Estimates Debate — Vote Environment

We have an extraordinary situation with the Ministry for the Environment. After 9 years of the current Government, the Minister comes to the Local Government and Environment Committee and tells us that the ministry has a lack of focus, serious problems in meeting its objectives, and major operational difficulties. The question one has to ask is: who has been in charge for 9 years? If we look at each of the key areas where we should be making progress on the environment, we see that the Government is in a very serious pickle. Let us look at an area like climate change. The Government came into office promising to reduce emissions by 20 percent. In fact, we have found out that emissions are actually up by 20 percent on what they were when Labour came into office. If we look at an area like water quality, we see the Ministry for the Environment’s new chief executive describing the Government’s programme of action on water quality as a programme of inaction. Is that not unreal? The incoming chief executive to the Ministry for the Environment says that this much-vaunted programme of action is actually a programme of inaction.

💬 Hon Shane Jones: You’re making it up.

Shane Jones says it is not true. Well, I have to say that Jim Anderton accepts that it is true. The Minister in the chair, Trevor Mallard, nods his head and says it is true. So we see splits in the Labour ranks already. Shane Jones does not even accept the view of the Minister.

Then we come further down the picture to what is a very serious issue, which is that in the report from the select committee the Government says the successful clean-up of Māpua should be noted. Successful? Well, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment has said this: double the time, double the money, and breach the resource consents. Here is the Ministry for the Environment, which is in charge of the Resource Management Act, breaching its own consent. It said that it ignored requests from the local council to clean up and to comply with the consent. It refused and ignored the advice of the auditor, and of its own review team. What really concerns me about the situation of Māpua and the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s report is that the Minister is in denial. The Minister has not accepted the key conclusions, despite the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment doing a 2½-year review of that particular clean-up. What worries me is that if the Minister is in denial, how do we know that the same mistakes will not be repeated all over again when it comes to the Tui mine. I say to the Minister in the chair, Trevor Mallard, that he owes the people of Māpua an apology.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: If one person owes an apology, it is that member.

Well, for the Minister in the chair, that seems to be a standard line. Labour has been the Government for 9 years, but everything is the fault of the National Party! When was the Māpua clean-up done? It was done in the years 2005-06. How is it possible for anybody other than this Government to have responsibility? The problem with this Government is that it is always everybody else’s fault, even though the decision to have the resource consent held by the Ministry for the Environment was a decision of the Minister.

I say to the Minister in the chair that he owes an apology to the people of Māpua for the botched clean-up. The Minister owes an explanation as to why the advice of the local council, the local authority, was ignored when it advised that the consent conditions should be complied with. They need to provide an explanation as to why more than 5 tonnes of copper sulphate, without a consent, was used in the clean-up process. An explanation needs to be provided to the local residents who wrote to the Minister and said they were getting sick. There were doctors’ reports of people getting sick, and the ministry ignored them. I say that Māpua is another sad chapter in the environmental failure record of this Government.

If there is one person who should be apologising for the Māpua clean-up, it is the former member for Tasman, Nick Smith. He is the person who put inordinate pressure on the local council to get it moving. He is the person who put inordinate pressure on it to set up a scheme with conditions.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: The Minister is never responsible. Who’s the Minister?

There was no Minister responsible for the Tasman District Council making its application for a resource consent. But there was a lot of pressure from the local member, Nick Smith, for that to happen, and he should stand up—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Where’s that in the report?

It is not in the report; it is a matter of fact. When it became clear that the council could not meet the conditions, and that the whole scheme that the member had helped to design was falling apart, that member said: “Oh, we can’t do it this way. Please take it over, Ministry for the Environment.” He ran crying to the Ministry for the Environment, and asked it to take over the existing consent that he had pressured the Tasman District Council into obtaining.

💬 Sue Moroney: He stuffed up.

Well, “stuffed up” is a very nice expression for it. I would say it was the height of a word beginning with “h”. Hearing him complain about it now—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Tell the truth for a change.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I object to that. The member made an unparliamentary remark, and I ask him to withdraw and apologise.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Dr Smith, would you please withdraw and apologise.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: The words I said to the Minister were “Tell the truth for a change.”, because everything he has said to date is a fabrication and is untrue.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): I think that is playing with words, although that may well be what you said. I object to the words, too, so would you withdraw and apologise.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I withdraw and apologise.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Thank you.

If anyone is responsible for people in Māpua being sick, it is that member, Nick Smith. It does not matter how much he denies it, it does not matter how often he denies going to the then Minister for the Environment and saying that the Government should not give all the money that it was proposing to give for the clean-up, and that it should give only half of it; that is what Nick Smith said.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Not true.

