Dean Jacqui: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Urgent Questions 
Dean Jacqui: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Urgent Questions 
[Volume:636;Page:7013] 
11.  
JACQUI DEAN (National—Otago) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: Has he received the recent report from the Ministry for the Environment that pinpoints a further deterioration in rivers already polluted by nutrient run-off; if so what is his response? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister of Agriculture) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister for the Environment 
: Yes. The Ministry for the Environment has recently released two technical reports on water quality. They are a snapshot of lake-water quality in New Zealand and stated trends in the National River Water Quality Network from 1989 to 2005. The reports confirm that approximately one-third of our rivers and lakes are under pressure for both volume and water quality. They confirm that our major water-quality challenge is managing non-point-source discharges. This reinforces the importance of the Labour-Progressive Government’s sustainable water programme of action and the leadership being taken by the agricultural sector to improve water quality for all New Zealanders. 
Jacqui Dean 
: How can spending half a million dollars on a fluffy water-awareness campaign—“New Zealand. A valuable body of water.”—showing fully clothed people standing in pristine bodies of water possibly remedy the poor state of New Zealand rivers? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: There is no question that raising awareness of the importance of water to New Zealand is relevant to the education process that we have to go through here in my view. However I am aware that half of all advertising is wasted. The problem is that most of us do not know which half it is. 
Martin Gallagher 
: What far-reaching and very significant actions is this Government taking to improve water quality? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: One of the key outcomes sought under the Water Programme of Action is improved water quality. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Inaction! 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Like the member’s inaction that lasted 3 days in the deputy leadership of the National Party presumably. That member should never ask for what he wants—he might get it. The Government is a partner in significant current work programmes that target improved water quality. This work builds on the significant investment in science and extension activity by the partnership of Government industry and local government which has developed management tools and approaches that will with time reduce the impact of runoff and non-point discharges to water. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: In light of the interesting work being done around the use of nitrogen inhibitors to reduce nitrate losses from farms is the Government involved in or aware of any work being done to study the effects of nitrogen inhibitors on soil or soil microbiology? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Yes there is considerable work being done on nitrogen inhibitors the effect of nitrification of soil leachate into waterways and so on. Lincoln University is well ahead in programmes of this kind and the Government is taking those matters into account as it moves through the climate change programmes with our industries—particularly the agricultural industry—and budgetary considerations are being given as we speak. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I wonder whether the Minister did not quite understand my question. I am aware that there is work being done on the use of nitrogen inhibitors to reduce nitrate losses. What I was asking specifically about is the effects of nitrogen inhibitors on soil and soil microbe biology. The reason for the question was that I am not sure that there is a full understanding of what the unintended consequences— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I think the member had the opportunity to put his question and the Minister had the opportunity to address it. He addressed the question and if the question is to be more specific then it should be framed more clearly. [ 
Interruption 
] I have ruled on the matter endlessly in this particular session. 
Tariana Turia 
: What remedial action has the Minister taken following angry protests in Palmerston North last month which highlighted the issuing of 190 permits to local companies to allow the discharge of pollutants into waterways that are likely to result in the death of the Manawatu River? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I am aware that the Ministry for the Environment and all other Government agencies with any concern for the future of New Zealand’s ecological environment would give consideration and concern to such matters. But in the real word of course these things are going to take some time and usually local authorities are giving exemptions on the basis that time is also being given for industry and other users and polluters to sort out what is happening to their environment and give them the occasion and the opportunity to rectify matters. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Can the Minister confirm that the whole subject of water quality and in particular reference to nutrient runoffs is included in the confidence and supply agreement between the Labour-led Government and United Future and that part of that policy advanced by United Future is to plant trees on marginal strips around our rivers and lakes? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Yes I can and of course the Government is actively involved with its support partners in promoting the kind of developments that the member has spoken about. Budgetary consideration will be given to active involvement. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Look at forestry you’re going backwards! 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Yes a bit like the member’s political record. The Government is giving considerable attention to the development of appropriate measures for these matters and that will be dealt with in the Budget. 
