Hon David Carter - Hansard

Walking Access Bill

nospam@example.com (Staff) — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 14:45:00 +1200

Walking Access Bill
In Committee

Hon DAVID CARTER (National) : National supports the third reading of the Walking Access Bill. We do so because we finally see common sense prevail in what has been a very difficult and emotive debate. I acknowledge also the contribution of John Acland, who has been involved in this for a long time, and has certainly at times incurred the wrath of many of our farmers. My thanks also go to Eric Roy for his involvement in the process. He was an inspired choice by Jim Sutton, the predecessor of Damien O’Connor as the Minister for Rural Affairs, because when he was not a member of Parliament he was able to be on the Land Access Ministerial Reference Group and provide the very good common-sense perspective of a landowner.

The reason this debate has been so destructive is that it threatened the sanctity of private property rights. It threatened to create a real divide between rural New Zealand and urban New Zealand. I am pleased today that finally common-sense legislation has been presented by the Labour Government. In my mind, this became a personal crusade of the Prime Minister, Helen Clark. I have no idea why she developed this personal crusade, but there is a strong rumour around the high country of the South Island that on one of her regular expeditions around the high country she and her tramping group were denied access to a farming property. I suspect she was denied access not because the farmer did not want them on the land enjoying his farm, but because the group never bothered to ask the farmer for permission in the first place. That is a strong rumour. It is hard to prove, but it is certainly one that one picks up every time one goes through Tekap?. This argument should be all about respecting private property rights, something that Ms Moroney finds very, very difficult to do.

Today we finally see a good way of delivering better public access to our public estate. But what this bill does—and it does it well—is that it finally respects the private property rights of farmers. They like people enjoying access to their farms. I say to Sue Moroney that the only thing they want is the privilege of being asked first. That is all that was required in this debate. That is what John Acland and his reference group finally found when they went and spoke to the thousands of landowners throughout the country who found the original proposal by Jim Sutton and Helen Clark absolutely abhorrent to private property rights and to democracy. What we see today is a strategic back-down. It is a big back-down for the Labour Government.

Lesley Soper: Just nonsense!

Hon DAVID CARTER: Ms Soper has not been here long enough to actually understand the issue and know the derision and division it caused throughout rural New Zealand. Tonight we have a pragmatic solution. The important thing Ms Moroney needs to realise is that it is actually the policy that National advanced at the very outset of this debate. We said that this is what we wanted to do. One has to respect private property rights and at least have the ability, the common sense, and the decency to ask permission if one wants to go on private land.

Christopher Finlayson: You’ve upset them over the Prime Minister—do it again!

Hon DAVID CARTER: It is very easy to upset them over the Prime Minister. It is also quite a lot of fun.

The other thing this bill does is acknowledge that in some cases access to a public resource is denied because it is effectively encompassed by private land. Legislation has finally said that in those circumstances we need to do what National always said we need to do: enter into good-faith negotiations with the landowner and find a solution. Finally, after 5, 6, or 7 years of acrimony and division, we have the solution that National advocated in the first place, and that is why it is with pleasure that National finally supports this legislation.

But the question that Sue Moroney can answer when she next takes a call is why Helen Clark caused all this angst. Why did the farmers throughout New Zealand tie orange ribbons round their gates, their trees, and any other structure they could attach a ribbon to in order to signal to New Zealanders that private property rights were important? Where Helen Clark went wrong, and where Sue Moroney is now going wrong, is that it did not become a debate between rural New Zealand and urban New Zealand, because urban New Zealanders also had a respect for private property rights. They knew that what the Government, Jim Sutton, and Helen Clark originally proposed was wrong, and they joined in supporting the farmers of New Zealand. It is with the support of farmers and all common-sense New Zealanders that tonight we are getting the sort of legislation that is required to address this issue.

I am pleased the stupid fight is now over. I am pleased that Labour and Helen Clark have finally seen common sense. I am pleased to be part of a debate that sees the legislation passed in the dying days of a Labour Government—there are 6½ weeks to go before the general election—and it will be good to get this one off the agenda. But most important, I support the Walking Access Bill because it finally recognises the importance of private property rights.

Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill (No 2)

nospam@example.com (Staff) — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 11:21:00 +1200

Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill (No 2)
Third Reading

Hon DAVID CARTER (National) : National will support the Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill (No 2). We also were happy to grant leave to Dr Cullen 5 or 10 minutes ago to change the Order Paper specifically so that this legislation and others could be enacted by 1 October this year. It is critical that this legislation be dealt with by the Primary Production Committee, passed through the House, and enacted by 1 October, so that we do not have any difficulties—or have fewer difficulties—with the setting of total allowable catches for the coming fishing season.

The fishing industry is intensely litigious. This legislation is before us today because of a decision made by Justice Miller in February 2008, when Antons Trawling Co. Ltd took a case against the Minister of Fisheries regarding his establishment of a total allowable catch for area 1 orange roughy. Antons Trawling challenged the establishment by the Minister of Fisheries, Jim Anderton, of a total allowable catch, and, on the basis of a ruling from Justice Miller that it was necessary to establish the maximum sustainable yield, the original quota decision of the Minister was overturned.

We now have about 629 species in the quota management system, and those total allowable catches are set annually—in many cases, without the information necessary to establish the maximum sustainable yield. Although the ruling by Justice Miller is, obviously, the strict interpretation of the original legislation, for a long period of time now the sustainable yield has been established on a variety of information. Clearly, the cost and complexity of having to establish total allowable catches based on only full information about the maximum sustainable yield would make it be impractical. National acknowledges that and is happy to support the legislation.

The Minister of Fisheries should have done a lot better for this industry. The original decision from Justice Miller came out in February of 2008. Mr Anderton sat on his hands, aware of that decision and of the difficulty of establishing total allowable catches from October this year. He then rushed legislation into Parliament on 11 August, and told the select committee that it had to report it back to the House by 22 August. The select committee did that; it reported it back by 22 August, and the bill has sat on the Order Paper for the last month, when we have had the ability to get it through Parliament. That is just typical of the Minister of Fisheries. He has been absolutely hopeless for this industry. He has never been interested in the portfolio, and, consequently, it is of little surprise to me that his relationship with the fishing industry is similar to the relationships that he has established with the farming industry and the forestry industry.

The Primary Production Committee received a number of submissions, and many of those submitters made points that were outside the scope of the bill. I am comforted by the fact that the Ministry of Fisheries acknowledged to the select committee that it intends to conduct a wider review of the Fisheries Act 1996. It is very complex legislation; it provides a ground-breaking mechanism for managing fisheries and fishing stock that is well regarded around the world, but it is not perfect. It is timely that a review be undertaken, and I hope that that review will find ways of addressing some of the submissions that came before the select committee.

It is with pleasure that National members support the legislation. It needs to be passed by 1 October. I certainly hope that, in setting fishing limits for the coming season—which starts on 1 October 2008—we do not then see too much litigation, with too many challenges from the industry to the Minister’s decision, which, after all, is about ensuring that we have a sustainable fishery into the future.

Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill

nospam@example.com (Staff) — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 11:17:00 +1200

Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill
Third Reading

Hon DAVID CARTER (National) : In rising to support the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill I acknowledge that legislatively this is a difficult area. It is an industry that I think has huge potential, but there are also difficulties around environmental issues and certainly the occupation of space, which people with competing interests feel they have a right to be involved in. The solutions are not easy.

In supporting this particular narrowly focused legislation, which tidies up one quite specific issue in Tasman Bay, I note that there is further legislation on the Order Paper that may or may not be referred to a select committee before the election. Even that legislation, I suspect, when passed through its full parliamentary process will not be enough to ensure that we harvest the potential of this industry. I look forward to the day when Parliament can have a realistic and unemotional debate on what we can do that is right for the New Zealand economy. We have huge potential, because of our unique location in the world. We have a very large ocean area that is ours, and the trend throughout the world now is to farm fish rather than harvest wild fish. Therefore I think that as that trend accelerates and the demand for fish products grows exponentially, the potential for New Zealand is huge. We cannot harvest that potential unless we have the correct legislative framework. As I said earlier, I think the passing of this legislation today and the subsequent legislation, if it does receive a third reading before the election, will in itself not be enough to unshackle this industry and let it go forth.

Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill

nospam@example.com (Staff) — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 11:12:00 +1200

Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill
In Committee

Hon DAVID CARTER (National) : I simply want the Minister to clarify one point with regard to Part 3, “Amendments to Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act 2004”. The reason I want clarification is that some quite differing information was given in the previous debate on the second reading. The principal question I want answered by the Minister is—

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Say it slowly.

Hon DAVID CARTER: I will say it very, very slowly for the Minister and member for Christchurch East. How much new aquaculture space—new aquaculture management areas, as they are called—has been created since the passing of the original legislation in 2004? In my contribution and the contribution from my colleague—

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Do you know the answer?

Hon DAVID CARTER: Yes, I do know the answer. When the Minister does her homework she will have to stand and say that no new space has been created. The reason I think that should be clarified is that the Green member, of course, suggested in the debate that some new space—new aquaculture management areas—had been created, particularly in Northland.

The reason this does need to be satisfied with regard to Part 3 is that if new space has been created, then effectively 40 percent of that space must now be made available to M?ori. I suspect, from the contribution of the M?ori Party in the second reading debate, that they are not aware of receiving any space, and I suspect that in this case the M?ori Party is absolutely right. They will not have received any space, because no new space has been created. That is why this legislation is so critical. It is but a band-aid to fix a far bigger problem.

In 2004 the Government passed legislation that the then Minister, David Benson-Pope, announced as being groundbreaking legislation that would lift this industry from, at that stage, about a $200 million industry to a billion-dollar export industry. That has not occurred, and I think the Minister should take time to clarify with the officials immediately behind her, to find out how much space has been created—

Hon Lianne Dalziel: You have already answered the question.

Hon DAVID CARTER: I think that the Minister needs to answer, for the sake of the M?ori Party members. They need to have accurate information, and they can then be informed how much space has been created since 2004. I am sure they will find the answer is zero. Therefore the Minister might also like to rise and give me an explanation as to what else she is proposing to do to fix the legislation beyond this particular measure to ensure we do get enabling legislation to allow this industry to reach its potential.

The Minister will be well aware of this very fancy document I am holding. I think she must be about the only Minister who actually did not get to sign it. Everyone else has put their name on the bottom of it, but I do not see Lianne Dalziel’s name there. It is a particularly glossy brochure. It points out the potential of this industry. It is not a laughing matter, I say to the Minister.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: What year was it?

Hon DAVID CARTER: This was June 2007, and the member was a Minister then?

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Yes.

Hon DAVID CARTER: Only just, or just about to go out? I cannot remember the details.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Minister of Commerce.

Hon DAVID CARTER: Minister of Commerce!

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Women’s affairs, and small business.

Hon DAVID CARTER: This is important—Minister of Commerce. This Minister of Commerce should be enabling legislation to allow the aquaculture industry to reach its potential, which is a billion dollars - plus.

Phil Heatley: What did she know that the others didn’t?

Hon DAVID CARTER: No—I suspect it is because perhaps there was a fall-out between this Minister and Benson-Pope, because Benson-Pope did not ask for her signature; I am not sure. But every other Minister certainly managed to sign it. A lot of them are not Ministers any more, but I guess that is not the point.

The final question, I think, is one for the Minister to confirm for the sake of the debate today. How much new aquaculture space has been created since that wonderful piece of heralding legislation was advanced by the Hon David Benson-Pope in 2004—legislation that the National Party strongly said at the time would not work? If the answer is that no space has been created, it is—

Hon Maurice Williamson: Can’t be no space, I’m sure. Must be some space.

Hon DAVID CARTER: I am sure there will be, but we are waiting for the Minister to take a call. I am sure that that is absolute proof that the National Party was right about this legislation and the Labour Government, supported by New Zealand First, was, as expected, absolutely wrong about it.

Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill

nospam@example.com (Staff) — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 11:06:00 +1200

Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill
Second Reading

Hon DAVID CARTER (National) : For a start, I want to put on record my thanks to Winston Peters for the cheque of $9,600 that we received last week as full and final settlement of a case that he lost. Thank you very much, I say to him. It took a long time to get it. It was probably the threat of bankruptcy proceedings that did it.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You cannot have a man get up and say that a transaction was done because of the threat of bankruptcy. That is humbug. The member has no right to make that sort of statement, at all. We paid Mr Carter because we always have paid people when we have to—not for the kinds of vile, selfish, venal reasons he has, but because it is called honour.

Hon DAVID CARTER: Speaking to the point of order, I want to say that payment was received only after the second letter was sent to Brian Henry saying that unless money was received, bankruptcy proceedings would be initiated.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: There he goes again. That cannot possibly be true. As he well knows, any such letter had to be sent to the instructing solicitor, who is Dennis Gates—not Brian Henry, who is the barrister sole and does not get such correspondence. Whether the member’s lawyers are so stupid as to send it to the wrong man, I do not know. But I know that the cheque that Mr Carter got came from Dennis Gates. I ask the member whether the cheque came from Dennis Gates—yes or no. [Interruption] The answer is that, yes, he does not know what he is talking about.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I think that we have had our fun, and I think that both members have made a contribution.

Hon DAVID CARTER: I would certainly like to speak to the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill, which the Rt Hon Winston Peters has just spoken on—probably as the deemed Minister of Fisheries in the Labour - New Zealand First Government. Of course, in recent weeks he has had more contact with the fishing industry—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You cannot, surely, have a front-bench member of the National Party demonstrate his hopeless ignorance by referring to a Labour - New Zealand First Government. There is no such thing.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): It is a debatable point, Mr Peters, and I will not tolerate frivolous points of order.

Hon DAVID CARTER: The Labour-Progressive Government has been supported ably in recently months by the New Zealand First Party as it has maintained its position in Parliament.