Oh, he says that is not true. That is now on the record, and it will be the subject of a breach of privilege. That member has clearly misled the House in an interjection, because we have already had a statement in this House from a very honourable member that that was the case. Nick Smith approached Marian Hobbs, asked her to halve the amount that the taxpayer was putting in, and suggested that the district council should be required to put in the balance. That is what Nick Smith did. I think he might have spent far too much time too close to that clean-up. There is certainly some sign of an effect on his memory of the whole sad procedure. When this story is fully told, it will be another nail in the coffin of Nick Smith. Maryan Street will be cleaning him up.

New Zealanders identify very closely with the natural environment. They want to live in a country that is truly clean and green, and they look to the Government to deliver on the big environmental issues of the day. But this Government has failed, and it has failed in many ways. Yes, the Government talks of sustainability, and, yes, it pays lip-service to looking after the environment, but it simply does not deliver. The Ministry for the Environment struggled to deliver last year. For months it was distracted from its core business, and it showed. As Dr Nick Smith has already commented, the Minister himself acknowledged that the ministry did not deliver on its key objectives. The Minister blamed the small size of the ministry, but it would seem to me and most New Zealanders that a ministry of 262 employees, with a budget of $64 million—going up to $84 million in 2008-09—should be able to make some progress on our pressing environmental issues. These environmental issues are important and pressing, such as the management of fresh water, environmental sustainability, and climate change.

The Local Government and Environment Committee at estimates time was particularly concerned about the delays in the management of fresh water. We are still, very impatiently, awaiting a national environment standard for the measurement of water takes, and a national environment standard on ecological flows and water levels. They are well overdue. However, the long-awaited national policy statement for fresh water management was released last week, and that was a real disappointment. The draft national policy statement was, quite rightly, slated by several non-governmental organisations, including Fish and Game New Zealand, the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society, and the Water Rights Trust from Canterbury. The final statement was no better. It is vague, it is wishy-washy, and any improvements to water quality will be a long way away and extremely expensive. In fact, believe this or not, at estimates time the Minister confessed that improvements in water quality may not be seen for up to 50 years—50 years! Worse than that, in some areas it is likely to get worse before it gets better. That is not what the people of New Zealand expect from this Government.

Time and time again, constituents tell me that water quality is the most important and pressing environmental issue for them. I come from Canterbury, and the region has real issues with water quality and water quantity. It has been identified that the “first in, first served” method of water allocation under the Resource Management Act has proved an insurmountable barrier to better water management. Therefore, looking for alternatives to the “first in, first served” method is important and extremely urgent. So it is a real disaster that the Cabinet paper concerning the water plan of action, due in March 2007—I shall say that again: due in March 2007—is still missing in action. It is no wonder that the Minister does not expect any improvement in water quality for up to 50 years.

Again in Canterbury, but also throughout the country, the public is concerned about the effect of intensive farming, particularly dairying, on water quality. One would expect the ministry to be very focused on this important issue, but, no, the baseline report on the environmental outcomes of dairying and the Clean Stream Accord, which was due to be completed in 2007—I shall say that again: it was due to be completed in 2007—is still not available.

It is no wonder that the Minister does not expect any improvements in water quality for up to 50 years. We had hoped that in 2003 when the Sustainable Development Programme of Action was launched, with much fanfare, we would get some real action and some subsequent improvements in the environment.

In case the member Nicky Wagner had not noticed—and I know that there was not a lot of publicity about it, although a former Minister for the Environment, Simon Upton, seemed to notice it—the draft national policy statement was released last week, or possibly even the week before. I know that it is a bit much to expect that member to stay up to date, but to criticise people for not releasing something when it was released so recently is really—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: No, the issue was the Cabinet paper on allocation.

Dear, oh dear!

I want to refer to the Canterbury problem, because there is certainly a problem with the allocation of water in Canterbury. The core of the problem is that the Canterbury Regional Council does not have an operating plan—unlike, I think, every other regional council in the country. Some of them are up to their second iteration; they are on a renewal, 10 years on. Unfortunately, because of a lack of competence on the part of past district councillors in the Canterbury region, there is not a proper operating plan. There is a very real problem. It can certainly be argued that there already has been an over-allocation of water in Canterbury. That is bad for the economy, and there are dangers to the environment—certainly, in terms of recreational aspects. There are lots of problems as a result of that.

I find it slightly interesting that the member is criticising the problems with water in Canterbury and blaming them on the Government, when it is my understanding that that member was a member of the council that did not do the work that it was meant to do.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: She was a very good member.

She was a very good member of a group that was not competent and did not do the job in the way that other—

💬 Nicky Wagner: 50 years!

The member cannot say 9 years to me. That member—

💬 Nicky Wagner: Nothing is ever his fault!

