O'Connor Damien: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeO'Connor Damien: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 08 August 2013. Volume:692;Page:12526. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]9.Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman)to theMinister for Primary Industries: Does he stand by all his statements?Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister for Primary Industries):Yes unlike the press statement issued by the member last week—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member has now answered the question.Hon Damien O’Connor: Does he stand by his statement: “New Zealand is a trading nation. We live off our exports …”; if so given the recent dents to our export reputation as seen with kiwifruit melamine dicyandiamide meat exports palm kernel and now Fonterra whey contamination why has he cut the Ministry for Primary Industries’ budget by $26 million?Hon NATHAN GUY: Yes I stand by those statements. Indeed if the member actually takes some time to consider the benefits of the merger he would realise that some of those cost changes are realised because there is only one chief executive now.There are not three IT systems there are not three finance systems and by and large the merger is going very well.Hon Damien O’Connor: Given the recent biosecurity incursions ofPsa and the giant white butterfly failures in the meat and dairy industries and the cost of those to horticulture and agriculture does he consider the disestablishment of the independent agencies Biosecurity New Zealand and the Food Safety Authority to have been a major mistake and the formation of one super-ministry to be a complete failure; if not why not?Hon NATHAN GUY: No I do not agree with that member’s assertion because the laws that actually control the standards are set and the processes that they go through were not changed as a result of the merger. The other comment that I would make to the member is he should have a look across the Tasman because the Department of Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry in Australia—DAFF—is structured the same as it is here.Hon Damien O’Connor: Has he seen recent reports by the Ministry of Primary Industries on the Ministry of Primary Industries that state firstly that it needs to strengthen its documentation practices; secondly its resourcing needs to keep pace with the requirements of China; thirdly it needs to define its criteria for when risks are notified and escalated; and fourthly it is underprepared for potential incursions from high-risk organisms; and if he has read them does he feel his oversight of the ministry to be a failure and that he should take some action to justify his role as Minister for Primary Industries?Hon NATHAN GUY: I disagree with a lot of the assertions by the member. In particular if he took some time to read through the China meat review report he would find that it was not a result of the lack of funding or the merger; it was because of a result of a certification issue involving a human error. As a result of that review there are some changes now that are being worked through—a 25 point plan.Hon David Cunliffe: Does the Minister stand by his statement of 15 June 2013 that the Snapper 1 fish stock is “rebuilding well” and is “growing and in good health”; if so why is he consulting on slashing the recreational snapper bag limit from nine fish a day to just three?Hon NATHAN GUY: As the member should know if he read the information booklet there are a variety of options that are being consulted on. There is no predetermination. We need to work through those results that are underpinned by science—because the Ministry for Primary Industries and the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research do a lot of science—and I am looking forward to receiving those submissions and making a decision in due course.Hon David Cunliffe: In regard to those options does the Minister stand by his statement of 15 June 2013 when he said that he would consult on “decreases to both commercial and recreational limits.” when in fact all of the options that he is now consulting on require major cuts to the public take and none whatsoever to any commercial take?Hon NATHAN GUY: The member is getting ahead of himself. This is a consultation period. The member needs to encourage his constituents to put a submission in. Then in a timely manner there will be a decision. None of these options has been ruled in or ruled out. These options are going through a proper consultation process.Hon David Cunliffe: Was the Minister getting ahead of himself when he changed his mind or were the 350 angry New Zealanders who packed a school hall in Thames last night absolutely furious at the proposed cuts and was National MP Scott Simpson getting ahead of himself when he told the meeting that he disagreed with the Minister’sproposals and that he would be lobbying him to reverse them; if so can he confirm whether Mr Simpson has yet actually lobbied him whether he was successful and whether it will be enough to allow the Minister to save his job?Hon NATHAN GUY: I realise that this is an extremely important issue. I also realise that Snapper 1 is important to recreational fishers. It is important to commercial fishers and it is also important to customary fishers and iwi. These proposals need to be worked through in a considered way. There is way too much rhetoric in this debate and I encourage people to put a submission in by 23 August so that all of their views can be considered.Hon Trevor Mallard: Further to the Minister’s answer to the first supplementary question as to savings in the Ministry for Primary Industries being in part from having only one chief executive when did the policy of the Government change to have the ministry pay for the chief executive and not the State Services Commission?Hon NATHAN GUY: Oh that is a bizarre question. What I was saying there in answer to that question was that as a result of bringing the three entities together there has needed to be only one director-general and as a result there have been savings as a result of that merger.Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think it was a relatively simple question and that was: when did the policy change to have it come out of the ministry’s budget. That question was not addressed.Mr SPEAKER: But there was more to the question. That is the difficulty. If the member had just asked that question—Hon Trevor Mallard: All the question was was: further to his answer when did that occur? There was only one leg to the question.Mr SPEAKER: To move the matter forward I am going to invite the member to ask the question that he originally asked.Hon Trevor Mallard: This is my best attempt because it is not written down. Further to his answer to the first supplementary question with regard to the savings being from the salary of the chief executive when did the policy of the Government change in order to have the funds come from the Ministry for Primary Industries and not the State Services Commission?Hon NATHAN GUY: In answer to the question what I said to the member is that part of those savings are as a result of having only one director-general from the coming together of the three entities. There are also savings which I explained from requiring only one IT system one financial management system and the list goes on.