I was saying that Mr Peters has had more contact with the fishing industry than the actual Minister of Fisheries, particularly over the last few weeks, with regular contact with the likes of Mr Simunovich and Mr Vela—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Can we just keep to the bill, please.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. See, he is at it again. He is making it up as he goes along. I have had no contact whatsoever recently with Mr Simunovich. I would not even know where he is living. That is the kind of deceit that member engages in all the time.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): What we are having may well lead to chaos, and I am not going to have that in this House. We will have order. This is a place for full and vigorous debate, but contributions will be made with respect for the traditions of the House as enshrined in the Standing Orders. That is why I am on my feet—because I represent those Standing Orders. I crave your respect for them, and your understanding. Let us get back to the debate.

Hon DAVID CARTER: The biggest contribution that the Labour Government, supported by New Zealand First, has made to aquaculture during the last 9 years is this pamphlet I have here, produced in June 2007. It is a very fancy brochure and states: “Now is the time to get out on the water, whatever the weather, and join the journey.” Join the journey! The brochure is signed by six Ministers. The first is the Hon David Benson-Pope, the Minister for the Environment, but he is not that any more; he was fired. Then there is the Hon Chris Carter, the Minister of Conservation, but he is no longer the Minister of Conservation. Then there is the Hon Parekura Horomia, the Minister of M?ori affairs; he is the only one who has kept his job. Next is the Hon Trevor Mallard, the Minister for Industry and Regional Development, but I do not think he has that job any more. Then there is the Hon Jim Anderton, the Minister of Fisheries. Last is the Hon Mark Burton, the Minister of Local Government, but he is another one who has been fired.

I make the point to Clayton Cosgrove, who is interjecting, that despite producing a very expensive and fancy brochure, the Labour Government has done nothing to promote the aquaculture industry. The industry, both domestic and international, is currently worth about $300 million, and it has potential to do significantly better. All that the Government had to do was to pass legislation that would facilitate aquaculture development. The member Winston Peters was in this House supporting the Labour Government’s legislation in 2004, and, as my colleague Phil Heatley has pointed out, subsequent to that legislation the amount of new aquaculture space that has been created in this country is zero. I say to Mr Peters and the Labour Ministers: “Well done on producing a fancy brochure!”.

We are today passing this little bill in an attempt to patch up what was completely unworkable. Doug Woolerton was not on the Primary Production Committee in 2004, but what the select committee told the Minister at the time—

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: How did you mess up that selection?

Hon DAVID CARTER: I think Mr Cosgrove might have been on the select committee in those days. The select committee told Mr Benson-Pope, as the Minister, that the legislation would not work. Mr Benson-Pope did not listen to the select committee, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating, because the legislation has not worked. Today we have a little bill that patches up but one court case.

R Doug Woolerton: The actual fact of the matter is that the area has now been filled with product.

Hon DAVID CARTER: Mr Woolerton sat on the select committee. He heard people saying that not one new aquaculture area has been created, and he is now saying there is lots of product. Mr Woolerton should listen when he is sitting on the select committee. What we have today is this single piece of legislation, and all that it does is attempt to sort out a mess that we knew was likely to occur. It concerns a particular area in Tasman Bay where some resourceful fishers under the name of SMW Consortium applied to occupy space before the Tasman District Council had actually deemed it to be an aquaculture management area. All that we are doing now is pass legislation, in the dying days of this Parliament, to patch that up. If we look further down the Order Paper, we see another bill of a far more technical nature, we are told, which will try to further tidy up the mess.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: You will struggle.

Hon DAVID CARTER: If Clayton Cosgrove had only listened when he sat on that select committee as a humble backbencher, he could have worked with us in 2004 to pass legislation that would allow this industry to reach its potential. He could have been part of historic legislation being passed through this House. It would have had the label of the Labour Government on it, and it would have been successful. But Mr Cosgrove would only do what David Benson-Pope would tell him to do. As a consequence, no new aquaculture spaces have been created, and we have a little bill today to patch up but one silly mistake made by David Benson-Pope, and another bill sitting on the Order Paper to try to further patch up the mess. But they will not be enough. Mark my words, the aquaculture industry will not get ahead until satisfactory legislation comes before the House that recognises the potential of the industry and allows our space to be utilised.

Hon Rick Barker: Why is that member running a family business?

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: He is running it into the ground.

Hon DAVID CARTER: Minister Barker asks why I am not running a family business. Well, for that Minister’s information—and what it has to do with aquaculture legislation, I do not have a clue—I do run a family business, and I do it with substantially more success than that Minister will ever do anything. That is the difference between this side of the Chamber and that side. Over here we have people who have run businesses and understand what makes businesses work. On the other side they have nobody. They had one guy called Jim Sutton. He knew how to fill out a GST return, and they fired him. Helen Clark fired him. That is the difference between this side and the other side. We actually know how to run businesses. The select committee in 2004 heard from a substantial number of submitters who ran small family businesses in the Marlborough Sounds and they said to the committee, in front of Mr Cosgrove: “You get this legislation right, and we’ll stay in New Zealand, but you get it wrong, and we’ll take our expertise to Australia and Chile.” Does Mr Barker know what happened? Those people have gone to South Australia. Who is the loser? Well, certainly the Labour Government is the loser, and deservedly so, but the real loser is the whole of the New Zealand economy.

R Doug Woolerton: They have not gone, at all. Rubbish!

Hon DAVID CARTER: Doug Woolerton can chip in all he likes, but he was part of the party that supported the Government to pass legislation that has not worked and will not work. This bill is a small band-aid to patch up the problem. It will not be enough to fix the underlying problem and to give the industry a real chance. The industry has huge potential, billion-dollar potential, and could be a goer, if only we had a Government that knew a little bit about business, knew a lot about fishing, and would create the legislative framework to get the industry going.

Electricity (Renewable Preference) Amendment Bill

nospam@example.com (Staff) — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 13:57:00 +1200

Electricity (Renewable Preference) Amendment Bill
Third Reading

Hon DAVID CARTER (National) : This is a historic day, but it is also a very sad day. I say to the Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues that he should be ashamed of himself for progressing this legislation in the way it has been progressed. The Minister sent an invitation to me late last night, by email, asking me to drinks after the conclusion of debate on this legislation. I will not be attending. I thank the Minister for his invitation, but I do not think the legislation is anything that anybody should be celebrating. I say that because there was an opportunity to pass legislation in this House today to give New Zealand an efficient emissions trading scheme, and it could have been done on a consensual basis with all major political parties. However, because of the Minister, this legislation will be passed tonight only because of the support of New Zealand First. I think it is a pity we have not been able to develop a well-balanced emissions trading scheme that would have delivered the important behavioural changes necessary in this country to do our bit for climate change. This one will not work.

We could have had a general consensus. We certainly could have had the National Party and the Labour Party on the same page, because in December 2005 we wrote to the Minister, offering our support to work together to develop an emissions trading system that would have been workable and accepted by significant consensus. The response we got from that Minister was no response, at all. Mr Parker arrogantly ignored an offer by National to work with the Government to develop a scheme that could have been before Parliament tonight and probably would have had greater than 80 percent acceptance of this House. I say to Mr Parker that that would have given enduring legislation—but, no. As a result of the Minister’s attitude, this legislation is now seen to be a political football. I say to the Minister that I guarantee to him that this legislation will not be enduring.

