7. Irrigation—Central Plains Water Irrigation SchemeEUGENIE SAGE (Green) to the Minister for Primary IndustriesIrrigation—Central Plains Water Irrigation Scheme7. EUGENIE SAGE (Green) to the Minister for Primary Industries: How close will Canterbury come to the limit for dairy intensification when Stage 2 of the Central Plains Water irrigation scheme is completed?Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister for Primary Industries): I have no ministerial responsibility for the Canterbury region's environmental management. This is of course the responsibility of Environment Canterbury which has issued consents for this project. The impacts of farming on the environment are best managed at a regional council level and of course on a catchment-by-catchment basis. However as a Government we are setting strong requirements for monitoring and improving waterways. We are also strong supporters of irrigation and water storage projects like the Central Plains Water scheme because they bring both economic and environmental benefits.Eugenie Sage: Can he confirm that through grants from the Irrigation Acceleration Fund and loans from Crown Irrigation Investments Ltd he has subsidised a predicted increase of 29 percent in nutrient pollution in the Selwyn catchment through his Government's grants and subsidies to Central Plains Water?Hon NATHAN GUY: No I cannot confirm those numbers because ultimately the Government—we have got two funding programmes. One is a grant allocation to get these programmes up and running because on average they take 15 years. Then Crown Irrigation Investments Ltd may come in in the end like it has on stage one—it invested $6.5 million and then got that money returned back to it. Ultimately it is about farmers making the investment.Eugenie Sage: Does he agree with the OECD in its 2017 economic survey of New Zealand that Initiatives that drive large increases in production such as … government grants and concessional financing for irrigation projects are potentially in conflict with the need to maintain and improve the quality of the environment."?Hon NATHAN GUY: When we came into Government there were not national policy statements to do with improving fresh water. We have done a huge amount. We are now consulting with the farming community about fencing regulations to exclude the next stage of animals out of waterways on medium and rolling country. I cannot agree with the member's assertion.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Can the Minister confirm that water storage is critical to both growing horticultural exports and improving water quality and can regions like Nelson expect to continue to lead New Zealand with the lowest levels of unemployment if the Waimea dam project is scuttled?Hon NATHAN GUY: That is a very good question from the local MP. Certainly I have seen a report that shows that 75 jobs at Waimea would be at risk from a local nursery owner if this proposed water storage scheme does not go ahead. The nursery director said that like many within the horticulture sector their livelihood depends on a secure and sustainable water supply. The Waimea project is supported by one of the local MPs there Damien O'Connor despite his party being against water storage and the Greens.Eugenie Sage: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will hear the first point of order which was raised by Eugenie Sage.Eugenie Sage: Thank you Mr Speaker. The Minister said he had no responsibility in terms of Central Plains and now he is claiming responsibility for the Waimea scheme.Mr SPEAKER: I do not accept that he is claiming responsibility for the Waimea scheme. The question asked by the Hon Dr Nick Smith was actually two questions but the second question was genuinely one that I think was raised as the local member. He is certainly entitled to answer that. There was a further point of order?Hon David Parker: The Minister misrepresented the Labour Party position which he and his local member know and he has no responsibility for it so he should be called to order and asked to withdraw that comment.Mr SPEAKER: The second point is probably right; there is no responsibility from the Minister for any particular Labour member of Parliament. As to the first point whether in the answer given misrepresentation has occurred then there is a very clear pathway to follow. Have a look at Standing Order 359.Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There are two issues here. If someone deliberately misrepresents then that is a breach of privilege that has to go through that route. The point about Ministers not being able to purport to answer for other parties is they have no responsibility for it and their misrepresentation whether it is deliberate or not and whether it is a breach of privilege or not is not to be allowed. And that is why I suggest that he should be asked to withdraw.Mr SPEAKER: No I am not going to force a withdrawal and the member is wrong in suggesting that when I mentioned Standing Order 359 that automatically leads to a breach of privilege. There is another process which has been used once very successfully here: if a Labour member feels that the comment has misrepresented the Labour Party position I have given very clear guidance as to where to go. Further supplementary—James Shaw: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. As you mentioned Mr Speaker the Hon Nick Smith did ask two supplementary questions and normally when a member of the Opposition does that you actually point that out and refer the Minister to answer only one of those two questions.Mr SPEAKER: That is a reasonable point. Often but not always—and in fact if you go back and look at questions asked by Ron Mark today I think one incorporated three supplementary questions not two. Very often I invite the Minister to answer either one or other and sometimes I give them the ability to answer both. On this particular occasion if you go back and look carefully at the Hansard as indeed I will Mr Shaw you will find that the answer certainly addressed only the second supplementary question.Hon Damien O'Connor: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Given the Minister's reference to me is it OK for me to say that that Minister allows in dangerous animal disease—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. I have given guidance to the member to Mr Parker. He should accept the same guidance. If the member has been misrepresented or thinks he has have a look at and get to know Standing Order 359.Eugenie Sage: Will the Minister commit to ending taxpayer subsidies for think-big irrigation schemes such as Central Plains Water that offer no protection from the future effects of climate change drive dairy intensification and degrade our rivers and aquifers? Hon NATHAN GUY: No. I find it sort of quite bizarre that the member is talking about climate change because these projects are about rural resilience to do with droughts. Some talk about droughts as a result of climate change—so on one hand here is the Government supporting large regional water storage projects to get across the line to ultimately provide economic and environmental gains to rural New Zealand and yet on the other side of the House they are moaning about climate change. Marama Fox: Given the degradation of the nation's water bodies since regional councils took control of water management and water allocation systems how can the Minister state that regional councils are best suited to protecting and managing the environment? Hon NATHAN GUY: Well because that is what they have proven to do quite well over time. There are 18 catchments with restrictions to do with nitrates now and of course they are the ones that allocate consents. Seventy-two percent of our rivers and waterways in New Zealand are swimmable and we have got an aspirational target of seeing that improve over time."