Kedgley Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Kedgley Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:621;Page:16599] 
4.  
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: Will the Government assist Aucklanders who are worried their backyards may be contaminated by pesticides to have their properties tested? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Associate Minister for the Environment) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister for the Environment 
: The Minister is advised that the Ministry for the Environment will assist Aucklanders by working with their regional and city councils. This Government’s Contaminated Sites Remediation Fund exists to help overcome the unwanted legacy from the past use of chemicals and the ministry will consider any application from the Auckland Regional Council for assistance from the fund. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Is she saying not only that the Auckland Regional Council has applied to the Contaminated Sites Remediation Fund but that the Government will agree to fund testing for potentially contaminated properties and given the uncertainties for owners of these properties can she reassure them as to when they can expect the testing to commence? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I am not saying what the member suggests. I am saying that the ministry is working with local authorities to progress this matter and when tests will be available is really a matter for local authorities and the property owners. But the ministry as I said is working through both through those councils and I am sure that with the level of cooperation we already have to date we will ensure that this issue is resolved to the satisfaction of the community. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: What is the Government doing to assist councils to deal with contaminated sites around the country? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: The Ministry for the Environment is working closely with seven regional councils on 13 separate remediation projects on behalf of local communities and landowners. The ministry is developing a national approach to the management of contaminated land in partnership with regional councils and unitary authorities. 
Keith Locke 
: Does the Minister agree in the light of the answer to the previous question that the Auckland situation could be just the tip of the iceberg and that it does require serious Government action to make sure that people outside of Auckland whose homes might be on the sites of former orchards or market gardens are not left in the dark as to whether there is contamination in their backyards? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Yes I certainly agree it is unlikely that issues like this which are really a legacy of the past are isolated to Auckland. That is why the Ministry for the Environment wrote in 2002 to councils recommending that they require soil testing of land that had previously been used for horticultural production prior to 1975 before approving subdivisions for residential purposes. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Will the Government expand the modest amount of funding available in the Contaminated Sites Remediation Fund so that there is sufficient funding for nationwide testing of contaminated sites and does she accept that the Government does have a moral responsibility to New Zealanders to do so because successive Governments have permitted the widespread use of the pesticides that are causing concern and reassure New Zealanders that they are perfectly safe? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Two million dollars per year is available from the fund and last year we did expand the criteria for who could apply to that fund. We currently have no plans to expand that funding but will monitor closely the operation of the fund and its effectiveness. While many sites in Auckland may not reach the high-risk category our aim as set out in our policy manifesto in 2002 is to investigate and have a remediation plan for all high-risk contaminated sites by 2015. Can I add that I think the key issue in this is that while making good progress on resolving the issue for concerned residents we are not alarmist and we make sure we get the facts of the matter and have useful and comprehensive information. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Does she agree that the Government should long ago have withdrawn approval for pesticides whose residues persist in the environment and introduced a levy on toxic substances to fund restoration clean-up and compensation of innocent landowners such as in the Auckland situation today? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: We have no plans to introduce the eco-tax that the member’s party is advocating but we are prepared to continue assisting regional councils to manage contaminated land within their regions to provide the best possible value to ratepayers. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Why is the Government still permitting the use of pesticides that persist in the environment for very long times—such as the organochlorine endosulphin which is still turning up as residues in our food? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Work continues towards pesticide risk reduction. A pesticide risk reduction strategy working-group has identified a range of ways of reducing pesticide risk. The recent ratification of the Stockholm convention is just one example. Also the Environmental Risk Management Authority held a 2-day symposium in July bringing together all the groups involved in reducing pesticide risk. Further the Ministry for the Environment has commissioned HortResearch to report on trends in usage of pesticides and their quantities and risks. That report is due in early 2005.