Prosser Richard: Annual Review Debate — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeProsser Richard: Annual Review Debate — In Committee[Sitting date: 29 April 2015. Volume:704;Page:3049. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First):I am always pleased to follow on from my erstwhile colleague Mr O’Connor. I am going to echo some of Mr O’Connor’s thoughts but I bring with me one or two bouquets along with the brickbats. Being as we are a constructive party of the Opposition we recognise that the Government has made some advance moves in the field of primary industries—not as many as perhaps we would like and not as many as perhaps we think it could have. It is an opportunity to take the Government to task as we look at the way it has allocated its funding over the past year and in the year to come and where it places its priorities. It is no understatement to say that the primary sector is absolutely vital to New Zealand—to our economy to our nation to our way of life.Ian McKelvie: Good boy Richard.RICHARD PROSSER: Thank you Mr McKelvie. I do realise that we are all actually on much the same page here as the chairman of the Primary Production Committee on which I am proud to serve. We have differences of opinion in terms of the best methodology that should be employed obviously and that is as it should be in an open and wide-ranging democracy such as we have here.Ian McKelvie: We’ve put the guns away.RICHARD PROSSER: Never put the guns away—never put the guns away Ian.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Back to the debate I think.RICHARD PROSSER: Thank you Mr Chair for that reminder.As members here will know New Zealand First is of course rapidly becoming the party of choice for people in the provinces. We are becoming the town and country party as it were—something that perhaps the National Party used to be many years ago when people in the provinces in the rural sector and in the farming sector used to look to the National Party to represent their interests. But of course nowadays the National Party has become the party of Queen Street—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I am now going to stand up and the member will sit down. I am going to remind him to come back to the debate. It is not a general political debate.RICHARD PROSSER: Thank you Mr Chair. Because of that shift in its priorities the Government has failed to adequately resource some of the most important things to the primary sector in terms of its budgetary allocations.Ian McKelvie: The racing industry?RICHARD PROSSER: I am not going to talk about the racing industry Mr McKelvie.I want to look at two things in particular and one of course is biosecurity. I know that Mr O’Connor has touched on this and we have similar concerns. We want to see sufficient resourcing in the Budget put into biosecurity so that we do have 100 percent X-ray of all luggage. That is hand-held luggage in-hold luggage cargo and mail. We would like to see the 0800 pest line staffed 24/7. As we discovered during the Queensland fruit fly incursion it has not been. We want more staff at the ports as well. We know that there have been increases in boots on the ground in recent years but it is also fair to state that some of those additional boots on the ground have been to replace staff who were taken away from the front line in the years preceding. We are not actually back to a net profitability situation as much as we could be and really as much as we should be.This is one of the bouquets. We are pleased that the Government has announced that there is going to be a review of biosecurity at the border. I think that behind the scenes the Government probably does recognise that when the move away from 100 percent screening was made it was a mistake. We know that since the green lane has been instituted and people are able to enter the country without any kind of inspection something like 9 million people over the last 3 years have come through that channel.We also know that this channel according to the surveys afterwards has proven to be the most reliable and the most effective in terms of voluntary compliance with biosecurity regulations. But we know that the target for the Ministry for Primary Industries was 98.5 percent and we also know that at no airport in the country was that target achieved. There might have been achievements up around 95 96 or 97 percent. But even had that 98.5 percent target been achieved something like 135000 people would have come through the green lane in the last 3 years carrying something that they should not have been carrying. It would have been an item of fruit a jar of honey or an item of clothing that had been on a farm or in a forest in a country where foot-and-mouth disease is endemic. We know that at least 135000 incursions have happened over that time since 100 percent screening was abandoned. It is actually more than that—it is definitely more than that because we know that that 98.5 percent compliance was not achieved.We do appreciate the fact that the Government has recognised that a review is needed and that it will undertake a review. The Government will we hope and believe look at the money that is required in order to reinstitute 100 percent screening. We believe that the primary sector is so vital in terms of the sheer volume of money the sheer percentage of the economy that is dependent on it that we think and hope the Government will see sense and it will allocate the money and restore that 100 percent screening. It will be a great thing for the primary sector.The other issue that I want to touch on briefly and it is something that we have made mention of in recent weeks and months is the OVERSEER nutrient budget management tool. OVERSEER is a piece of software that was developed in order to help farmers manage the nutrient inputs on to their farms and from that calculate the amounts of leachate that were coming off at the other end. However OVERSEER was never designed as a rule-setting tool but in the absence of anything else it is being used for that. OVERSEER is a good system that can be made a lot better with the addition of just a very very small input of money. In the grand scheme of things about $5 million or $6 million over the next few years allocated by the Government through its Budget would provide sufficient resourcing for that management tool to be calibrated properly and brought up to standard for all farming models and for all soil types in New Zealand.At the moment what we have got is a computer program that was not designed to be used as a rule-setting mechanism which in the absence of anything else is being used as that rule-setting mechanism. The Government is allowing local authorities regional councils and local councils to use OVERSEER as the baseline for their monitoring systems. We believe and we hope that the Government will accept it that if the Government is going to allow local authorities to use a tool like this for that purpose then the Government has a responsibility to make sure that that tool is fit for that purpose. We would like to see this Government through its Budget allocate sufficient funding to OVERSEER. As I say only about another $5 million or $6 million according to Federated Farmers is all it will take to bring this tool up to speed.Only this morning we heard about a farmer in Canterbury who is an award-winning farmer in terms of environmental performance who has been told by Environment Canterbury that the nitrate leaching from his farm is over and above what he is allowed to put out. This farmer is an organic farmer. His nitrogen inputs to his farm are zero. So when you have a program that tells you that a farmer who puts no nitrogen on his farm has too much nitrogen coming off it there is a problem—there is a problem. It is a problem that is easily solved with a small cash injection and we would love to see the Government do that. Thank you.