Prosser RichardRICHARD PROSSER (NZ First): It is always a pleasure to follow from the previous speaker Mr Stuart Smith. I have to berate him somewhat. As a fellow winemaker Mr Smith honestly you can have low-alcohol or you can have wine. I do want to touch on some of the comments of Ms Upston one of my two favourite Ministers even though she did use her call as an opportunity to apply some spin to the statistics and continue the myth that foreigners are not coming in in droves and buying our farmland out from under us hand-over-fist. Investment is one thing; ownership is another. Simply changing ownership from a New Zealand owner to a foreign owner does not actually count as investment particularly when there is nothing stopping the money that changes hands disappearing off to the Gold Coast as I imagine quite a few of the sellers do. It did raise an interesting point because it sort of segued into what Eugenie Sage was saying about the changing face of the landscape. Obviously some of that new money I will call it—it is not investment—is going into converting land-use types. Of course the tussock in the Mackenzie Country is not a natural landscape for that area; 2000 years ago it was all tōtara forest. Now of course nature is trying to turn it back into pine forest as we have seen with wilding pines which of course the Government is putting money into and trying to eradicate in this Budget. That in itself connects with irrigation and New Zealand First is actually fully supportive of the Government's stated intention of putting more money into irrigation start-up schemes. The difficulty with that as I am sure my colleague Denis O'Rourke would attest is not the schemes themselves but actually the difficulty is obtaining money from them for some of these schemes. In actual fact the amount of capital that is needed by irrigation schemes to start up is minuscule in relation to the total cost of those schemes. What is really needed is a little kickstart to get the schemes over the line because when that happens—most of the money that goes into them is private equity from farmers as I am not sure is well understood perhaps in other parts of this side of the House never mind the wider public. I do not really want to dwell on that. The chair of the Primary Production Committee talked about biosecurity and obviously Mr O'Connor spoke on that as well. We have heard many times that it is the single most important priority of the Minister for Primary Industries. Ian McKelvie said in his contribution that it is very important that we keep up the amount of money the amount of expenditure going into biosecurity which is why it is staggering to me that when you look at the expenses revenue and capital expenditure for biosecurity under Vote Primary Industries and Food Safety revenue from the Crown for biosecurity has dropped by $16 million and revenue for border biosecurity monitoring and clearance is down by another $18 million. I know that the Government talks about the biosecurity passenger levy. That is going to take some time to ramp up and even when it does it is only going to be a replacement stream of revenue for that service not an increase in revenue for that service. So whereas it could be argued at an ideological level that there is nothing wrong with passengers coming in and paying for their own biosecurity clearance it is not actually additional investment by the nation in the vital activity of border biosecurity. We know that we are not inspecting cargo that comes into this country at anywhere near the rate we should be. One in four containers at best gets inspected. There needs to be more money spent on that. We know that we are not succeeding with our biosecurity strategy because we have threats coming through. We know that the green lane for example even if it worked up to 98.5 percent which was the Government's target would still have let in 135000 things that should not have got through the border in the last 4 years alone. Nothing is going to work other than a return to 100 percent screening and that is going to take more money. I almost despair of raising the question of biosecurity with this Government because it has come to the point where it believes its own propaganda. What it is going to take I think is 18 months and a change to a New Zealand First Government—and the next Government will be a New Zealand First Government in one shape form or another.Todd Barclay: Ha ha!RICHARD PROSSER: Mr Barclay can chortle but he is going to be looking for another job after the end of next year. It will be a New Zealand First Government in one shape form or another and we will deal with this then. I also want to touch on forestry because again Mr McKelvie mentioned that log prices were as good as they have been for a long time. Actually revenue from the sale of forest products from Crown Forest Industries Ltd is down by about $12 million. There are two things about that. I guess the Government will say it has reduced the size of forests and maybe it has. But what on earth is the Government doing selling logs anyway? Surely the whole thrust of New Zealand Inc." is that we should be selling value-added products not simply logs. What I really want to concentrate on is the anachronism that is the lack of importance this Government seems to afford to aquaculture and fisheries. We know that aquaculture is the way of the future in terms of feeding the planet. As the world's population increases and the amount of available land decreases and as pressure to produce protein increases we look increasingly to the sea. In fact last year the tonnage of farmed ocean fish harvested globally exceeded the tonnage of wild-caught ocean fish harvested for the first time. So we know that not just here in New Zealand but all around the world ocean farming is becoming more and more important and yet the amount of money under the sustainable economic development of trade's departmental output and again the expenses the Government has put into aquaculture have dropped by half a million dollars. Under fisheries management which we are told is again of vital importance that has dropped management itself by at least $200000 and fisheries enforcement and monitoring by nearly the same margin. There is a divergence between the Government's rhetoric and what it is actually putting on paper—what it is actually putting in the bank to make these things happen. Aquaculture is the way forward for New Zealand in the future and New Zealand needs to be right at the cutting edge of this industry—the development of it and support for it in all its aspects be that fin-fish farming shellfish farming mussels and oysters. Salmon farming of course is the great El Dorado on the horizon. The market for farmed salmon is about 2.4 million tonnes. Norway currently produces around about half that. There is a potential for New Zealand. We have a unique species in this country chinook salmon. Nobody else apart from one small company in Canada is farming it. We are doing it better than anybody else. There is a potential for us to supply about half the premium in that two and a half million tonnes. There is a potential for this country to have a $2.5 billion salmon farming industry. The Government is simply not putting any real effort priority or money into that. That is another failure on its part and yet another thing that we will have to correct once we are the Government. Thank you."