The second point I make to the Minister and the House is about the inclusion of agriculture in an emissions trading scheme. I want to be absolutely clear that agriculture should be included in a well-balanced emissions trading scheme. As an emitter of 50 percent of greenhouse gas emissions from New Zealand, there is no way agriculture should be exempted, but to include agriculture in this emissions trading scheme, we had to develop and debate the extent of its inclusion. We had to be accurate about the facts. The first thing I say to the Minister is that on this basis no other emissions trading scheme developed anywhere in the world includes agriculture.

I will include the Australian Government’s position on this issue. After releasing its green paper, the Australian Government said “The Government does not consider that it is practical at this stage to include agriculture emissions in the trading scheme at commencement.”, and “Accordingly, the Government has decided that the earliest that agriculture should enter the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme would be 2015, with a final decision on inclusion or exclusion to be made in 2013 in the light of progress in overcoming practical difficulties and after extensive consultation with the industry.” Is it not a pity that the Labour - New Zealand First Government was not also prepared to take such an attitude?

It is a common view around New Zealand that agriculture should be included, but the difficulty of including it and forcing it into legislation in a dogmatic fashion, as this Government has done, is that the Government is refusing to acknowledge there are practical difficulties in monitoring, measuring, and reporting. I say to David Parker and Helen Clark tonight that the best interests of New Zealand should have been paramount. This issue should not have been based around personal agendas and the ticking of a few more boxes for CVs that might be needed in another couple of months. Yes, Mr Parker should include agriculture, but not to the extent whereby he risks the very viability of New Zealand farming operations and, more important, of the economy of this country.

On a number of occasions throughout the select committee process I attempted to get a true indication of costs. The quality of the answers that we received at the Finance and Expenditure Committee were at best evasive, and in many cases totally inadequate. The homework had simply not been done, to the extent that the Minister himself—David Parker—said in the House last week that there was no evidence that the scheme would have an adverse effect on agriculture. That is what the Minister was reported as saying in the New Zealand Herald of 3 September. He had only to look at the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry paper, entitled Projected Impacts of the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme at the Farm Level, which was released earlier this year. It states explicitly that, as expected, all farm types will suffer adverse profit effects. It is time the Minister was up front with the facts.

If this emissions trading scheme had been designed properly, its financial aspects and implications for agriculture could well have been recognised, but now, in a world that is demanding more and more food, we will put our production base at risk and we will achieve nothing for global warming. The world will still demand the production of that food, which will simply be moved to other countries. The Minister has been totally irresponsible, because he knows as well as I do that in New Zealand we have a farming system that is relatively efficient in carbon emission terms. So the Minister will actually be shifting production from New Zealand to countries in South America, such as Uruguay, that have not ratified the Kyoto Protocol. Those farming systems are far less carbon-efficient than the farming systems he is attempting to replace in New Zealand, so the net effect will be that global emissions from methane will actually increase, which will do nothing for global warming. The Minister should be aware of that.

The final point I make concerns the chaotic fashion in which this legislation has been progressed right through the select committee process, under the appalling chairmanship of Charles Chauvel, and more recently through the House. We have gone in and out of urgency, because of a weird agreement with the Greens whereby this legislation was not actually to be considered in urgency. So we have done a little bit of it, then we have gone into days of urgency. We came back tonight to do a little more of it, only to be told half an hour ago by Dr Cullen that we will be going back into urgency tomorrow morning. I remember when the late Rod Donald used to rile against having any urgency, but, no, with the agreement of the Greens we are in and out of urgency, in order for there to be some sort of cosmetic appearance that the emissions trading scheme is getting a fair crack and is not going through under urgency.

This was meant to be flagship legislation for the Labour Party but it is just shambolic, and Mr Parker has done his party no good, at all, in entering into such a shambolic process. But the more important thing is that when this legislation is passed later on tonight, with the support of the Rt Hon Winston Peters and his team, it will not be enduring regardless of the election result. I say to Mr Parker that this legislation will not endure. It will be back before the House before too much longer, because it will not take long for the people of New Zealand to realise that the legislation will bind the economy, cause the standard of living of all New Zealanders to decline, and achieve very little—or nothing at all—for climate change.

Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill

nospam@example.com (Staff) — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 12:35:00 +1200

Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill
In Committee

Hon DAVID CARTER (National) : I want to pick up on the comment just made by my colleague Chris Tremain. I agree with him that the Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill is the most far-reaching legislation this Parliament has considered for 20 years. It is therefore the most far-reaching legislation that nearly every member of the House has considered. I do not think that Parliament has done justice to the process of this bill, either in the Finance and Expenditure Committee or in the Minister last week tabling close to 800 amendments.

The reason this legislation is so far-reaching is that the costs that will be imposed on our economy are huge. We know that. The real difficulty is in being able to accurately measure those costs. I looked back through the submissions that were made to the select committee, and the documentation we received from officials gave a carbon price starting at $15 a tonne. They acknowledged that it could be $25 a tonne, and they gave the odd example of the international carbon price being at $50 a tonne. The Reserve Bank of New Zealand, I know, has recently done some work and assumed it would be $21 a tonne. But I have just managed to find out that the current price is actually $45 a tonne. With that sort of price per tonne of carbon, electricity for household consumers will go up by 20 percent. But the particular area that I am interested in is agriculture, and according to the information presented to us at the Finance and Expenditure Committee, that price will cause a drop in farmer output prices of around 30 percent.

R Doug Woolerton: No, renewables won’t cost a cent.

Hon DAVID CARTER: Doug Woolerton can laugh about that, but if he bothers to go back and dig out the papers that he was presented with at the select committee, when he should have been taking part, he will see that at $50 a tonne the net effect on national sheep and beef budgets is a drop in profit before tax of 160 percent. That is the figure that was presented by the officials to the select committee.

R Doug Woolerton: They can bring the emissions back and not pay a cent.

Hon DAVID CARTER: Doug’s interjections are hard to respond to. He does not seem to understand any part of the legislation despite sitting on the select committee. But I tell Mr Woolerton, in the last couple of weeks that he has left in this Parliament, to listen carefully. If one has put in an emissions trading scheme that reduces the profitability of sheep and beef farmers by around 160 percent, they will not—

R Doug Woolerton: They won’t.

Hon DAVID CARTER: The member now interjects and says “They will not.” The officials supplied these figures to Mr Woolerton at the select committee. He took no active involvement in the select committee. If he had bothered to read his papers he would know that that was the figure that came from the select committee people—

R Doug Woolerton: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. That is factually incorrect, and a person can check the record of the select committee. I was there almost every day—in fact, far more than Mr Carter was.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs): With due respect, that is a debatable point, not a point of order.

Hon DAVID CARTER: As I was saying, if Mr Woolerton was there that much, and had taken a conscientious involvement in the paperwork presented to him, he would know the figure I am quoting came to us from the very officials who advised the select committee. That figure is that at $50 a tonne the average sheep and beef farmer will see his profitability decline by 160 per cent. I will tell Mr Woolerton what that means. It means that the sheep and beef farmers in this country will not survive. They will not survive, and if the member thinks the international market for sheep and beef products will dry up, then that is another reason why he will not be here for more than another couple of weeks. I say to Mr Woolerton that what will happen is that this production will then occur elsewhere, in other countries that have not imposed an emissions trading scheme on agriculture. Mr Woolerton needs to be reminded that no other country in the world is going down this path at the moment—no other country in the world.

