Norman Russel William: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Norman Russel William: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:676;Page:21498] 
6. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he have confidence in his Minister for the Environment in light of the Auditor-General’s report released yesterday that states “there is still some way to go if we are to halt and reverse the declining trends in freshwater quality”? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
 on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes because this Government has made more progress on addressing problems with freshwater management than any in recent history. Specific actions that have been taken include the first National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management since the Resource Management Act came into effect in 1991 and the first regulations under the Resource Management Act on fresh water. The Government has increased by fivefold—fivefold—the amount spent on the clean-up of lakes and rivers. There has been a doubling in the fines for non-compliance with resource consents under the Government’s changes to the Resource Management Act and we also note the highest levels of compliance with this— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I wish members would read questions more carefully. The question did not ask why; it just asked whether the Prime Minister has confidence in his Minister. Some questions ask “if so why?”. This one did not. It is important that we do focus on questions. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Does the Prime Minister agree with the reported statement made by the Hon Nick Smith who said that the Government’s national policy statement on fresh water “will only be as good as the implementation of it by regional councils”? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Yes I think that is correct. The very structure of the Resource Management Act delegates the key regulatory functions to the regional councils. The national policy statement does require every one of our regional councils to set limits on water quality and minimum flows. The Government has just commissioned additional work from the Land and Water Forum on potential national environmental standards to complement and support that national policy statement. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Does the Prime Minister share the concerns of the Auditor-General that the regional councils are failing to control diffuse pollution from intensive agriculture and that regional councillors many of whom have agribusiness interests are intervening in decisions about whether to prosecute water polluters? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The Government does support the report of the Auditor-General. I think it is a good report and a helpful one in making progress on water quality. Specifically on the issue of prosecutions the Government holds a strong view that the elected representatives on the regional councils should not be involved in prosecuting decisions. I draw to the member’s attention that it is not just in respect of farmers; I think members of this House would equally express concern about the decision in the Manawatu where the Palmerston North City Council breached its resource consent repeatedly over a period of 7 years and no action was taken. I am currently considering the suggestion from the National Party candidate for Palmerston North for a formal inquiry into the decisions around that so that the Government can provide greater guidance to the councils about how they make those prosecution decisions. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Is not the basic problem with the Government’s approach that it is relying on the regional councils to set and enforce water-quality standards when the Auditor-General has just told us—and the Government has accepted it—that the regional councils are profoundly compromised and are failing to protect our waterways? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member does not completely represent the Auditor-General’s report. He was highly complimentary for instance of the Taranaki Regional Council and noted that it is making very good progress in improving the quality of fresh water. The truth is that there is a mixed bag of performance from the regional councils. The very worst performance of course was from Environment Canterbury. This Government took decisive action to address that non-performance and that action has resulted in huge improvements in terms of compliance in that region and a clean-up plan for Lake Ellesmere New Zealand’s most-polluted lake. Ironically those actions were opposed by that very member. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Is not the solution to the problem that the Government has got itself in for central government to set water-quality standards instead of our relying on the regional councils to set those standards and has not the Minister for the Environment’s decision to gut the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management actually now become part of the problem because we are having to rely on the regional councils instead of setting central government standards? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I note that both the Auditor-General and OECD visitors here for a water-quality conference last week were highly complimentary of the Government for the national policy statement and the steps that it takes. The criticism that has come from the member and some others is that the national policy statement did not include specific regulation requiring a resource consent for any intensification of agriculture. That is clearly against what the Resource Management Act intends and I have tabled in this House clear Crown Law advice that said such an action would be illegal. It is something I am not prepared to do. 
Brendon Burns 
: Given that the Auditor-General identifies several regional councils that are farmer-dominated where councillors are inappropriately involving themselves in decisions on whether to prosecute farmers for repeated resource consent breaches why is the only council this Government has acted against Environment Canterbury which was urban-dominated and trying to reverse unfettered access to water? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The first fact I note about Environment Canterbury is that 70 percent of New Zealand’s freshwater irrigation occurs in that region. I think anybody in this House who is well informed on freshwater issues knows that the issue in Canterbury is huge. Canterbury after 19 years did not even have a resource management plan for water. It is only as a consequence of this Government having the leadership to appoint commissioners that we actually have an operative plan for water in Canterbury and a clean-up plan for Lake Ellesmere. What is also significant is that members opposite were silent when Canterbury had a 30 percent non-compliance rate. Now Canterbury has one of the highest levels of compliance with resource consents and the House should welcome that improvement. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Does he accept that after 3 years in power this Government has some responsibility for the fact that water quality is declining; and at what point can we expect water quality to start to improve in light of the reports from now the OECD and the Auditor-General that indicate that water quality continues to decline? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I note that many of our freshwater systems have as much as 30-year lag times. For instance if we apply nitrogen fertiliser in a catchment like Waikato from the time it is applied on the land to the time it seeps through into the water system can be a period of as long as 30 years. So this is a long-term challenge. What I would say is that we need only look at Lake Rotoiti a lake that was in a bad state; it has shown a massive improvement over the last 2 years as a consequence of the Fresh Start for Fresh Water programme. We now have in five additional communities specific programmes for the clean-up of lakes and water bodies and that is something this House should be welcoming in terms of the progress we are making. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Given the concerns from the Auditor-General and many others about the ability of the current regulatory framework to control water pollution—and I refer the Prime Minister to the Cawthron Institute report which made similar claims—how can he have confidence that the Government’s irrigation subsidies will not lead to further intensification and further downstream pollution especially in Canterbury? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I draw the member’s attention to the very specific criterion around the Irrigation Acceleration Fund and that is that the issues of sustainability and water quality must be dealt with in those applications. I simply draw the House’s attention to a scheme such as that at Opuha in South Canterbury which has resulted in substantive economic and environmental benefits. If I can use my own constituency of Nelson it has a water irrigation scheme that has received support from the Government that will result in substantive water-quality improvements and that has the support of key organisations like Fish and Game and the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society. The truth is that there are irrigation proposals that can also improve water quality. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I seek leave to table a plan to actually clean up New Zealand’s rivers produced by the Green Party. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.