Actually, I refuse to take responsibility for the Canterbury Regional Council not putting a plan in action. Maybe I should sack its members. I have the right to sack them for not doing it. But the trouble is that I would be sacking the people who are trying to fix it up now, whereas it was other people who should have done the job and did not do so. One of those people is sitting opposite me in the House, and she had the cheek and the gall to raise the issue now. I do not know whether she has been spending too much time with Nick Smith, sharing the same air as him—I do not know what the problem is—but I regret the fact that the National Party gives such a low priority to environmental matters that it appoints those two people to do the job.

I am happy to stand in this debate on Vote Environment. I thank the Minister for the Environment for the very good session that we had at select committee. It is true that the Ministry for the Environment has come under increasing pressure with its workload, in particular because of the importance that this Government has placed on environmental issues. I thank the Minister for the very frank and honest discussion we had at select committee. I noted with amusement the comments from Dr Nick Smith that the Minister never takes responsibility for anything; I think that at select committee the Minister very much took responsibility for some of the things that had not gone right in the past in the ministry, and said he was prepared to work on fixing those and making them better. So I do not think at all that that is a fair reflection, and I look forward to the work being done in the Ministry for the Environment in the future to make sure it can deliver in this increasingly important area of Government policy.

I have to say it is a bit rich being lectured by the National Party on environmental issues—a bit rich. If National will slash public servants across the board in all the ministries, then I ask Dr Nick Smith: who will be doing this work in the Ministry for the Environment? Oh, I am sorry; Judith Collins is right—National flip-flopped on that. It will not slash them any more; it will have a sinking lid—a sinking lid of public servants in ministries, regardless of what is needed. We have yet to be told a single job title that is included in this area—a single person who will be slashed. Somehow they are basing all their spending promises for the election on public servants who may or may not be out there, and now we have the sinking-lid policy. Well, that is very interesting, given that a number of the issues are due to the overextension of the Ministry, and given that environmental issues in this country will only get greater and have a greater need for people working on them.

I say to the National Party speakers, who tried to somehow suggest that a National Government would be better in the area of environment than a Labour Government, that theirs is the party whose leader did not believe in climate change, and theirs is the party that has opposed every single piece of meaningful environmental legislation that has come through the House. My colleague Sue Moroney talked about the drinking-water standards bill. Apparently we have to be lectured by Nicky Wagner about the quality of water, yet they voted against that bill. They are voting against the emissions trading scheme, and they are voting against the Biofuel Bill—they find some reason to vote against every single piece of meaningful environmental policy that comes into this House.

To stand up in this Chamber and somehow suggest that a National Government would be better for the environment is absolutely laughable. I want to know how good it will be for the environment to have a Government like National, which says it will gut the Resource Management Act. Judith Collins says yes—they will gut the Resource Management Act, and somehow they will protect our natural resources and our natural environment! Well, that just shows the double-speak we are hearing from that party over there. If members talk to anyone who has had environmental concerns, where industry has tried to run roughshod over the rights of individual people, or to people who are concerned about their local environment, they will see that the recourse they have is the Resource Management Act. The National Party should tell us exactly how much it will rip the guts out of that important environmental legislation. I think many of the National Ministers of the past who put that legislation into place and thought it was good legislation would be very unhappy at the prospect of it having its guts ripped out. I know there are many people in the community—

💬 Judith Collins: Why do you have to be so crude?

Well, I say to Judith Collins that that is what her party has said. That is what National has said. This is par for the course for the National Party—when we tell the truth and talk about policy, they claim we are being rude and personal. I am not. The National Party has said that it will tear the guts out of the Resource Management Act. That is what it says when it is in front of its industry and farmer groups that want them to do it; when it gets in front of environmental groups that might not like it, it probably softens the language a little bit. Crosby/Textor has obviously told them to do that, to tailor their message to their group so it will get through a bit more and they will get everyone’s votes. I am sure that that is what they have been told.

It is astonishing. We can even look at the case of Māpua, where National members have voted against every single appropriation for the remediation of contaminated sites that has come before this Parliament. Then they get up in this House and criticise the work that this Government has been doing cleaning up the remediated sites. This is an area I used to work in. I was a team leader in a persistence organic pollutant lab. I worked on the remediation of Homebush Bay in Sydney so I know that this is not easy. I think sometimes people need to appreciate that the remediation is not nice and easy, and that there are nasty chemicals involved. Everyone knows that, but one makes a call that environmentally it may be better to do that than to have these awful chemicals lying in the ground and leaching into our water tables—that is a call one makes. But the point is that for National members to get up in this House and criticise this Government when they come from such a flimsy base as the National Party is absolutely—absolutely—abhorrent.

Vote agreed to.

Vote Labour