2. Question No. 2—EnvironmentHon EUGENIE SAGE (Green) to the Minister for the EnvironmentQuestion No. 2—Environment2. Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green) to the Minister for the Environment: Xiexie Mr Speaker. Does he stand by his statement that we as a Government decided that we needed to introduce strict rules to stop the further loss of wetlands"; if so does he intend for the changes now proposed to the National Environmental Standards for Freshwater to make it easier to consent activities such as quarrying mining and landfills within or near a wetland?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): In answer to the first part of the question: yes. In answer to the second part of the question: as the member will be aware the National Environmental Standards (NES) was not intended to stop quarries and landfills. The member will also be aware from the publicly released discussion document that the proposal is that any amount of wetland loss caused by those activities will have to be offset elsewhere.Hon Eugenie Sage: What advice has he received about ecological effects and the extent of further wetland loss allowed by the proposed changes to the NES provisions around quarrying mining landfills and urban development within and next to wetlands?Hon DAVID PARKER: The advice that I have received is that most of the wetland loss that we have seen is outside of those areas. I do understand the absolutism that the member favours and actually I share her ambition to protect wetlands. But I think that almost everyone in this House understands that we need quarries and notwithstanding the member's good work in respect of reducing waste we also need landfills. Obviously landfills are generally not on hilltops; they're generally in low points and so on occasions there is some modest loss of wetland that is unavoidable. We will be trying to minimise that and offsetting any remaining wetland loss.Hon Eugenie Sage: When he said in this House in May "that we've gone too far in the prohibited activity status in respect of some of [these] activities" does he believe that in destroying 90 percent of our natural wetlands in Aotearoa we have gone too far?Hon DAVID PARKER: I stand by both of those statements. I certainly think that we have to stand up for our remaining wetlands. It is true that even outside of national parks we have lost 90 percent of the wetlands that we used to have and that we have to do much better because in the last decade or so we lost a 20th of the remaining 10 percent. What's proposed here in respect of wetlands and quarries won't diminish the outcome in any material sense. It is necessary but offsets in respect of what is unavoidable will be required.Hon Eugenie Sage: With a Landcare Research study for his ministry showing that 13 percent of Aotearoa New Zealand's remaining freshwater wetlands were damaged or destroyed between 2002 and 2015 how can New Zealanders have any confidence that the proposed consenting pathway in the NES will prevent further wetland damage and destruction?Hon DAVID PARKER: I think we've got New Zealanders on our side in respect of this issue about the need to protect wetlands and I've done a lot to promote that on behalf of the Government. In respect of the ease with which people have been able to nix wetlands in recent decades that is over and is now illegal.Hon Eugenie Sage: How will removing a prohibition on activities that destroy or degrade wetlands such as mining and quarrying support the 2030 goal of the Aotearoa New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy that "There has been no loss of the extent or condition of indigenous land wetland or freshwater ecosystems which have been identified as having high biodiversity value"?Hon DAVID PARKER: Well that quote takes me back to the reference to absolutism which I mentioned in answer to an earlier supplementary. That absolutism is not possible. We do need quarries in order to produce gravel in order to build houses and other infrastructure. We should when we have quarries be absolutely minimising the amount of wetland loss but where there is a small amount of unavoidable wetland loss that should be offset. We do need quarries."