Turei Metiria: Budget Debate 
Turei Metiria: Budget Debate 
[Volume:654;Page:4080] 
METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 Last week my colleague the Green co-leader Russel Norman said that environment funding had been shaved to the scalp—shaved to the scalp. We know that for every dollar invested in our environment many many more dollars are returned in the form of clean water flood protection native forest regeneration tourism sustainable fisheries healthy forests and high-quality agricultural products. New Zealand’s economy is 100 percent dependent on our environment. So only the foolish would use the scarce funds we have in a recession in such a way as to reduce our medium-term economic prosperity and our long-term environmental prosperity. Investment in our environment is an investment in our economy. 
We need only look at the hard numbers to see this proved. Some research that was commissioned from the period 2004-07 showed that economic activities arising on public conservation land on the West Coast led to 1900 extra jobs and extra spending in that region of $200 million a year. The Fiordland National Park produced 1600 extra jobs and nearly $200 million a year was spent in the Southland and Queenstown Lakes districts. Work on the Abel Tasman National Park produced 370 jobs and resulted in $45 million a year spent in that region. Work on the Queen Charlotte Track produced 98 jobs and resulted in $9.5 million a year spent in Marlborough. At Te Papanui Conservation Park in Otago near where I live something like $136 million of freshwater services were provided from that conservation area to the Otago region. The Department of Conservation does essential work environmentally and economically but because of underfunding it is forced to triage species and ecosystems. It has to care intensively for the few often at the cost of the many which continue to decline. 
The Department of Conservation is mandated to advocate for our natural heritage by the Conservation Act but it is forced to ration its advocacy for our natural heritage as a result of the Government’s fiscal actions. These cuts come at a time when New Zealand desperately needs to protect the clean green brand that underpins many of our export industries as well as our tourism industry. This is a time when we should increase our efforts to restore our environment and to look after the wildlife and the wild places that make Aotearoa New Zealand unique. From 2007 the tourism industry alone in this country has been worth $20 billion to the New Zealand economy and to New Zealand businesses. 
Last year under Labour the Department of Conservation was forced to restructure in order to save $8 million. But of course that was only a precursor to the new National Government’s crippling blow of a further cut in last week’s Budget—a cut that is $54 million deep. Communities around the country in long-established conservation organisations continue to pour their time and energy into protecting our water land and wildlife. The Government abandoned those organisations by cutting the Community Conservation Fund which is designed to support that local volunteer effort. Earlier today the Prime Minister described these cuts as modest and said it was not such a big ask to require the Department of Conservation to spend less in the current difficult economic times. Only 20 percent of the Department of Conservation estate receives the pest and weed control that is needed for it to thrive. The areas that do receive that service are already the highest-priority areas in the continuing battle to protect native trees native bird species and native plant species. The Minister of Conservation Tim Groser clearly knows nothing about the issues when he claims to be reducing low-priority pest and weed controls. Those areas that are of low priority get no service because this Government and previous Governments have failed to invest in that control. 
Similarly farmers fishers and tourism operators might respond to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Conservation by saying that it is not such a big ask to make protecting vital industries and the reputation of our country the Government’s highest priority and they may take issue with the Prime Minister for his description today of the conservation budget as excessive. On the contrary for New Zealand this budget is essential. The Bluegreens as Russel Norman said in his Budget speech will hang their heads in shame at the actions of the National-led Government. 
Charles Chauvel 
: So they should. 
METIRIA TUREI 
: I agree. As the Department of Conservation must reduce its work one wonders which further species and places will have to be abandoned. Which of our special places will the Department of Conservation no longer be able to defend? Which of our indigenous species does John Key think are OK to go extinct? That is the effect of last week’s Budget. It is outrageous. 
One area where our environmental protection laws are the weakest and where destruction and degradation continues—out of sight of course—is that of our oceans. Our ocean area is 15 times larger than our land area and we have recently gained the continental shelf to manage as well. There is no environmental regulation of the ocean beyond our coastal zone. We have no marine reserves in exclusive economic zone. Our much-vaunted oceans policy has been lost at sea for a decade. Scientists tell us that the oceans are acidifying and absorbing extra carbon dioxide from the atmosphere which is changing the pH level of the sea. This makes it much harder for sea life such as corals shellfish and krill to create the shells and skeletons they need. The impact of this on our marine biodiversity will be devastating and it will damage our kai moana resources and the communities and the jobs on which they rely. The UN reports that 80 percent of the world’s coral reefs may die within decades. Let us be clear that the seafood industry in this country contributes $1.7 billion to GDP and more than 26000 full-time jobs. Those jobs and that contribution are at risk if we do not protect our marine environment. 
In this context of weak laws vast geographic areas and vital economic interests budget cuts to fisheries compliance including cuts to the observer programmes are a form of economic suicide as well as being a form of environmental genocide. Members may have noticed recently that the seafood industry is running TV advertisements promoting its supposedly sustainable and environmentally friendly credentials to the New Zealand public. Indeed the Government has provided funding to the seafood industry to seek Marine Stewardship Council certification for a further five species. But this is utter “greenwash” by the seafood industry. The fishing industry knows that many of its practices are not sustainable yet rather than move to responsible and ecologically acceptable practices it seeks to woo the public with feel-good public relations. But it is the fishing industry that will suffer if our marine environment is allowed to degrade any further and our fish stocks fall any lower. It is its industry that will suffer and its jobs that will go. We cannot afford that at this time of economic recession. 
Similarly this Government has cut biosecurity surveillance by more than 10 percent. This is an invitation for disaster and economic hardship. These surveillance measures are essential to protect both our ecosystems and our export resources. On this point I think the Government will find that environmental groups and industry groups are agreed. On this point the Government will find that the Green Party and Federated Farmers agree that we need good-quality biosecurity surveillance not more cuts. Our future depends on our environment yet despite National’s platitudes about our children being our future this Government has cut off at the knees the opportunity to develop in our children the high level of ecological literacy that they and we need if they are to continue to work to protect the environment on which their future economic prosperity depends. 
The slashing of funding to education for sustainability is a disaster for our future. We already have something like 675 schools in the Enviroschools programme; that is nearly one-quarter of New Zealand schools are involved in the programme. Something like 210000 children benefit from the Enviroschools programme the Matauranga Taiao and the Education for Sustainability teaching advisers. John Key obviously thinks that conservation gets too much money and that the $1 billion allocated over 4 years is excessive. Yet we know that the conservation funding has in the period 2004-07 produced some $22.5 billion in returns to our country and to our economy. But despite the facts it appears that this Government will choose foolishness over wisdom choose short-term profits for the few over the long-term economic and environmental prosperity of our children and their welfare. Kia ora.