Jacqui Dean 
: How will the half a million dollar publicly funded campaign “New Zealand. A valuable body of water.” improve water quality when the website it directs people to has only one practical tip and that is that running a full load of a dishwasher uses less water less energy and is more hygienic than washing by hand? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I think I already indicated that raising the consciousness of New Zealanders about the importance of water and its future use and efficiency of use are important educative matters. When Government departments or any other industry body is doing that they should be applauded for it. The quality of what they do of course is always in the eye of the individual beholder. 
Jacqui Dean 
: Who came up with the idea of spending half a million dollars of public money on the “New Zealand. A valuable body of water.” ad campaign for a website that contains thought-provoking gems such as “Freshwater can be found in two places underground … and above ground …” “Surface water includes things such as lakes rivers …” and “Water availability problems occur when water demand outstrips supply …”? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: As in all these original ideas if there is proven to be success we will find that many authors came up with the idea; if there is not then we will find there will be orphans. 
Jacqui Dean 
: Why instead of spending half a million dollars on a fancy ad campaign showing people standing in pristine bodies of water do we not show them just standing in rivers like the Manawatu the state of which was enough to get more than 200 people marching down the main street of Palmerston North recently screaming for the Government to do something? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Well I think at least this programme would have paid for its GST. 
Jacqui Dean 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Try as I might I cannot see how the Minister in any way addressed my question on the health of the Manawatu River. I am very interested in his reply. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the Minister like to add to his answer please. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Well if the member is suggesting that the Ministry for the Environment or any other Government agency—or local government agency for that matter—is not interested in the health of the Manawatu River then she is not living in the same world as I am. Of course these matters are important and all the initiatives the Government takes are meant to make a contribution to that welfare. 
Jacqui Dean 
: Why instead of wasting so much money merely trying to get people to think about something does the Minister not spend his half a million dollars of public money on something concrete aimed at people actually doing something? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: If the member really wants to go down the expenditure route rather than focus on quality I say that the Government is contributing $36.7 million towards reducing nitrogen levels in Lake Taupo a project it is funding with Environment Waikato and the Taupo District Council. It forms the largest project of its type in the history of New Zealand. The Government is contributing $4 million towards building a structure to divert the outflow from the Ohau Channel that links Lakes Rotorua and Rotoiti and it is assisting the improvement of the water quality of Lake Rotoiti. There is much more than that and if the member is really asking for something she should expect to get the answer. 
Jacqui Dean 
: I seek leave to table a picture of a man standing up to his waist in water which is the Labour Government’s answer— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there objection? Yes there is objection. [ 
Interruption 
] The member has displayed the document. She should read the Standing Orders on such matters please. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I raise a point of order not to question your ruling that you previously made because of course no member would dare to do that but simply to seek a clarification. I raise this point of order because the Green Party like other small parties has a very small number of questions. We have one question per day most days and we have four supplementary questions so we do not have the ability to squander questions as some other parties do. But I questioned whether the Minister answered my specific question and I raised that not because I thought he was trying to evade the question but I genuinely thought he had not heard it properly. Often the noise in this House means that Ministers cannot fully hear questions. I asked one question not a number of questions and I asked a very specific question. It was a point of information; I was not trying to score a political point. I know that that is rare in this House as well. So my question for clarification is: how can I be more specific in relation to your finding than to ask one question—and a very specific question? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Unfortunately in this place good intentions do not get members different rulings from bad intentions in asking questions. I accept that the member had good intentions but he has to be treated the same way as other members in response to their questions. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I think that members have to be reminded also that the purpose of supplementary questions is in fact to elucidate through those questions what the primary question was. Obviously that does not always satisfy the member as in this instance but the Minister did actually address the question. It may not as I said have been to the satisfaction of the member. I would also just like to remind members that points of order are used to raise matters of order; they are not used to elucidate an answer through a point of order.