Sage Eugenie: General DebateText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSage Eugenie: General Debate[Sitting date: 18 September 2013. Volume:693;Page:13477. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]EUGENIE SAGE (Green):Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. This week we have seen yet another example of this Government’s failure to recognise that our economy and our well-being depend on a healthy environment. The Hon Nick Smith may have a lot of experience as the Minister of Conservation but given his Government’s dig it drill it mine it irrigate it agenda which is its apology for an economic plan the Minister seems to have conveniently forgotten what both he and the Department of Conservation are required to do by law and that is to advocate for conservation and to preserve freshwater fish habitats.The Department of Conservation has eight functions in section 6 of the Conservation Act and one of them is “to advocate the conservation of natural and historic resources”. Another of those eight functions is “to preserve so far as is practicable all indigenous freshwater fisheries and protect recreational freshwater fisheries and freshwater fish habitats:”.Yet what have we seen in the Hawke’s Bay in the Tukituki catchment in relation to theRuataniwha dam scheme? We have the Tukituki River which is ranked as nationally significant for its native fish and where there are eight of the 18 native fish species in the catchment that are at risk of extinction or their populations are declining. In terms of recreational fishing the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research has said that the Tukituki is one of the two most heavily fished rivers with the possible exception of the Tongariro in the North Island. It is the sixth-most popular trout-fishing river in New Zealand. It is highly valued by Hawke’s Bay anglers because of its ease of access and because of the many opportunities there.So when the Department of Conservation has a responsibility under the law for a river with these high values then it should consider the effects of the dam scheme and the proposed regional plan on those values. That is what the department was doing in relation to the Tukituki catchment and the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council’s proposals for plan change 6. Departmental staff put in quite a lot of time and effort to prepare a substantial 32-page submission setting out their concerns on the adequacy of the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council’s proposed water management regime and its approach to water quality. That submission expressed quite significant concern that the council was proposing to manage only one nutrient which was phosphorous; that this was a new and untested approach in New Zealand; that it was not enough to protect the values of the Tukituki and its tributaries; and that it could lead to more algal blooms which have been a major problem in that catchment in the low flows in summer.The department also identified that with the regime the council was proposing and without controlling nitrogen—a key nutrient that leads to algal blooms—there would be potentially a 300 percent to 500 percent increase in nitrogen levels compared with current levels which could have potentially unexpected ecological effects. So that submission went on and made a number of constructive recommendations that the board of inquiry that is considering the issue should seek further advice and seek an independent peer review.Yet somehow despite all the work done on the submission despite the evidence of theTukituki’s high value and despite the department’s statutory responsibilities this submission was not lodged with the board of inquiry. How and why was that decision made? It is very troubling that we see such politicisation of departmental decision making on such a major project which will affect the health of rivers and communities in the Hawke’s Bay.The Minister Nick Smith was talking nonsense yesterday when he said that because the submission was in his name the department therefore needed to be careful when making such submissions. The submission that was lodged was in the department’s name not in the Minister’s name. It was in the name of the director-general.The reason I suspect that that submission was not lodged was that this Government is not interested in good policy. It is not interested in robust debate. It is not interested in its views being challenged or its irrigation agenda being challenged. It wants to tilt the playing field in favour of development. We are seeing that with the muzzling of the department here and with the Minister’s colleague the Hon Amy Adams doing her best to gut the principles from the Resource Management Act and tilt that Act in favour of more development and away from the environment. This Government is bailing on its responsibilities to the environment.What is also troubling is that the suppression of the Department of Conservation’s draft submission has undermined potentially public confidence in the whole board of inquiry process—