SpeechHon SHANE JONES (Minister of Forestry): Madam Chair thank you for the opportunity to make a contribution. I want to cover off several things but first I want to acknowledge what we've heard from the last two speakers. We've heard from a hearty genuine farmer an earthy Southlander and we've heard from a former executive of Fonterra. Now I know the public watching this debate will place a far greater level of emphasis on what an earthy farmer has to say rather than someone who graced the corridors mahogany panels and gold-plated toilet doors and then comes and attacks not only the policy makers but the Ministers on this side of the Chamber. In fact I'm beginning to wonder whether or not from time to time as Fonterra raises its head in its woozy financial state the Speaker of the House may need to address the member for Bay of Plenty as to whether there's a conflict of interest in his statements on anything to do with Fonterra. So I'd like to put that on the record and—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I'd also like the member to come to the Estimates because he's now spent a minute of his five minutes discussing an individual. Hon SHANE JONES: Of course the most exciting part about the Estimates is the $46 billion and growing that has been recorded which reflects the income to the nation from this very valuable agricultural sector. Now a key part of the broader primary sector report pertains to forestry. Now there is some confusion out in some sectors of the farming community. Of course they are travelling furtively with that side of the Chamber—i.e. the Opposition side of the Chamber—but I'm all cool about that because this is contested space. But the forestry contribution is well over 12 or 13 percent of that $46 billion in terms of export receipts. It was an area that was neglected but now it is receiving the due level of attention and fiscal love which is required.There are some areas that do deserve to be debated and one of those areas is: what's the appropriate mix of pastoral activity and forestry activity in a given location? There's one side of the debate which is covered in this report back. Now the language is slightly extravagant but the point is well made that in a number of our rural communities there is a balance to be struck. But I would say to the public that it is not the Crown forcing farmers to sell their land. They value property rights. They insist on economic sovereignty to do what they like when they like with whoever they like with their land their main capital asset. So if they are choosing to sell their land to other purchasers who have other uses in mind what does the Opposition want us to do?Do they want us to regulate the pace and who farmers can sell their land to? No. Do they want us to introduce a new level of red tape inhibiting as to what mix of forestry and farm land use should be brought forward? No because they are the apostles. They are the Pharisees of property rights and that land use should follow the investment patterns as to where landowners feel they'll get a better return and this—adverted to in the report I'm sure by the members of the Opposition party—from a party that's supposed to be into free enterprise.Now there will be some allegations—poorly thought-out and largely unsound—that the Government has unduly favoured forestry. In actual fact the report is based on information provided by our officials that in actual fact forestry land for the last 10-15 years has disappeared into farmland. So all we're seeing is the pendulum slowly swinging back to where it used to be. Of course the greatest amount of afforestation took place under the National Party in the 1990s. So what we're seeing really is land use going through a transition and forestry playing a role to enable the nation to meet its climate change obligations. I say to the farmers: it was the National Party who put you on the hook for those imposts not this side of the House. It's this side of the House that's been innovative with solutions.