Sage Eugenie: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSage Eugenie: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 21 October 2015. Volume:709;Page:7419. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]10.EUGENIE SAGE (Green) to the Minister for the Environment: Will proposed changes to the Resource Management Act 1991 safeguard the life-supporting capacity of air water soil and ecosystems as the Act requires; if so how?Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): Yes because it is National’s longstanding policy not to change section 5 which specifically refers to “safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of air water soil and ecosystems;”.Eugenie Sage: Will his changes to the Resource Management Act improve water quality given the results in today’s Environment Aotearoa 2015 report which show total nitrogen levels have increased at 60 percent of the monitored river sites?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The first thing I would point out is the figure that the member uses is not accurate. It was not accepted by the Government Statistician because the data around swimming water quality is not of that standard and that party repeatedly misuses data that both the Government Statistician and the Secretary for the Environment say does not match up. This Government does view water quality as a serious issue. That is why we introduced the first national policy statement under the Resource Management Act requiring improvements in fresh water quality. In the changes that we are proposing we are also intending to implement National’s policy of requiring all cattle stock to be fenced off from waterways.Eugenie Sage: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question was about total nitrogen not about E. coli levels.Mr SPEAKER: Order! The question was adequately addressed. It also started earlier than that with “Will the changes to the Resource Management Act improve water quality?”. The question was addressed.Eugenie Sage: Can he assure the House that the forthcoming Resource Management Act changes will not harm the environment when previous changes have resulted in the loss of landmark trees in Auckland such as the giant pōhutukawa in this picture which has become this picture?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Government’s changes to the Resource Management Act will streamline and simplify it for the very reasons that are covered in the Productivity Commission report published today which points out how that Act is actually undermining the capacity for average Kiwi families to be able to access an affordable home. In terms of issues around specific trees I would point out that it is up to councils—for instance in the case of some of the specific tree issues in Auckland—to make decisions about what trees have the status of being protected trees and what trees they may decide to allow to be removed.David Seymour: Does the Minister anticipate the reforms will increase the supply elasticity of housing and therefore help alleviate child poverty?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Absolutely. If we look at the Productivity Commission report today it shows that the price of land in Auckland has increased fivefold. If any member of this House is serious about the issues of family poverty and about increasing the affordability of houses then we have to deal with the very high cost of land that is driving up housing costs.Dr David Clark: So why have you done nothing in 7 years?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: To the member who asks across the House what we have done about it we have done the special housing areas as a short-term measure—opposed by that member—and when that legislation expires next October we need to follow it on with further Resource Management Act reforms.Eugenie Sage: Will the next set of Resource Management Act changes increase the protection for our indigenous habitats and wildlife when his proposed National Environmental Standard for Plantation Forestry allows indigenous vegetation and habitats to be cleared and replaced with pine?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I do not accept the member’s assertions around the national environment standard that is proposed for forestry. It does not make sense for that industry to have different rules in every part of the country. Forestry is an important industry for New Zealand and I am satisfied that that proposed national environment standard will both improve the environmental standards—in some areas it involves a substantive step up on the environmental rules—as well as reduce the compliance costs from the hundreds of consents that are currently required for the forestry industry.Eugenie Sage: I seek leave to table a report from the Ministry for the Environment and Statistics New Zealand showing that total nitrogen—Mr SPEAKER: Order! That information will be very available to members.David Seymour: Does the Minister believe that conservation should be based on robust science; if so what is the scientific basis for retaining paragraphs such as “the ethic of stewardship:” “the maintenance and enhancement of amenity values:” and “intrinsic values of ecosystems:” in sections 6 and 7 of the Resource Management Act?Mr SPEAKER: The Hon Dr Nick Smith—either of those two supplementary questions.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Government has made plain that it does not wish to make any changes to section 5 in the original primary question. It is the Government’s view that there are significant improvements that can be made to section 6 and section 7. There are a range of views across different parties in this Parliament; my hope is to be able to secure a majority so that we can make sensible changes to those sections that will both protect the environment and also enable New Zealand to grow and to prosper.