Chris Tremain is absolutely right when he asked the question why we are rushing this legislation through just before the election. It has more to do with Helen Clark’s next job at the United Nations.

Real Estate Agents Bill

nospam@example.com (Staff) — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 11:50:00 +1200

Real Estate Agents Bill
In Committee

Hon DAVID CARTER (National) : As we move to Part 3, “Licensing”, we come to the very nuts and bolts of this legislation. This is the part where we are talking about how one becomes licensed, how a licence is suspended, how a licence is cancelled, how a licence is renewed, etc. We come to the very essence of this legislation as it impacts on the real players within the industry, and I am talking about the real estate agents themselves.

I want the Committee to note that we now have a fresh Minister in the chair, the Hon Shane Jones, and to note also that some valuable questions raised in the previous discussion remain unanswered, because Mr Cosgrove, who was then the Minister in the chair, decided not to answer the legitimate questions put by members of the National Party. In referring to clause 16, I notice that when we are talking about the nuts and bolts of the licensing, as in Part 3, this is a significant function of the authority. Therefore, I say it is important that we are absolutely assured today by the Minister in the chair that consideration has been given to who the members of the authority are. It is my understanding that following the conclusion of the Committee stage of the debate we will move to the third reading, later on today. If that is the case, then this legislation will have the Royal assent in the early part of next week—say, on Monday or Tuesday, depending on how busy our very distinguished Governor-General is. On that basis, the Minister has to have revealed on the day after that who the members of the authority are, because those members will then have responsibility for administering the licensing regime of Part 3, which affects every person participating as a real estate agent within this industry and affects people who want to enter the industry.

I think that the least the Minister in the chair, the Hon Shane Jones, could do is to rise to his feet and assure the members of this Committee that due consideration has been given to the appointment of members to the authority. Furthermore, he should assure members—and maybe this has happened with my colleague Simon Power, with regard to the normal conventions that have applied in this House for a long, long period of time; decades in fact—that there has been a reasonable consensus between and consultation with other political parties as to the membership of this authority. If, as we are discussing in Part 3, we are to end up with a licensing regime administered by an authority that has not been appointed in a fair and open manner, then this legislation will not be enduring. For example, it might be an authority that could be stacked with Labour Party lackeys. I note that it is now 32 years since we last had reforming legislation involving the real estate industry, and I do not want to see this legislation coming back because it was rammed through without a fair and consensual discussion in Parliament on the membership of that authority.

I hope that Shane Jones will be more cooperative than the bullying, arrogant Minister whom we had earlier, the Hon Clayton Cosgrove, but I think that this Committee has every right to know whether those appointments have been considered, whether they have been approved by a Cabinet process, and, if so, I ask why the Minister cannot simply tell us who they are today. Unless that authority has the confidence of this Parliament and, more important, has the confidence of the industry, this legislation and the licensing regime we are now debating in Part 3 will not be enduring, and I think it would be a shame for this House if that is the process the Minister Shane Jones is prepared to endorse in Parliament this afternoon

Real Estate Agents Bill

nospam@example.com (Staff) — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 10:06:00 +1200

Real Estate Agents Bill
In Committee

Hon DAVID CARTER (National) : Again, there is a particular clause in Part 2 that I want to discuss. It is clause 17, “Membership of Authority”. I want the Minister in the chair, the Hon Clayton Cosgrove, to confirm that he must name members of the authority within a couple of days of this legislation receiving Royal assent. If that is the case, then I say to the member he should have done some homework now as to whom he is going to appoint as the seven members of the authority. I think the Minister should rise and tell us who they are. I am suspicious that we will see a repeat of what we saw at the weekend when the Minister of Conservation appointed 52 Labour lackeys to the conservation boards around the country.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Ha!

Hon DAVID CARTER: The Deputy Prime Minister laughs, but there is a history of this. We had a member here; nobody knew her name, and I had to ask the Parliamentary Library what it was. Her name was Dianne Yates. She got shunted out of Parliament at the whim of the Prime Minister and got about three or four prize appointments.

Hon Maurice Williamson: Four.

Hon DAVID CARTER: Four appointments. Well, one thing is for sure. She is too busy to be a member of this authority. [Interruption] I am talking about clause 17. I want to know who the members are. We know that two of them will be experienced people, as licensees or former licensees, but that leaves the appointment of five others. I want the Minister to confirm that when we talk about the member who must have “not less than 7 years’ legal experience”, that is one Russell Fairbrother. He was the member of Parliament who was told he was not allowed to go on the list, and does not have a show of winning the Napier seat from our excellent candidate Chris Tremain.

So three slots are now filled—there are four left. I want to know whether the Minister himself would consider whether he would have a conflict of interest if, in fact, his name were to be advanced. I notice that he is well down the list that came out the other day, at No. 18. Against Kate Wilkinson in Waimakariri, he will not be back as a member of Parliament, so will he fill the first of the four vacancies still remaining on the membership of the authority? Then I want to know who the others are. Charles Chauvel, No. 27—

Hon Maurice Williamson: Who?

Hon DAVID CARTER: Charles Chauvel. He has not been here long, and he certainly has not done much to contribute. He is standing in the seat of ?hariu, so he does not have a show there and he knows it. He has been put down at No. 27.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. With respect, this member has been here some considerable time. One would think he might have learnt something in that time about the Standing Orders. This is a narrow debate, yet here he is, speculating on all the people who will not be on the authority under the pretence that he wants to know who will be. That was his opening gambit. Frankly, this is a lazy, indolent way of conducting a debate. It is typical of him, and we could expect better. I want you to make sure he does do better.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I ask the member to continue. I had actually indicated to the member a couple of times—

Hon DAVID CARTER: Mr Chairperson, I know you waved your hands, but the point I make is that within 2 days of this legislation receiving Royal assent, seven members of this authority are to be named. That is in the legislation. Now that we know the date for the election is 10 weeks away, there is a longstanding convention in this House that there will be consultation between at least the parties in this Parliament on the appointments—

Christopher Finlayson: There was a convention.

Hon DAVID CARTER: There used to be a convention? Well, I would hope that this Minister, despite his bullying, belligerent, and arrogant attitude, would actually stick to the convention. I therefore think we have every right to know what plans he has for consulting members of the National Party about appointments to this authority.

The authority will have a very important job to do. It will deal with these hundreds of cowboys and land sharks who Mr Clayton Cosgrove says are in the industry.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: That’s right.

Hon DAVID CARTER: He agrees now! Only 5 minutes ago he took a call to say that there are not many of them, yet he now says there are hundreds of them.

So the authority will have a lot to do, and I want to make sure that it is not stacked with Labour Party lackeys and members of Parliament who know that they are in the last few weeks of sitting in this House, because they have been put down on that Labour list well and truly towards the unwinnable positions. I think it is a very fair question for us to be asking.

Hon Maurice Williamson: Lesley Soper?

