Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:648;Page:17620] 
5.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: Does he accept the conclusion of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s report that the Ministry for the Environment breached its resource consent for the remediation work at Mapua? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I will be considering the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s report along with four further reports that have not yet been completed—an occupational safety and health report a health report a final auditors’ report and the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s final report. I will receive advice on these. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Does he agree with the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s statement: “contaminants including DDT lindane nitrate and ammoniacal nitrogen have exceeded consent thresholds since April 2005.”; if so why did his Government allow the consent to be breached in that way putting the health of workers and residents at risk in Mapua? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: As I have indicated before I will be receiving the final auditors’ report and the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s final report on these matters. At that time I will be in the position either to accept the report or not to accept it. I just want to say that for someone who wanted to halve the budget for this clean-up it is a bit rich that that member now criticises it. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why did his ministry ignore the requests from the Tasman District Council and the advice from the site auditor and the peer review panel to take action to reduce contaminant discharges in groundwater despite this being a consent obligation as was concluded by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I will be receiving advice that will go to the accuracy of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s conclusions and any response to them. When I have received that advice after I have the final report I will respond. 
Moana Mackey 
: What reports has the Minister seen about alternative approaches to managing clean-ups of contaminated sites? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I have seen a series of reports that are available to every member of this House and the lobbies which show that Nick Smith voted against $9.88 million plus GST to clean up the Tui mine and $2.929 million excluding GST to clean up the Waiwhetu Stream. He voted against the Mapua costs and just before they were approved he approached the former Minister in an attempt to halve the Government contribution. It is rich for that member to now criticise any lack of progress in this area. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Tena koe Madam Speaker. Kia ora tatou. Why has there been little or no consultation with the Motueka iwi resource management committee regarding the remediation process when the Resource Management Act states: “During the preparation of a proposed policy statement or plan the local authority concerned shall consult the tangata whenua of the area who may be so affected through iwi authorities.”? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think it is probably because this was not a matter of a policy statement or plan; it was a matter of a resource consent application. But even given that I would have thought it would have been appropriate for the local authority when it originally made the application—noting that it was they who did it not the ministry—to consult with iwi. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: What does the Minister say to Ruby Bay woman Sherry Prauner who during the remediation became seriously unwell—as did a number of the workers—when he was told by his ministry that there was nothing to be concerned about and that all consent requirements were being met and when Ms Prauner now finds out from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment that she was lied to and workers involved in the clean up were subjected to unacceptable levels of contaminants? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Both the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Labour will be reporting on that matter. I am certain that if there is evidence of possible contamination of people then proper tests and proper medical support will be given. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Does the Minister stand by the statement on the Ministry for the Environment’s website that the Mapua project was “leading the way” and that “locals are very supportive of the project”; if so how does he reconcile that statement with the residents’ association’s anger its concern that residents have been treated “as guinea pigs” and the fact that its trust in the ministry has been betrayed? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I will remind that member that this clean-up—the resource consent for it and the starting of it—was done by a local authority at his behest. If anyone should take responsibility for it it is Nick Smith. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Does the Minister agree with the Soil and Health Association that an independent environmental monitoring and enforcement agency be established to address what the association has described as “cavalier attitudes to chemicals community health and environmental protection” as we have seen at Mapua; in the people who have been exposed to dioxin from the Ivor Watkins Dow factory in Paritutu New Plymouth; in the workers from the 30 contaminated sites in the eastern Bay of Plenty which saw Sawmill Workers Against Poisons identifying those sites; and at sites in Port Nelson and other areas—and if he does not agree why not? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: There are two points here. The member has shown a number of areas where the Government has been active in clean-up in identification or in resolving long-term health problems as a result of poisons. As to agreeing with Stefan Browning I think that that will never happen. The man is a person who promotes eco-terrorism. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Does the Minister agree with the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment that the ministry should never have been the holder of the resource consent—a decision that was approved by Marian Hobbs when she was the Minister—and does the Government now accept that that decision was a mistake? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I am sure that will be a matter of review. But if we look back at the circumstances of her approving it we see that it was approved because the local authority approach had collapsed and the project had fallen apart. Members should remember that the person who promoted the original approach was Nick Smith.