Barry Maggie: General Debate 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Barry Maggie: General Debate 
[Sitting date: 01 August 2012. Volume:682;Page:4171. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I have always believed that saving the planet starts in your own backyard and that is why I joined National’s ranks because I think this Government has a very proud track record of looking after our environment. We are determined to safeguard the environment and it is an absolute fundamental bottom line for us as is safety and transparency around it. It is through that lens that we want to look very carefully at all of the assets that we have and that includes our mineral and our oil resources. 
National has an excellent track record on environment and conservation. Over the past 3 years alone for example we have cleaned up our lakes and our rivers with our Fresh Start for Fresh Water programme. In March of this year on the North Shore I hosted the Bluegreens Forum where we made some significant announcements including about providing $265 million to clean up iconic waterways such as Lake Taupo and the Waikato River. We have also improved our air quality which is amongst the cleanest in the world now. We launched Warm Up New Zealand: Heat Smart a nationwide scheme that has now resulted in insulation and heating for 188500 homes. We have helped minimise waste with almost $10 million this year alone for the Waste Minimisation Fund and that really works because it encourages people to look after their own waste to reduce it to reuse it and to recycle it. We have empowered communities by enhancing environmental awareness in the community—$7.6 million. This Government puts the money where it counts and where it can make a difference. It was announced just last week that $105 million will go to 16 community groups to help them improve the environment—very exciting regional efforts. 
Now let us contrast those very tangible make-a-difference measures from our Government to what has happened in the past. The party in particular that calls itself the Greens—let us have a little look at the measurement of its effectiveness and commitment. Let us look at question time in the House. I did a bit of homework on this. In the past couple of months the Greens have asked 26 questions. Of those how many do you think reflected the environment in any way at all? 
Paul Goldsmith 
: None. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: 22. 
MAGGIE BARRY 
: Five and that is a stretch. There were two on mineral exploration two on climate change and one on fracking. Really when we look at the Greens we are looking at a party that is not exactly bright green is it? It is more your watermelon green. It is kind of green on the outside; the more you cut into it the redder it appears. We are looking at a guy for example—the Australian co-leader—who clearly harbours aspirations to be the Minister of Finance if the unholy alliance of Labour and the Greens ever gets off the ground. These are the people who have a woeful insignificant contribution to any discussion of substance around the environment and conservation. 
The Opposition parties in general Labour and the Greens—as my other colleagues have detailed—have opposed every single growth initiative we have proposed. Their naysaying ways have been well documented in the House this afternoon. I mean Labour is bad enough but the Greens just automatically chorus “No no no.” to any growth initiatives except when it comes to taxes. They love taxes: we have an earthquake levy on households ecological resource taxes a hazardous substances and pesticides levy a corporate tax a diesel tax a landfill tax and a carbon tax on energy-intensive imports. But wait there is more. As well as supporting Labour’s daft capital gains tax wanting to make the emissions trading scheme even more burdensome and overseas investment laws even more restrictive the Greens also want to saddle the poor farmers with an irrigation tax costing them—get this—up to $50000 a year. This is absolutely so despite the fact that water pollution is not related to irrigation intensity. Our Minister of Conservation Kate Wilkinson and Minister for the Environment Amy Adams have a firm grasp on what works for the environment. Labour will need the Greens in any Government it manages to cobble together in whatever peculiar unholy alliance it manages to do. It would be bad news for farmers. It would be really bad news for our environment and conservation. Labour’s environmental and conservation track record is woeful and it is of course supported by its watermelon mates. 
Let us look at some of the other things it did. It allowed 30000 hectares of forest to be cut down. That was just between 2005 and 2008. Deforestation—how good is that? Yeah Labour propped up by the watermelons. It insulated only 50000 homes in the whole 9 years of its last term in Government. We have insulated 130000 homes in 3 years. There was a conspicuous lack of progress on water.