Street Maryan: Budget DebateText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeStreet Maryan: Budget Debate[Sitting date: 04 June 2013. Volume:690;Page:10666. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour): As we discuss the Budget that this Government has handed down I think it is important to consider the Government’s progress through its agenda to exploit all of New Zealand’s natural resources. In that context it is necessary to look at the importance that the Government places on its environment budget. I have taken a look at Vote Environment and I find it absolutely remarkable that there has not been one single policy initiative in the environment budget—not one new idea not one new programme not one new policy initiative to protect maintain and enhance our environment.The Minister for the Environment has done things but they are not reflected in this Budget. Let me give the House some examples. The budget for Vote Environment is to be set against our claims—our diminishing claims and our claims that are consistently under criticism—of being 100 percent pure. We have poor and declining water quality. We have erosion of our protections for our environment proposed in the Minister’s second tranche of Resource Management Act amendments and we have some self-interest reflected in the water recommendations and proposals that the Minister put out earlier this year. I would really like to know whether the Minister even put in a bid for her environment vote because it is not apparent from this Budget.I will just list some of the things that are contained in the Vote Environment part of the Budget—let us have a look at them. Environmental management obligations and programmes—there is no change absolutely no change. Improving resource management—there is a drop of $2.4 million from the previous year so improving resource management as a Budget line gets a cut. This needs to be explained. If the members opposite wish to give the Minister a heads-up that will be asked in the estimates questions when she appears before the select committee.I will tell the House where one area of increase has happened and it is in the funding to service the Minister. Funding to service the Minister has gone up by $313000 and the note attached to that in the vote is that the ministry expects that there will be an increase in ministerials as a result of the Resource Management Act and water management reforms. Clearly the Minister is aware that the Resource Management Act reforms and the water management reforms are going to be controversial so in order to bolster her own ability to answer the questions that are going to flood in and the challenges that are going to be taken against her she has increased the funding to service her office by $313000. That does not enhance the environment one iota.Advice on environmental hazards and waste—there is no change; no change there. The waste levy administration and assessment of projects for funding by the levy—there is a drop of $600000; $610000 actually. But it is a $600000 drop in the waste levy administration and assessments of projects that are funded by that levy to see how various industries can minimise their waste production. So there is not any vision about next year or the year after and whether or not our waste production and our minimisation of that is going to improve. There are no new targets. There are no new ideas. In fact there is a cut of $600000 in that area. The Contaminated Sites Remediation Fund—there is no change there. There is no change in the Contaminated Sites Remediation Fund. How is the Minister intending to deal with new contaminated sites as they emerge?She has only to look in her backyard at the Ōwaka Pit in her electorate which has had medium-density fibreboard combusting spontaneously and releasing toxins into the air. This has been happening for months. The fire has gone out only just in the last 2 or 3 weeks. The Minister clearly does not bother about that even though it is in her electorate because the prevailing wind makes those toxic fumes blow over the people who live in the electorate of my colleague Megan Woods. The Minister is not so concerned about the people in that electorate that she thinks there is anything that needs to be done about the burning of formaldehyde and the release of those toxins into the atmosphere creating an unpleasant smell and an irritating set of toxins that have caused some discomfort. So even for the Minister’s own backyard she has not appropriated or it would seem even asked for additional funds to address contaminated sites. The Ōwaka Pit is now in a state that needs remediation. The fire is out; now the ground has to be recovered.The Contestable Waste Minimisation Fund—no change. This fund has a certain allocation per year. Sometimes the funds are not spent in 1 year and they are moved into future years but there is no change. Where there has been an increase—and here we go again—is to the Environmental Protection Authority which gets an increase of $1.9 million. Why? It is so that the Environmental Protection Authority can implement its functions under our exclusive economic zone legislation and the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012 so that when challenges are brought about the illegality of the law that this Parliament has passed in respect of controlling shipping above the continental shelf—which I am still of the opinion is not legal—then there will be sufficient resources in the authority for it to address those things.There is no change to the Fresh Start for Fresh Water Clean-up Fund for New Zealand water bodies—no change to that. For the Rotorua Lakes Protection and Restoration Programme there is a slight re-phasing of funds between the years but no overall change. Lake Ōkareka in Rotorua is suffocating from hornwort. It is a hugely invasive aquatic plant and there has been nothing in the way of additional funding put aside to restore Lake Ōkareka which is one of the Rotorua lakes. I have been to the lake. I have seen it myself. The people there work hard at trying to deliver quality. The fund for the Waikato River clean-up—no change. There is an amount of funding over 30 years but the real value of the funding will reduce over time. There is no change to the Waikato River co-governance no change to the Waikato River co-management and no change to the waste disposal levy disbursement to local authorities.The environment budget is a disgrace. The environment budget is lacking in any vision any foresight and any protective measures and simply plays into the hands of this Government’s agenda to mine and drill everything it can get its hands on in terms of our natural resources. It does not matter whether we have the legal right to do it or not this Government will proceed to exploit our environment in order to produce dollars and usually for its friends. So Skycity was sold the gambling laws Warner Bros was sold the employment laws and now we have Shell being sold the Crown mineral laws. Thank you.