Hobbs Marian: General Debates 
Hobbs Marian: General Debates 
[Volume:614;Page:10595] 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 Although I want to talk about the environment as a former educationalist I cannot resist speaking about education. To hear that last speaker not equate high quality and falling rolls seems to me absolutely duplicitous. It is good to have small classrooms but if there is nil subject choice then the school is not offering anything to those children. I can only think of the children in one of the smallest secondary departments of an area school in New Zealand—halfway between Blenheim and Nelson—who wrote to me the other day. They would rather pay for private transport to get them to bigger schools with subject choice than be confined in a secondary school with only 26 students. That is the sort of issue being faced. That is what they mean about quality. To denigrate that and say that that is somehow demographics and not unpick what demographics means is to my mind dishonest debating. 
But I want to concentrate a little on something that the Labour-Progressive Government which is a good strong Government has been clear on this year. It has been clear on the direction and leadership it has shown on the environment. It has shown a strong clear leadership—unlike the confused and contradictory utterances from ACT and National which I will come to. I turn to a little of our record this year. The Ministry for the Environment’s job is to clean up the mistakes of the past. I turn to an area near the electorate of the Opposition spokesperson for the environment namely Mapua. This is a horrible site where an agrichemical factory once was and where the chemicals leach out into the estuary. For years nothing was done but now as of the passing of the resource consents the ministry is on its way to do the first part of a major clean-up that may cost as much as $9 million. This Government is prepared to work with local government to achieve that. 
But we do not leave it there—we go to Lake Taupo. Land around Lake Taupo opened up in the 1960s when a certain former Prime Minister drove a road down the western side of the lake and opened up an extraordinary amount of land to agriculture. The agriculture and farming that have gone on that land have contributed to the growth of nitrate and the lessening of clarity inside that particular lake. If we left it for 40 years we would be looking at a Rotorua lakes problem. We would have lost one of our great assets yet we are out there working with Environment Waikato working with the farmers working with Ngati Tuwharetoa working with the Taupo District Council and with money—an uneven amount again—from central Government to support a way to reverse the decline. 
It goes again for the Rotorua lakes which for years had a disgusting habit of disposing of sewage straight on to the bottom of the lakes. They did change that and they did it with the help of previous Governments but they did not do a helluva good job. We are now having to work to try to find some instant ways as well as some long-term ways of cleaning it up. What did the National Party members do about that? When they campaigned at the last election in 2002 they wanted a royal commission on the question. What did Labour do? Labour got in there boots and all worked with local government and put up the money. It is in there getting some solutions. There is no royal commission here—we got in there and delivered on it. 
We have been showing leadership in waste strategy. We have been working out there with the sectors working out with the tyre mountains that my good colleague always brings me from Hamilton. A number of other issues are out there. We have put up funds—millions of dollars—for biodiversity on private land. We recognise that farmers do care about that land and want to make some changes to it. 
In the hazardous substances Act and in the work that we did there this year we had guts. Yes public pressure was out there. Yes there were polls but on that occasion we set up a royal commission—on a divided subject—to listen to people. When it said “proceed with caution” that is exactly what we did. That is leadership. We have ensured that the Environmental Risk Management Authority is fit to deliver the answers and the advice. We have shown good firm leadership. We did not play political games and shift votes at the last moment because we thought the issue was just a little bit hot. We had some guts. 
Are we caring about the future? You bet we are. We hold youth environment forums and I get letters back from kids saying: “I am revved up and wanting to go. I actually want to engage in these issues.” This is not about cuddling furry bears. This is out there; it is about cleaning up lakes. But what does the National Party do and how confusing does it get?