Hon DAVID CARTER: What is happening to Lesley Soper? She would probably be all right on this. But I think we have a very fair question to ask about the process for appointment—what work has been done so far to find who those seven members are, and, most important, whether the Minister is prepared to consult before those appointments are made. They are very clear questions, and I look forward to the Minister taking a call and answering them.

Real Estate Agents Bill

nospam@example.com (Staff) — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 09:58:00 +1200

Real Estate Agents Bill
In Committee

Hon DAVID CARTER (National) : Mr Chairman, I want to raise two further points to do with Part 1. The first point is in relation to clause 9, which through the select committee process in the Justice and Electoral Committee has been deleted. That was a surprising exemption clause for Landcorp Farming Ltd. I want to know what the rationale was for the Minister, the Hon Clayton Cosgrove, as he put this legislation together, to say there should be a regime for everybody else within New Zealand, but that regime should not apply to Landcorp Farming Ltd.

As the Minister will know from his days as a humble backbencher and from sitting on the Primary Production Committee, the Landcorp Farming company is actually involved in significant numbers of residential property sales, particularly around the likes of Lake Taup?. It seems to me that this Minister, armed with that background information, should never have contemplated dealing with the cowboys and land sharks, as he calls the industry, and then saying one particular State-owned enterprise, with which he was familiar, should be exempted. So I would be very, very interested in the Minister taking a call and explaining the rationale for the inclusion of clause 9 in the bill originally. I am very, very, pleased that the select committee saw fit to remove that clause. I guess it has done that on the basis of saying “one law for all”. If the law is good enough to apply to the industry generally, it should also apply to our own State-owned enterprise Landcorp Farming Ltd.

The second issue that I want to make sure the Minister has done his homework on is around the definition of an “agent”. Here we now have the definition of an agent meaning “a real estate agent who holds, or is deemed to hold, a current licence as an agent”. Does that include a cowboy? The Minister has gone out there and said all land agents are sharks and cowboys, etc., and they cause carnage. And here he has a fairly defined definition of an agent, which seems to me to exempt anybody whom we might possibly have classified as a rogue agent. The Real Estate Institute of New Zealand is involved in a process of licensing these people. All it wants is the ability, if there is an occasion where somebody becomes a rogue agent, to, in fact, deal with that person. It has been asking for that and for modernised powers for a long time.

Perhaps, if that definition is not suitable to define a cowboy, then the Minister ought to think quite seriously about including specific definitions of a land shark and of a cowboy. I say to the Minister that despite his rather extravagant outbursts and the bullying and arrogance around this legislation, he is not right to label the great majority of real estate agents as cowboys, because they are not. They are not cowboys and they are not land sharks.

The Minister, at the end of my earlier contribution, interjected with some derogatory remark about me being a property developer. Well, if the Minister means by that that I have had considerable dealings with, and sold properties through, real estate agents, that is true. There is nothing wrong with doing that; I had every ability to engage somebody if I wanted to. I also had the ability, if I was not happy with the system, to actually attempt to do it on my own, without involving the services of the industry. That has always been a choice available to people. It is interesting to me to note that when most people come to sell property, whether it be industrial, commercial, rural, or residential property, they do not choose that path. They make a decision to engage somebody, because they think the expertise offered by that person will actually further the value of the sale that they are about to engage in.

So if the Minister would rise to his feet and earn his keep, then I would be very, very grateful, because I think he could help the debate by answering a few of the questions that have been raised.

The other very interesting comment that I would like to pick up on is something that I picked up from NewsRoom dated 11 October 2008. Mr Cosgrove stated then: “Every day you wake up there is incompetence, more silliness, and in this case alleged fraud.” As those comments were made nearly a year ago, I just wondered whether he did not have some sort of premonition of what was to happen to his own Government. I think we are very definitely talking about incompetence, more silliness, and in this case alleged fraud.

Real Estate Agents Bill

nospam@example.com (Staff) — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 09:53:00 +1200

Real Estate Agents Bill
In Committee

Hon DAVID CARTER (National) : It is with some concern that I see this legislation back before us this morning. My concern is the relationship between the Real Estate Institute of New Zealand and the Minister in the chair, Clayton Cosgrove, because that relationship appears to be at an all-time low—

Dr Richard Worth: Fractured.

Hon DAVID CARTER: —permanently fractured. In fact, I refer to an editorial in the Manawatu Standard on 12 July this year, in which the editor said: “Now that the heat has gone out of the property sector, Mr Cosgrove looks like a bully.” I say to the Minister that this is not the way to conduct a review of the legislation under which the real estate industry operates.

I have had a harmonious relationship with the industry for many, many years. I have appreciated the worth of that industry. I know that, throughout the time National was in Government, the industry requested on many occasions that the Act be modernised and reviewed, but because National had so many other important things to do, we did not get on to the job. Then Mr Cosgrove got the chance, so what he did was to go out and call the real estate agents of this country cowboys and land sharks. I know that he has had to back down because Helen Clark put his arm up behind his back and said that is not the way to progress legislation. He has had to eat humble pie with his mate the Rt Hon Winston Raymond Peters. He has had to go to the Rt Hon Winston Raymond Peters and ask him to please support the legislation so that he can get it through the House. He has had to go back to the Real Estate Institute, and to work diligently on a Supplementary Order Paper, which he promised to present to the institute approximately 2 months ago. I think I am right in saying the institute got it yesterday at around 11 o’clock. It goes some of the way towards starting to mend the fractious relationship that this Minister has created with the industry, but it does not go far enough.

I say to that member, who was aptly described by the Manawatu Standard as a bully—not my words, but the words of the editor of the Manawatu Standard—that he ought to learn how to handle relationships far better. If he had done that, then I think we could have had legislation before the House today that everybody could sign up to. He would not have had to go begging for the support of the Rt Hon Winston Raymond Peters; he would have had support from everybody. But, instead, he goes around and talks about the industry, besmirches it, and calls the real estate agents of this country cowboys and land sharks. I am not saying they are all perfect. I am certainly saying to the Minister that the great majority of them are.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: As I’ve said. I’ll give you all the press cuttings.

Hon DAVID CARTER: Oh, the Minister is now saying the great majority are good guys! That is not what he said a couple of months ago, when the guy was full of bluster and bravado. He went on TV—I remember seeing it—and talked of carnage in the industry. Now he is saying most of them are good guys. Why did he not think of doing the job properly in the first place? Why did he go out and destroy a relationship that did not need to be destroyed? Why did he not talk to the Real Estate Institute, work with it—

Jill Pettis: Unlike that member, he did something.

Hon DAVID CARTER: Jill Pettis is piping up now. What does she say?

Jill Pettis: That member did nothing!

Hon DAVID CARTER: I am the one who has been talking to the Real Estate Institute on a regular basis, making sure that its concerns are addressed in the Supplementary Order Paper. That member would not have picked up the phone to talk to anybody in the industry. She probably would not know anybody in the industry, and if she did she would probably abuse them; she would pick up on Clayton Cosgrove’s words and call them all land sharks and cowboys. That does nothing, I say to Jill Pettis.

