Smith Nick: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Smith Nick: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:17653] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 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. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: 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 Mapua 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 Mapua 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 Mapua an apology. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: If one person owes an apology it is that member. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: 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 Mapua 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 Mapua 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 Mapua is another sad chapter in the environmental failure record of this Government.