. The previous Government made those commitments on our behalf and we are delivering on them. It's not fair to say that there are no tools in the tool box to address some of these things and particularly the methane. In fact there are three strands of technology in progress. One is genetics and Kiritapu Allan and I were at the Livestock Improvement Corporation the other day a couple weeks ago. They were outlining their programme for genetically breeding more efficient animals and they believe they can get a 10 percent reduction over that 30-year period. So that's a fair bit of the heavy lifting we can do with genetics with just the technology that we've got available. We need to tell that story a little bit more. I think that to just scaremonger and say there's no tools out there—the tools are coming and we do have some time. Actually credit to the previous Government and John Key: I think he set up that greenhouse gas alliance at Massey where we've got work going on an international effort to get vaccines that can make gut efficiencies and the like which will reduce methane emissions. And of course we have got those grasses that AgResearch are developing. We do have to have that conversation about those grasses and their place. If farmers are being asked to make a contribution they will want the tools and we do have to have that discussion. There may be a trade-off but it's a discussion that we absolutely have to have in place. Actually because of the work that New Zealand First did in structuring that zero carbon bill to mean that future Parliaments have got the chance to reassess where those levels are should those technologies take a little bit longer we've really future-proofed—[Time expired]"