Sage Eugenie: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSage Eugenie: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 03 July 2014. Volume:700;Page:19205. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]5.EUGENIE SAGE (Green)to the Minister for the Environment: What percentage of river swimming sites where data is collected in the most recent Ministry for the Environment Suitability for Swimming Indicator Update were graded poor or very poor?Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister for the Environment):Of the few hundred river sites that are monitored 61 percent of them are graded poor or very poor. As the member is aware though these few hundred sites are monitored generally because there is a quality concern so that data set is therefore in no way representative of the 425000 kilometres of New Zealand rivers and streams which are generally regarded as being in good condition by international standards. However we are concerned that in the areas where fresh water quality is deteriorating we do need to take action which is why I was pleased earlier today to be announcing that from 1 August national standards for fresh water will be in place across the country which is a critical milestone in improving the picture of fresh water quality in New Zealand.Eugenie Sage: Why if she is concerned that fresh water is deteriorating did she announce a national bottom line for human health today that means that our rivers will have to be safe only for secondary contact—that is wading and boating—and not clean enough for swimming?Hon AMY ADAMS: At the moment of course the counterfactual is that there is no requirement for any particular standard for human health. Actually putting in place a minimum requirement that at the very least every fresh water area must be safe for wading and boating is a big step forward. What we have done today is confirm that every council must consider whether it is appropriate to also manage for swimmability. What has to be understood is that each time we move the bar up through that ladder it brings considerable extra cost on to communities and councils. If the member is campaigning that her party will set the standard there and not leave that choice to local communities it is welcome to do so but I look forward to seeing those billions of dollars included in its financial estimates.Eugenie Sage: Why is the Minister leaving it to regional councils to consider swimmability and does she not think that it is a national issue and a central government responsibility to ensure that rivers across New Zealand are clean and safe for swimming?Hon AMY ADAMS: Well I had always thought that that member was a proponent of local decision-making but actually we do think it is for communities to decide—above that minimum standard which is brand new and has never been there before—which areas are to be used for swimming and are to be protected for that and which are not. We are not going to impose billions of dollars of costs on ratepayers and communities in areas where they do not seek it. What we have put in place is a considerable step forward from what Labour and the Greens were happy to live with and we are very proud of it.Eugenie Sage: What does she say to the Otago Regional Council which said that the bottom line for human health should be contact recreation because such a low standard as secondary contact where rivers are fit for only wading and boating is “not consistent with the national identity New Zealand associates with its clean image of its water resources”?Hon AMY ADAMS: What I would say to the Otago Regional Council is that it is very welcome to set that standard across its water bodies if that is what its community chooses. The difference now is that we have a national expectation of a minimum standard which has never been there before. That alone is going to impose some costs on communities but the extent to which they want to go beyond that is up to them. It would be a nonsense to impose costs on water bodies that no one wants to use for swimming or that no one has contemplated for swimming. That is why regional decision-making then becomes important.Eugenie Sage: Why did the Minister ignore the approximately 90 percent of submitters who wanted the bottom line for human health to be rivers that are clean and safe for swimming?Hon AMY ADAMS: We have not ignored it. What we have done is made it compulsory now for every council to consider whether swimming is the appropriate standard for that water body. That was not in the draft and the reason we have done that is that we understand the cost impact that goes with that. As I have said if those members want to include the billions of dollars of impact from putting that standard in I look forward to seeing that in their alternative budgets.Eugenie Sage: Does the Minister still claim that no river quality is allowed to deteriorate when the Freshwater Sciences Society said that the proposed limits on nitrate in her proposals last November have the potential for “New Zealand’s rivers to become some of the most nitrogen-polluted amongst OECD countries whilst still remaining compliant” and her announcements today have not changed the nitrate limit?Hon AMY ADAMS: I do not accept that because as that member well knows there is already a requirement for water quality in a region to be maintained or improved. There is no ability—and nor do I imagine there is any desire—for councils to suddenly rush downwards in their water quality. In my experience communities and councils are absolutely focused on improving water quality but the important point is this: today there is nothing stopping our lakes and rivers from being completely dead environments. That is what Labour and the Greens were happy with. We are not. This is a step forward no matter how the member tries to spin it.Eugenie Sage: Did the Minister ask the Ministry for the Environment to tighten the nitrate limits in the national policy statement following the board of inquiry’s decision on the Tukituki plan change which rejected her Government’s approach of allowing nitrogen pollution to reach limits that are toxic to fish and algae; if not why not?Hon AMY ADAMS: First of all the member is entirely wrong in her categorisation of the impact of the Tukituki decision on this framework. It simply does not do what she is suggesting—which is typical—but more important the Government has made it very clear that we are not looking to re-engineer what has come out of the Science Review Panel. We engaged a science panel deliberately so that there would be a nationally agreed and settled science basis and in no instance have I or other Ministers directed it to change those numbers.Eugenie Sage: If the Minister engaged the Science Review Panel why was a basic and well-established measure of river health the Macroinvertebrate Community Index excluded when the Freshwater Sciences Society and many others said that it should be included?Hon AMY ADAMS: This is a question I have answered time and time again in this House and the answer is this. We do accept that the macroinvertebrate index is a very useful performance measure and indicator of ecosystem health. That is not the same thing as saying it is suitable or possible to include in a national framework like this. Actually the member may be interested that the advice I have had says that because of the way the Resource Management Act currently constrains what can go in a national policy statement I am prevented from including it as a performance monitor within the framework. We do encourage councils to use it in that regard and we do think it is useful but it does not fit into a framework set at a national level like this.Eugenie Sage: Is the real reason the Minister has ignored the advice of water quality scientists the calls by thousands of New Zealanders the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment the Otago Regional Council and many others for national bottom lines that provide for swimmable rivers that this Government stands up for polluters and irrigators and not for ordinary New Zealanders who want to swim in our rivers?Hon AMY ADAMS: I think the fact that the Green Party can stand there and not find one good thing to say about the fact that this is a step forward in water quality says far more about its politicking and ideology than any desire to actually see water quality improvements.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Can the Minister advise the House what progress Environment Canterbury—the Canterbury Regional Council—made in setting minimum water quality standards in that region over 18 years including the period when Eugenie Sage was a member?Hon AMY ADAMS: Well the member raises a very valid point. Over that time the regional council made zero progress. It completely failed to have an operative water quality plan leading to deterioration of water in our home region of Canterbury. This Government was not going to stand for that. The appointment of commissioners has made incredible strides forward. They are doing great work on pioneering the collaborative process and finally under a National Government we are getting some progress on water quality in Canterbury.Eugenie Sage: Is the Minister taking her ministerial duties seriously when the national bottom line for our rivers will keep the dairy industry happy as evidenced by its media statements today but will not make our rivers clean and safe for swimming for all New Zealanders?Hon AMY ADAMS: I take the fact that I had introduced any national bottom line incredibly seriously. That is something that Labour and the Greens never prioritised. They were happy for there to be no bottom lines and no requirements. They were happy for there to be no rules at all. We are not. We are lifting the game.