Sage Eugenie: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSage Eugenie: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 16 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:13926. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]11.EUGENIE SAGE (Green) to theMinister of Conservation: How many submissions did the Department of Conservation make on regional district or city plans or regional policy statements in 2012/13 that related to water-quality issues?Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister of Conservation): The department’s interests in water quality are mainly where it relates to freshwater fisheries as the Ministry for the Environment is the lead agency on these issues. In that year 24 Resource ManagementAct submissions were made on plans and policy statements and most if not all had something in them that might relate to water quality.Eugenie Sage: Why was it appropriate for the department to make 24 plan submissions including at least nine on water-quality issues but then not make a submission on proposed plan change 6 for the Tukituki catchment which will enable New Zealand’s largest proposed new dam and irrigation scheme?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The decision about the submission as Doris Johnston has said was made by her. When I inquired into the department as to why it made the decision not to submit the reason was that when the Department of Conservation managers met with the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council and the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) and the Cawthron Institute scientists they concluded that their science was robust and that it would have been a huge amount of resource to contest what NIWA had concluded about the water-quality issues in plan change 6.Eugenie Sage: Why did the department say in its submission on Southland’s proposed regional plan change 13 on dairy farming: “Inappropriately sited or poorly managed land use including dairy farms either by themselves or in combination with other activities have the potential to significantly adversely affect water quality …” but yet decide not to submit on water-quality issues on plan change 6 for the Tukituki catchment?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I think the point that the member makes on the department’s submission on Southland is that it followed exactly the same process as in respect of Tukituki—that is the decision was made by the department. In some cases it contests the science that is in a plan and sometimes it accepts it. In the case of Tukituki the department concluded as is on the public record that the science from NIWA was robust in respect of plan change 6.Eugenie Sage: Is it the reality that there will be fewer or no departmental—Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I seek leave of the House to table the report where the Department of Conservation says thatNIWA’s science on plan change 6 was robust because the member Ruth Dyson—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Is that information already freely available to members to seek?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes it is.Eugenie Sage: Is it the reality that there will be fewer or no departmental submissions on water quality in future on his watch because he does not want the Department of Conservation highlighting the water pollution problems with his Government’s irrigation agenda?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Of course not. I point out to the member that the Resource Management Act is 20 years old and it was not until I was the Minister for the Environment that we actually got a national policy statement delivered on water quality. Labour when in Government with the Greens did absolutely nothing in terms of putting rules in place around water quality.Eugenie Sage: The Minister talked a lot about—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Is this a point of order?Eugenie Sage: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister talked a lot about what he had done as Minister for the Environment but did not answer in terms of his ministerial responsibilities.Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister has addressed the question. It may not be to the member’s satisfaction but the Minister has addressed the question.