Cosgrove Clayton: Estimates Debate —  
Cosgrove Clayton: Estimates Debate —  
[Volume:610;Page:7249] 
CLAYTON COSGROVE (NZ Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I rise to take a brief call on this vote. I wish to deal with the issue of the moment that has preoccupied a number of members in this House and I am sure that Mr Eckhoff will preoccupy us with it even further in his speech—that is the agricultural emissions research levy. From the outset I want to say that as a member of Parliament who comes from a seat that is half rural and contains many highly skilled farmers I have great respect for those farming communities even though I do not come from farming stock myself. 
A few weeks ago the Associate Minister of Agriculture was in my electorate of Waimakariri and contrary to a lot of the bluster and hot air coming out of the National Party with threats of “Will members of Parliament turn up to meetings?” I know that members of Parliament from this side of the House will show up anywhere at any time to front up to their constituents. I attended a meeting with about 50 farmers in a place called Fernside in my electorate with the Associate Minister of Agriculture Damien O’Connor. We had a free and frank exchange of views with farmers. We were with the farming communities for 2 hours and they were not preoccupied with this issue. They wanted to talk about a broad range of issues of concern to them and they said a large number of positive things about this Government and the direction of agriculture policy. 
However to get back to climate change we addressed the issue of the agricultural emissions research levy. I want to put a couple of facts and figures to the House. This Government recognises the value of our farming communities and our agricultural sector the value to our economy and the backbone of our economy. That is why this Government exempted the agricultural industry from the carbon charge. Every other industry—manufacturers in my electorate—will have to pay a carbon tax. Patience and Nicholson a tool manufacturer in my electorate will have to pay a carbon tax. Shoe manufacturers will have to pay a carbon tax and on it goes. 
The Government took the step in recognising the importance of our farming communities by exempting them from that carbon tax. However the Government said that the quid pro quo for that was that we would ask our farming communities to pay this levy of 9c a sheep and I believe that it is around 54c per beef animal and up to about 72c per dairy cow per year. That equates to around $300 per farm per year. 
Every other industry in New Zealand is paying a carbon tax. I am prepared to front up to any of my farmers to listen to them to talk to them and to debate the issue because it is worth having that debate. The agricultural sector will pay about $300 per farm per year even though livestock emissions equate to around 54 percent of total emissions in our economy. I would not have thought that that was such a bad deal. Nobody whatever business he or she is in—and farmers are business people like everybody else—likes to pay additional charges or levies. However one would have to argue that one of our biggest industries—that is agriculture the backbone of our economy—is at the greatest risk from the negative impacts of climate change. 
Members should look at what happens in drought conditions in my patch in North Canterbury and see the deterioration of the quality of livestock and pasture in a dry season. I would have thought that the industry whilst not embracing this levy would look upon it in a positive way. I am told by the scientific community that it is a proven fact that if we can decrease emissions from livestock that can translate into efficiency and productivity with the animal increasing body mass and the quality of meat or dairy or associated by-products. I would have thought that that would have been a good thing that our farming communities would embrace. 
We have exempted our farming communities from the carbon tax until 2012. A lot of bluster and a lot of hot air have emanated from the National Party and ACT which seized on anything negative to try to drum up some support in the farming communities. Members of National and ACT did not give a rat’s about the farming communities for over a decade. They sold out the farming communities completely. We now have a climate change issue that has created some controversy I will admit. Any time we want to put a levy or a charge on any sector nobody particularly likes it; I accept that. But as outlined in these estimates the money that is raised will go into research to try to alleviate some of the problems created by 54 percent of emissions. 
 In doing that I think it will translate—if the scientists are good enough and I am sure they are—into some productivity. Some have tried to fan the flames appearing on picket lines and encouraging certain folk to send excrement through the mail—although judging by some of the speeches we have had today from some of the political parties the excrement could go both ways; one could wrap up some of the speeches on this issue and mail them back and they would be equal in quality to some of the excrement coming into Parliament. Rather than indulging in those naive childish and stupid tactics I encourage all members of Parliament to go to the meetings debate the issues and actually deal with some of the facts. 
I enjoyed the meeting in Waimakariri with our farmers. The great thing about rural communities is that when we talk about these issues the farmers give it to us between the eyes. They give it straight and we can have a good-quality debate—unlike some of the stuff we hear around this place. These estimates are a chance to get out some facts about this issue. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Well get some facts out. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I would like to challenge Dr Smith and others to stand up and make a comparison between the $300 a year he will be required to pay per farm—I do not know whether he has one six or 10 farms he being one of the landed gentry over there. That charge should be compared with manufacturers possibly in his electorate and in others who will be paying the full carbon tax. As I said before 54 percent of our total emissions—and Dr Smith is knowledgeable in this area—is from livestock. We are asking for $300 a year not to spend on ourselves but to go into research to try to find ways to cut down on those emissions in order to increase the quality of livestock and thus productivity. 
I conclude by saying that everybody on this side of the Chamber—and I am sure on all sides of the Chamber—has respect for our farming communities although the proof of the pudding is in the eating of course. Right across the board in agriculture and trade we can stand on our record of support to our farming communities right through regional development— 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: You sure can’t stand on your record of understanding science. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
:—unlike Dr Smith when he was in Government with his crew. They sold out on our farming communities and regions. They raised the flag of surrender on our rural communities. Evidence of that can be seen in the result of the last election and in the rural booths in many electorates—electorates in which farmers voted with their feet for a sound Minister of Agriculture and a sound Government. I do not say that in an arrogant way— 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Be responsible and face the facts. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: The member should pipe down and breathe through his nose as one of his former colleagues used to say. Farmers voted for this Government because they could see a set of agriculture policies and regional development policies that would reinforce and assist them. It is acknowledged throughout our agricultural communities that we have a superb Minister of Agriculture who is a true farmer—not a Queen Street or a Colombo Street farmer; a real one—and an Associate Minister of Agriculture who up until recently was also a farmer. They go around the country engaging with our farming communities and fronting up. They take a bit of borax but that is part of the job. 
I support these estimates. I think they are sound and I hope as the debate goes on that we will have a chance to test some of the arguments in respect of the emissions levy without there being a lot of rhetoric and hot air. Let us have a debate on facts as I have outlined—on scientific and statistical facts—not rhetoric.