Hobbs Marian: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Hobbs Marian: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:606;Page:3332] 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I rise to support our Prime Minister’s statement today. I found it full of pragmatism that mapped a way forward for us. It lined up with where we had been before and where we are moving towards. In particular I want to draw Ms Fitzsimon’s attention to something the Prime Minister did mention: the sustainable development programme of action. I understand that the co-leader of the Greens said—and I have a copy of her speech here—that that was not even mentioned in the Prime Minister’s speech. It was.  
There are four initial emphases in the sustainable development programme of action. There is an emphasis on renewable energy and on ensuring that New Zealand has a secure energy supply. That too was raised inside the Prime Minister’s speech today. She did not mention urban sustainability but we will have to deal with that problem if we are to have a culture where 85 percent of people have quality lives living in the cities where 85 percent of us live.  
The Prime Minister did talk about child and youth development and it is quite real to imagine this scenario. We have a population study that states that in I think 2035 we will have a declining population in natural terms. That means that unlike the 1960s when I was brought up every child currently in school now must succeed to the absolute limit of his or her ability. When we are talking about child and youth development we are talking about a real effort to ensure that no child can fail. We cannot have the automatic thing that I grew up with whereby there were 100 of us in the third form going down to 60 in the fifth form to 13 in the sixth form and to five in the seventh form. It was expected at that time that 50 percent of students would fail and that we would have industries where the unskilled could go to. If we are to have a skilled society no one can fail today and that is very much part of this Government’s objective for the immediate and longer-term future. The other area that we have brought on—and it is to this Government’s credit—is that we will have doubled the number of apprenticeships and will be going all out for 6000 apprenticeships. In order to help us along the way towards having no failure by students we have already put in 700 new teachers this year. We are working hard to make those words and plans a reality.  
The fourth area of sustainable development which again was mentioned in the Prime Minister’s speech is about fresh water and water allocation. I could not help noticing at the time that a number of people were grinning when the Prime Minister talked about Lake Taupo. Lake Taupo is a very real issue for us here in New Zealand. Already in the last 13 years we have lost 1 metre of visibility in its water; visibility has dropped from 15 metres to 14 metres. If we continue to have farm and sewage runoff into that lake we will lose the visibility of its water. We will lose that icon that earns us so much in tourism and we will lose something that is very important for the Tuwharetoa people. We are working very hard with Environment Waikato Ngati Tuwharetoa the councils around Taupo farmers and agencies such as Landcorp and the Department of Corrections which have farms in that area to find a way through so that we ensure we have better water quality.  
Water allocation is another issue. We have the water conservation order as a mechanism to ensure that our in-stream values are protected. But we have some other interesting things happening and I think about the member from New Zealand First who talked about farming. We have competing interests for our water other than the in-stream values interest. We have competing interests from irrigation from dairying and from energy and we have no mechanism for allocation because we have always said “First in first served.” We have to resolve that real problem in the coming months if not years.  
But the major problem that I found in the speech given by the co-leader of the Greens was the assumption that because we as a Government want to grow by 4 percent that means we cannot have sustainable development. Some claims were made in the speech that we would double the amount of asphalt by 2020 and that we would double the demand for energy by 2020. Why then do we have the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority which is working for energy conservation if we are not working to overcome the assumption that is in there? Why is it that although I grew up in a State house sited on a third of an acre we never have such a large amount of land around houses in our cities now? It is because we are working on infill housing because in our urban planning we are not going for ribbon development and because we are trying to consolidate the use of asphalt and the use of sewerage pipes. We are trying to work for a sustainable life and to accept that we are growing at the same time. Yes we want to grow; I am not ashamed of that.  
Because of my portfolio responsibilities I have actually travelled to a number of places in Third World countries. On one list Kenya is said to be the most optimistic nation in the world. It had a wonderful election and changed the direction of its Government around without loss of life. It is a tremendously optimistic country. Are the Greens saying to Kenya that it cannot grow that its people have to remain in their slums and that there is no way it can grow or that its Government can get the money needed for hospitals and schools? If they are not saying that to Kenya why are they saying it to us while at the same time asking us to have better education which we want better health services which we want and better services in housing and all sorts of other areas which we want—and which I think the Greens want. If we have to have those things we will get them through growth.  
The issue therefore is about sustainable development and about how we grow. It is not about growth or no growth. It is about how we grow how we avoid engaging in ribbon development in cities and how we undo congestion by providing both improved and popular public transport—and that is about not just putting on buses for the sake of it but having them operate in such a way that they serve the people—and safer motorways to move freight and people. I met with mayors in Wellington this morning to find a way forward that meets the needs of the whole community and that does not pose an either / or but a both / and solution.  
There is the issue of how we provide financing for alternatives to the car and for better cycleways. We must provide for pedestrians and walking school buses—something I find very attractive as a person responsible for school buses. But that does not mean that all our trucks therefore have to be bicycle-drawn drays. We have to have a way to move the trucks and to move the produce from Palmerston North into our ports. Whether it is by rail or road we have to have the means to do that.  
The issue is about how we grow our new industries. It is about never assuming that environmental damage is the automatic consequence of a new factory. Sustainable development is about growth. It is compatible with the dream of our children’s children having the same choices as we do as well as having improved water and air quality. To the speaker before who asked what we are doing about biotechnology I say that when I assumed the role of Minister for the Environment we had an Act—the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act—that had not dreamt very much about the future. We have had to do a lot of what might be called after-the-event relooking at the legislation in order to bring forward improvements so that we could do what the royal commission set out for us to do—that is to proceed with caution. That is what we will be doing.  
I also strongly endorse what the Prime Minister has said today about our role with regard to Iraq. I stand here in the House as a Quaker. I do not get time to go to meeting for worship very often but I do have a strong passion for peace. We are absolutely for disarmament and we are working for the disarmament not only of Iraq but also of other nations around the world that have weapons of mass destruction. We will continue to work for that but we will work for it in a multilateral way. So we have not got in there and supported one country deciding that it is the police person and the judge for the world and that it will go in and drop bombs. It is very much our position to support diplomacy rather than bombs. Our job has been to ensure—and this was indicated by the Prime Minister today—that should and please God it does not happen war break out innocent people lose their lives and the situation continue in the horrible way that has gone on so far it will be us working with the United Nations just as we did in Kosovo who will come in and work to clean things up.