Carter Chris: General Debates 
Carter Chris: General Debates 
[Volume:616;Page:11724] 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 Today I would like to highlight the misleading statements that have been made in this House and in the public media by the National Party and ACT about the impending lahar on Mount Ruapehu. The attempts by Opposition members to distort this issue have been nothing short of irresponsible. They have been shroud waving and using the terrible tragedy of Tangiwai to whip up anxiety about a natural process that has occurred many times on Mount Ruapehu without harm and that will indeed occur many times again. Opposition members have been exploiting the bitter memory of that event for their own electoral gain. Have you heard Opposition members being honest with the public Mr Speaker? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The Minister should not bring me into the debate. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Have members heard the Opposition say that a lahar similar in size to the one implicated in Tangiwai came down Mt Ruapehu in 1975? 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You really must listen to these speeches boring as they are because when a Minister makes that sort of allegation it is unparliamentary and he should be required to withdraw and apologise. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: As far as I am concerned I took no offence at it and the Minister was called to order for using that particular phrase. The Minister will now continue. I say to members that I will not tolerate frivolous points of order from either side that are designed to break up a 5-minute speech in this debate. Such tactics are out of order lead to disorder and are unacceptable for the progress of business through the House. What I want in this place is what everyone wants in this world and that is order. I urge restraint on members. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Has the House heard Opposition members say that a lahar similar in size to the one implicated in Tangiwai came down Mount Ruapehu in 1975 with no loss of life little fanfare and little damage? No of course not! That would be inconvenient would it not? It is better to hark back to 1953 and ignore all the improvements that have been made to infrastructure since then. It is better to scare people especially since they are already vulnerable after the recent floods in the lower North Island. Those are the actions of irresponsible political parties. Even a lahar three times the size of Tangiwai’s could not cause the devastation seen by the recent floods yet Opposition members have been blatantly associating the two to scare the public. Floods and lahars are completely different natural processes. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Rubbish! 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I would have thought even the general would know that. Floods increase as they travel downstream fed by tributaries and rain over several days. That means their impact is huge and widespread. In contrast lahars flow from a single point over a short period of time and diminish as they travel downstream. A lahar’s impact is largely localised to an area immediately below its source. 
Phil Heatley 
: Stop rushing the speech; slow down! 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I am rushing my speech because I have so much to say on this subject with just 5 minutes to do it. Has the House ever heard Opposition members tell the public that simple fact? Do not be stupid! They would rather distort the issue and feed off the votes and anxieties. It is the responsibility of every member of this House to be honest with the public about the facts. It is also the responsibility of every member of this House to think about the future as well as the present. 
In the future there will be more lahars and whether or not it is convenient for Opposition members the actions that we take today will have an impact on what size those lahars might be and how vulnerable people will be to them. The Opposition is correct: it is technically feasible to go up Mount Ruapehu and attempt to dig a trench to postpone the lahar that is due at the end of this year. It is not remotely safe but it is theoretically possible. But if we did so the geological advice to the Government is that we would create a nightmare for the future. A trench would leave behind most of the existing ash dam around Mount Ruapehu’s crater lake which would otherwise be swept away naturally in the lahar. Future volcanic activity would add to the size of the dam making it higher and the body of water trapped behind it in future would be much bigger. That could result in a far larger and much more deadly lahar in the future. 
I stress that this is expert advice; it is not ministerial supposition. Actions have consequences. Good Government is about considering those consequences before taking action; it is not about sacrificing the safety of future generations to postpone a problem today. 
If I understand National’s and ACT’s policy on the lahar it is that they would dig that trench and never mind the future generations or the patently obvious risk to workers. They would dig that trench despite those risks so they could eliminate what is now a minimal risk of the lahar causing harm if it goes naturally. Does that make sense—that is to create a greater risk tomorrow to eliminate a lesser risk today? Of course not. Mr Smith’s and Mr Shirley’s trench will not only leave future generations exposed; ironically it will leave New Zealanders of today exposed as well. 
The lahar could happen at any time. The trench would drain only some of the water in the crater lake. It would still leave huge quantities behind—water that could easily come down as a lahar any time if there were rim failure on Mount Ruapehu or another eruption. It was an eruption that created the Tangiwai-size lahar in 1975. There have been half-a-dozen completely unpredicted eruptions in recent years. 
It is worth remembering that the impending lahar on Mount Ruapehu was an issue when Nick Smith was the Minister of Conservation. He had years to deal with the problem—back when the lake was still low and when work on the rim would have been far less dangerous than it would be today. Do members know what he did? He ordered a report but did nothing 4 months before the election.