10. Hon JIM ANDERTON (Leader—Progressive) Link to this
to the Minister of Agriculture
Is he aware of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry briefing to incoming Minister that states: “The agriculture, food and forestry industries are the core of our economy, major determinants of our employment and social well being and key drivers of our land, water and biological resource use”; if so, how many times was the word “agriculture” used in the Speech from the Throne?
Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister of Agriculture) Link to this
Yes, I am aware of that briefing, and I was extremely pleased to see that the briefing recognises what National policy has been for the last many years. Unlike the Opposition, we have always supported New Zealand agriculture and we have never considered it a sunset industry, as Labour did previously. The word “agriculture” was mentioned in the Speech from the Throne, but, more important, the speech promised action in areas of real concern to farmers such as the Resource Management Act, a more balanced emissions trading scheme, increased infrastructure, and the removal of inefficient red tape—all areas that the member and his colleagues did nothing about over the last 9 years.
Hon Dr Michael Cullen Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I recall you stating publicly that you would take a firmer line in terms of the nature of ministerial answers and certain kinds of questions. Indeed, we had a discussion about these matters. This question asked, first, whether the minister was aware of something, to which the answer is “yes” or “no”, and, second, a very simple closed question, “if so, how many times was the word ‘agriculture’ used in the Speech from the Throne?”, and the answer to that question is “A number.” I think this is a very good example of the kind of question where you were implying you would require Ministers to actually answer the question rather than go off into a broad political dissertation.
The member may not have heard, but I said the word “agriculture” was mentioned in the speech, and then went on to mention a number of things that were mentioned in the speech as well, and which were far more important to New Zealand farmers.
On the point of order made by the Hon Dr Cullen, I accept absolutely that where Ministers are asked a question, we want to try to avoid lots of additional information being provided in answers, because the Standing Orders do require them to be more succinct. I thank the honourable member for reminding me of that, and I am sure Ministers will want to make sure they improve order in the House by following that line.
Can I assume, then, that the real answer to the primary question is that the Government never mentioned the importance of agriculture or the primary industries to the New Zealand economy at all in the Speech from the Throne; if so, is this the example of the neglect of the backbone of our economy that we can expect from a Government run by downtown finance market traders?
As I answered earlier, agriculture was mentioned in the Speech from the Throne. But I went back and researched a Speech from the Throne given in 1999 when Labour became the Government, and in that particular speech agriculture was not mentioned apart from this comment: “New Zealand remains overdependent upon the production and exporting of commodities.” There was the Labour Government again signalling that it had no interest in agriculture whatsoever.
What other reports has the Minister seen from the rural community on the Government’s Speech from the Throne?
I have seen a number of very positive reports on the Speech from the Throne, including a press release dated 9 December 2008 from New Zealand’s leading rural sector organisation, Federated Farmers, stating that farmers are “pleased Government is on the same page”, that farmers are “encouraged by a new Government that values the real builders of the economy”, and that National’s promises are “like green grass to farmers”—very high praise indeed.
Why would anyone believe that our primary industries are even vaguely on this Government’s agenda or the Minister’s agenda, when the Government’s own outline of its programme for the next 3 years never mentioned once our primary industries, the word “farming”, the word “forestry”, the words “scientific research”, or even the word “export”?
What the Speech from the Throne outlined were the areas of concern to farmers, and this Government is intent on doing something about those, not on ignoring the issues or on making compliance worse, as that member did while he was the Minister of Agriculture.
I have seen that this current Government is well represented by rural interests. We have a number of members who are actively farming. We compare that with the Opposition, which, to date, has not even bothered to name its own Opposition spokesperson on agriculture. That is how much interest Labour is showing in New Zealand agriculture.
Was reference to the future of our agriculture industries omitted from the Speech from the Throne because the Prime Minister ignored the advice or submissions of the now Minister of Agriculture, Mr Carter, or was it because the Minister never made any submissions whatever to the speech?
The honourable member might have sought the call before giving his answer, but we will take the answer as given.
I seek leave to table the Speech from the Throne in 2005 and the Speech from the Throne in 1999, where agriculture and science were part of—
I seek leave to table the Speech from the Throne dated 21 December 1999, in which Labour claims that New Zealand is over-dependent on agriculture.
As I heard—and I stress, as I heard—I thought the Hon Jim Anderton sought to table the Speeches from the Throne for 2005 and 1999. The honourable Minister sought to table the Speech from the Throne for which year?
Just to clarify, I understood that the member sought to table the Speeches from the Throne for 2008 and 2005.
It was difficult to hear because of all the interjections. I ask the Hon Jim Anderton which documents he sought to table.
Was there any objection to those two documents being tabled? There is no objection. I ask the Hon David Carter which document he seeks to table. There are no further documents.
Hon Dr Michael Cullen Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. For the third time today when you were on your feet, the Leader of the House carried on speaking at some length while he was on his feet. I suggest that at this early stage of the Parliament it would be wise to draw to the attention of members of the House that when you are on your feet the rest of us should be sitting down and showing you appropriate respect.