6. Question No. 6—EnvironmentHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel) to the Minister for the EnvironmentQuestion No. 6—Environment6. Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel) to the Minister for the Environment: What reports if any has he seen on the economic cost of the proposed Action Plan for Healthy Waterways and do any of these reports estimate the total cost to the New Zealand economy of the proposals?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): The most recent report I have seen was one from the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research (NZIER) which was released yesterday on economic impacts and it concludes: the impacts of the government reforms are unlikely to be major at the national level and not felt for many years due to the long lead in times proposed." I also agree with their comments that effects will vary regionally which is why the consultation document proposes a range of options to take this into account. Hon Scott Simpson: Is the regulatory impact statement correct to state that the changes required to meet his proposed sediment bottom lines are expected to cost between $5 billion and $7 billion? Hon DAVID PARKER: I'd have to check the context in which that is said but if that figure is there it will be over many many decades. I would also note that the same NZIER report that I just referred to says this: "Experience here and overseas with environmental regulation is that often unimagined innovations result reducing the costs and increasing the effectiveness of those regulations. … innovation is bigger than big inventions or new technology. At the farm level it includes adopting advanced management practices already used on the best farms." Hon Scott Simpson: Does he agree that the social costs of the changes including permanent afforestation of over a million hectares are not well captured by the modelling? Hon DAVID PARKER: The supports that the Government has to bring forward forestry have subsidies in respect of indigenous planting on erosion-prone land. Contrary to some assertions out there we are not subsidising pine plantations. The effect of that improved planting of indigenous species on erosion-prone land will be both to address our climate change obligations and to improve water quality. Hon Scott Simpson: Is the Minister concerned by the finding that under his proposed sediment bottom line 17 percent of current Otago pastureland is expected to be converted to permanent forestry including the whole of the Clutha catchment? Hon DAVID PARKER: The idea that we would put out a proposal that requires the Clutha catchment to be forested is nonsensical and not correct. Hon Scott Simpson: Does he believe that the social costs of planting the entire Clutha catchment in permanent forestry—which will create no long-term local jobs—are an acceptable outcome of his freshwater policy? Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Despite the last answer from the Minister this questioner has got up and repeated the allegation without any factual basis whatsoever and he should be stopped or asked to provide some evidence for the question's basis—SPEAKER: No. Rt Hon Winston Peters: —in the first place. SPEAKER: No no. Order! Order! There's not a requirement to be consistent in the asking of questions. In light of the previous answer I think the question might be regarded as one which is hypothetical which used not to be allowed but has in recent years been within the Speakers' rulings. So I'll allow the member to repeat his question. Hon Scott Simpson: Well sir may I quote from the document?SPEAKER: No the member will repeat the question he asked.Hon Scott Simpson: Does he believe that the social costs of planting the entire Clutha catchment in permanent forestry which will create no long-term local jobs are an acceptable outcome of his freshwater policy?Hon DAVID PARKER: That's a ridiculous suggestion and we're not proposing that. Hon Member: Scaremongering.Hon DAVID PARKER: It's scaremongering. Last week the National Party said water quality was getting better not worse. Then they falsely claimed—and it appears they're doing it again today—that we want pristine water pre-farming or cities which is not true; we want swimmable rivers. Then they said that this was going to be a hammer blow to pastoral farming. Then they said it would devastate the economy to the point where we couldn't afford education or healthcare. What National's really saying—because none of those allegations are true—is that they want us to do nothing and let our rivers continue to deteriorate."