What this industry wants is modernised legislation. It wants modernised legislation so that it can operate in the 21st century. The industry has been requesting that for a long time, and if the Minister had only worked with the industry and prepared some legislation that addressed the concerns held by a wide number of New Zealanders, then we could have had legislation back in the House today that would be supported by most political parties. But, no, Clayton Cosgrove probably took his lessons from Jill Pettis, so he had no chance of being a gentleman. He had no chance at all; instead of that, it was bullying tactics, bluster, and words that I should not be allowed to use in Parliament and will not.

Consequently, we are here now with legislation that will mend some things that need to be mended, but it will not go far enough and it will not be enduring legislation for this industry. Of course, it is something that the National Government, after 15 November, will have to come back and tidy up, simply because of the arrogant and bullying attitude of the Minister.

Kate Wilkinson: And ignorance!

Hon DAVID CARTER: The Minister obviously had a run-in with somebody, some time—we do not know why.

Walking Access Bill

nospam@example.com (Staff) — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 14:20:00 +1200

Walking Access Bill
Second Reading

Hon DAVID CARTER (National) : I want to start by thanking the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee, Moana Mackey, for keeping me informed and inviting me to attend as a participant on that committee. Unfortunately, I was not able to attend very often, but I have a significant interest in this public access issue.
I want to pick up on a comment made by my colleague Eric Roy when he said that this bill goes a long way to solving an ongoing issue of access around rural New Zealand. From my point of view, it became an issue because of the way it was poorly handled by the Labour Government.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Hon DAVID CARTER: Prior to the dinner break I was discussing Eric Roy’s contribution. My colleague said that there has been an ongoing issue with public access to rural land. I said that I did not think that was true historically but that it had certainly become a major issue over the last few years, and I think some people are to blame for the fact that it has become a major issue. I accept Mr Roy’s argument that New Zealand is going through a process of urbanisation, and there may be some ignorance of common courtesy and rules amongst some people who are tempted to access private land.

I have to say that my attitude to this issue was summed up fairly well last Friday, when I met with a man called Ed—who is actually my hairdresser. He is a very keen hunter and fisherman. He spends most of his weekend with his children, including his 10-year-old daughter, out hunting—often with dogs used for pig hunting. Ed said that in his 25 years of passionately pursuing that particular hobby, he had never been refused access by any farmer, apart from over lambing time—and he accepted that during lambing time it is simply not appropriate to be on some of those farm properties.

Ed summed it up for me: there has not been a significant issue with most New Zealand farmers over most rural land. I think Helen Clark and the Labour Government did huge damage to this debate by suggesting that there had been issues. In fact, the feeling I picked up from many of my farming friends throughout New Zealand was that the very goodwill that had existed for, perhaps, 150 years would be put at serious risk if any hunter or recreationist thought they could assume the right to wander over privately owned land without simply asking for permission in the first place.

Again, I acknowledge that Eric Roy has been involved in this issue for a long period of time. He acknowledges that on some occasions there is private capture of a public asset. I agree with Eric that that becomes an unacceptable situation. As he pointed out, this legislation does not actually resolve those particular circumstances—and, I might add, I think they are relatively few in number. But what this legislation does is to set up a process of identifying where there is potential for private capture of a public asset. It then sets up a process whereby people having identified those particular situations, at least attempt to negotiate solutions with private landowners that recognise those property rights. For me that is a significant advance in this debate.

The final thing I want to mention is the issue around the paper roads that exist in many parts of New Zealand—they cover my Banks Peninsula farm property extensively. I never purchased those particular parcels of land in the first place. As a custodian I have grazed them, and I have had the use of the grazing. I have also looked after them and kept them free of weeds and pests, but they have never been my private property. What is interesting in these debates, particularly in respect of Banks Peninsula, with which I am particularly familiar, is that those pathways created—and I understand they were surveyed perhaps in London, before the first four ships even arrived—in many cases do not provide practical access.

I look forward to the day when there will be a sensible discussion between myself as a landowner and the commission, presumably involving the now Christchurch City Council, where a better way can be established that gives the people—particularly of Christchurch—access to the beautiful Banks Peninsula. As a landowner, I would certainly cooperate fully with that process, and I suggest to the House that nearly every farmer on the Banks Peninsula that I know would also quite happily be involved in that process.

Incidentally, there is a walkway that has been voluntarily created around a particular block that I own. There is public access to the Packhorse Hut. My farm property surrounds the Packhorse Hut. Access to the hut to the top of Mount Herbert could be achieved by quite impractical paper roads, but a track has been established and marked on the land with the consent of myself and other landowners. We enjoy going up there in the weekends, when we enjoy our own property and watch many other New Zealanders out there enjoying the outdoors of Banks Peninsula. The only time that it is closed is over the current month and a half, when farmers in Banks Peninsula are involved in lambing.

I think that typifies what can occur in this debate. Most farmers enjoy the public of New Zealand accessing their property. They simply want the courtesy of being asked. They certainly want the courtesy of non-access being observed at times of calving and lambing, where it clearly interrupts farming operations. They want to know where people are so that in the event of an emergency or accident they are at least semi-informed of where people might be.

I am pleased that this legislation has progressed to this stage, and I am certainly pleased to see that it will be passed before the election. It has been a difficult debate over the last few years; a debate that I think has been created by a few vested interests and by some politicians who are ignorant of the true facts out there in rural New Zealand

Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill (No 2)

nospam@example.com (Staff) — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 15:36:00 +1200

First Reading
Debate resumed from 24 July.

Hon DAVID CARTER (National) : I will be brief with my contribution so this legislation can be voted on before the House rises. I commend the speech just given by the Hon Tariana Turia, who gave a very, very good rendition of the history of recent fisheries legislation and explained some of the issues the industry faces, particularly with the attitude of the current Minister. I say at the outset that the 1996 Fisheries Act has overall been very, very successful legislation, and it is admired by many countries throughout the world with fishing industries.

There was a court decision in February of this year by Justice Miller regarding the way that the total allowable catch is to be established. The decision suggested that before any decision is made on total allowable catch the biomass must be accurately known so that the maximum sustainable yield can be taken into the Minister’s consideration. This is more prescriptive than what was originally intended in the 1996 Act, and therefore this particular legislation, the Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill (No 2), seeks to clarify the wording of section 13 and, in fact, to clarify it to such an extent that the way it is interpreted is the way that it has been interpreted for the 629 species that have already been moved into the quota management system.

I take this opportunity to congratulate the industry on its pragmatic and cooperative response to this issue. I understand that it has worked very closely with the officials of the ministry to make sure that a bill has now been presented into Parliament and has wide-spread support at this stage from most major industry players. What we now need to do is make sure that we progress this legislation through the select committee as quickly as possible, with an intention to return it to Parliament before it rises for the election, so that there will not be ongoing challenges to the establishment of total allowable catch for the next fishing season, which commences on 1 October 2008. I commend this bill to the House, and I will certainly give it my best at the select committee over the next few weeks.

Estimates Debate

nospam@example.com (Staff) — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 15:32:00 +1200

In Committee

Vote Agriculture and Forestry

Hon DAVID CARTER (Chairperson of the Primary Production Committee): During question time in Parliament today I raised an issue around the Sustainable Farming Fund to which the Minister did not have the answer, and I certainly hope he has done some homework since he has been back at his office.

