Clendon David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Clendon David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:664;Page:11826] 
11. 
DAVID CLENDON (Green) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: How many additional people if any would die prematurely or be hospitalised if the National Environmental Standard for Air Quality is changed and delayed according to his preferred options? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 There would be additional premature deaths or hospitalisations from the proposed changes only if it were the case that the standard could actually be met by 2013 but I am advised that it will not be met in 10 airsheds covering 1.6 million New Zealanders. Although the technical advisory group recommended a delay to 2020 my preferred option is 2018 so as to keep maximum pressure on councils to improve air quality at the fastest practical rate to minimise harm and to protect the public health. 
David Clendon 
: Can he confirm that if he enforced the standard in 2013 as planned he could save 482 lives as noted in the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research report that he has previously cited? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: No. The member is incorrect for this reason: the only enforcement measure under the standard is to stop any industrial consents. Industrial consents make up only a very small portion of New Zealand’s air pollution problem. The bulk of New Zealand’s air pollution problem is caused by cars in Auckland. In the vast bulk of our centres where air quality is poor the problem is home fires. That is why this Government has substantially ramped up the amount that we are spending to help convert home fires to cleaner heat technologies and has made the decision to improve the standards for motor vehicles so that we can reduce pollution from those sources. 
David Clendon 
: Is he concerned that children under 5 years old living in areas with high particulate pollution are more than twice as likely to be hospitalised with a respiratory condition; how many children would need to be at risk for him to uphold the standards in 2013? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: It is not a matter of upholding the standards; it is a matter of the advice that the standards are not going to be met. What we are— 
Keith Locke 
: You’re rewarding polluters. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member who interjects was in Government for 9 years during which time little progress was made in improving air quality. I am very proud of the fact that in last year’s Budget we committed tens of millions of dollars to help the practical impact of improving air quality by converting home heaters and by putting regulations in place to make our cars cleaner. 
Nicky Wagner 
: What perverse incentives are there under the existing air quality standards that make them unworkable? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The key penalty in the existing standard is that no new industrial consent or renewal of an existing one can be issued if an area is non-complying by 2013. That penalty has very serious implications for 233 businesses that employ more than 17000 people because even if those enterprises radically reduced their emissions they simply would not be allowed to operate. The unfairness is that industry makes up less than 10 percent of New Zealand’s air pollution but is the only one to be punished if it does not meet the standard. It is like having a speed problem on a highway and banning the bicycles. That unfair regulation was symptomatic of the previous Government’s anti-business culture. 
David Clendon 
: What is the Minister’s response to economic analysis from Southern California that finds that even the strictest mandatory air quality regulations do not result in a loss of jobs but actually increase labour demand contrary to scaremongering industry claims in that place? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: If we had some sensible regulations like they may have in California that would make sense. But the regulation we have at the moment puts a penalty only on industry when all the research shows that the primary cause of our air pollution problem particularly in the South Island is from home heating systems—open fires and old log fires. That is why this Government is putting some serious money into helping change those heaters so that the air will be clearer. 
Nicky Wagner 
: What practical steps has this Government taken that will improve air quality? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The Government has spent more in 18 months on improving air quality than the previous Government spent in 9 years. The $340 million package that was announced in last year’s Budget provides practical grants so that people in those air catchments can convert their dirty heating systems—open fires and the like—to cleaner systems. That is exactly the sort of thing we need to do if we are to clean up New Zealand’s air and improve those standards. 
David Clendon 
: What evidence does the Minister have for analysis that supports the claim by self-interested industry players here that regulations would result in the loss of hundreds of jobs? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I refer the member to the technical advisory group that prepared the report which includes both health specialists and air quality specialists and their recommendations of changes. They concluded that the current regulations are unfair and any person looking at them would say it is nonsense that the group that produces the least amount of pollution is the only one to be punished in the event that there is non-compliance. I also note that the Government has taken a firmer line in terms of meeting the standards than was recommended by the technical advisory group for the very reason that we want to make as rapid progress as possible on cleaning up New Zealand’s air. 
David Clendon 
: Does the Minister stand by his claim as reported in the  
Sunday Star-Times  
of 13 December 2009 that the Government intended to strengthen air quality standards and Solid Energy was mistaken if it believed the review would water down standards? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Yes I stand by that claim. We are setting up some practical rules that will actually work. The Ministry for the Environment advised the previous Government against the particular standard that it adopted and I think history has proven that the ministry’s advice was robust: the standards that were adopted by the previous Government were not practical. That is why we are responding to the good advice from the technical advisory group. The member is welcome to make a public submission as are all New Zealanders to ensure that we get this important environment standard right.