Firstly, I think the point needs to be made that the Sustainable Farming Fund has an appropriation of approximately $8.5 million, and it was initiated by the previous Minister of Agriculture, the Hon Jim Sutton. On the whole I think it has been reasonably well regarded and well respected by farmers in New Zealand. I think the concept of the Sustainable Farming Fund has been good. But in this particular case, an application was made in May 2002 to sustainably develop a p?ua production system on the East Cape. It was approved, subject to some further information being provided, which was certainly obtained by late 2003. From that date onwards the applicant continued to write to the Minister’s staff—to a particular adviser to the Minister now, Mr Kevin Steel—on numerous occasions. When the applicant became frustrated that he was not getting answers from Mr Steel, he wrote to the Director-General of Agriculture and Forestry, he wrote to the Minister himself, and he wrote to the Minister of M?ori Affairs. That went on for 5 long years, before the Minister finally made sure that the approval occurred and $250,000 was paid over.

If the Sustainable Farming Fund is to obtain and remain with any credibility at all, then applications to it that receive approval deserve far better treatment than occurred in that particular case. The Minister in the chair, the Hon Jim Anderton, has now had a chance to refresh his knowledge of the facts on this matter, and I certainly hope he will answer the questions about it more sensibly than he did in the House this afternoon, when he took to his normal bluster and made a personal attack on me as National’s agriculture spokesperson.

The second point I want to raise, which I felt was significant in the examination of Vote Agriculture and Forestry and of Vote Biosecurity, is an issue around animal welfare. I congratulate the Minister on the role he played in working with the farming sector throughout New Zealand on the response to a particularly nasty and widespread drought over the last season. But that drought has raised and will continue to raise an issue around animal welfare, and addressing that issue will require resources to be made available within the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry to make sure that the facilities and the capabilities are there to assist the farmers of New Zealand. We raised that issue with the Minister in debating last year’s estimates, and he acknowledged that the appropriation of $2.572 million for that work was not enough. He assured us then that he would do substantially better in the next round of the Budget, which is the one we are debating today. He successfully achieved an appropriation of $2.64 million—an increase of only $68,000. That was of concern to the whole of the Primary Production Committee. I know that the Minister will not have the opportunity now to present another Budget bid next year to make sure he addresses that problem better, but I assure him that his successor will do so.

The final thing I want to raise is again a commendation to the Minister on his work in recognising the importance of an animal identification and traceability system within this country. Some farmers are opposed to that, because inevitably it will place costs on farming operations. But it is essential, for a number of reasons, for us to catch up with other countries that have better traceability systems than we have in this country.

R Doug Woolerton: You rubbished dog microchipping.

Hon DAVID CARTER: We are talking about sheep and cattle, I say to Mr Woolerton. Even New Zealand First does not advocate that we process dogs and export them overseas. Getting away from the Spencer Trust for just one moment, if we may, I was saying it is essential that we have a traceability system in this country, and the first reason we need it is that our markets will require increasing amounts of accountability and traceability. The second reason that we need to have such traceability arises in the event of a biosecurity outbreak. I know that my colleague Shane Ardern will shortly be talking more specifically about Vote Biosecurity, but it is essential that in the event of an outbreak—and we all hope there is no serious outbreak, but we must be prepared for the fact that one could occur—we are able to trace instantly the location of such livestock throughout New Zealand.

Walking Access Bill

nospam@example.com (Staff) — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 15:28:00 +1200

First Reading

Hon DAVID CARTER (National) : For well over 100 years the rural landowners of this country have willingly provided public access over their land. The farmers throughout the country have enjoyed having their land utilised by recreationalists, but the Labour Government and Helen Clark, particularly, put all this cooperation at risk when 5 years ago they proposed to legislate over private property rights to deliver public access over private farmland.

That has been the history of this legislation.

The Walking Access Bill now comes back to the House in a very much watered-down fashion compared with the Labour Government’s original plans, and therefore the National Party will cautiously support it going to the Local Government and Environment Committee. I say “cautiously”, because immediately three things raise concern for me. The first is the creation of yet another level of bureaucracy to monitor something that I do not think is fixed. I am staggered at the Minister’s announcement today that this legislation will not go to the Primary Production Committee. He concluded his speech by acknowledging that the legislation will be monitored by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, yet he has quite deliberately avoided sending it to the Primary Production Committee where, as most parliamentarians would agree, there is the expertise to examine this issue quickly.

Mark Blumsky: We’re very busy.

Hon DAVID CARTER: I hear from my colleague Mark Blumsky that his select committee is very heavily worked, and in fact the Primary Production Committee has quite a lot of spare capacity. So the Minister might like to explain.

The second thing that concerns me is that the legislation sets out to fix a problem that has never existed. As I said earlier, for hundreds of years public access has been provided willingly, but 5 years ago Helen Clark, with the help of Mr Bryce Johnson, and certainly with the help of Gottlieb Braun-Elwert, proposed to put into legislation the ability of the public to march unfettered over privately owned rural land. There was outrage immediately from the farming sector, as one would expect, but the Labour Government was caught by surprise that many urban people also knew it was wrong and joined in supporting farmers, to the extent that prior to the last election Helen Clark backed down completely and set up a panel to examine the issue. After a long period of examination by a hard-working commission we now have this proposal before us today. So the Government backed down at the last election, but this was not before the Minister who was then in charge of this legislation, the Hon Jim Sutton, lost his seat of Aoraki over the issue. I guarantee that at the next election, soon to be held, the Minister now in charge of this legislation, the Hon Damien O’Connor, will also lose his ever-safe seat of West Coast - Tasman, because the farmers know that he has behaved appallingly over this issue.

As I said, it is ironic that the Walking Access Bill actually achieves what National members have said was always the solution to the public access debate, and that is around using the large amount of public access that is already available to our rivers, our lakes, and our coastline. In the very, very odd case where there is a difficulty around getting access to a coastline, a lake shore, or a river, then people should enter into negotiation with the private landowner and find a solution. From the very start of this debate in 2003, the National Party said to the Government that this was the solution. Finally, after years of commission hearings, submissions from people throughout the country, and expenditure in total of around half a million dollars, the Labour Government has licked its wounds and introduced to the House legislation that contains the very solution that National said was always the solution.

So we cautiously support the referral of this legislation to the select committee. We do want to see a serious investigation around issues such as whether this access negotiation is better handled with a national entity, or whether we can use the conservation boards. I assure the Minister that the message that will be received at the select committee is that these problems tend to be very, very localised. If the Minister had known his portfolio area, he would also know that because such problems are localised, they are better solved by local people having an input rather than a national body.

We look forward to the progression of the legislation to the select committee. I will attempt to see whether I can get some space to be on that committee and offer my considerable knowledge in this area. Mr O’Connor could have saved all that difficulty if he had referred the legislation to the Primary Production Committee, where he knows it would have received a very, very fair hearing by the very good members on the committee. Those members know the issue intimately, and certainly they do not have a heavy workload ahead of them.