5. KEVIN HAGUE (Green) Link to this
to the Minister of Agriculture
Has the Dairying and Clean Streams Accord achieved its aim of “clean healthy water, including streams, rivers, lakes, ground water, and wetlands, in dairying areas.”; or, does he agree with the Hon Dr Nick Smith’s statement of October 2008 that there has been a “deterioration in water quality,”?
Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister of Agriculture) Link to this
The Dairying and Clean Streams Accord is well down the track of achieving its key aims, and it is ahead of schedule in many areas, although more work is clearly needed. The member needs to understand that the accord is not expected to achieve its full aims until 2012. I agree with the statement from the Hon Dr Nick Smith. In many parts of New Zealand water quality has deteriorated under 9 years of a Labour-Green Government, and that is why National is intent on achieving better outcomes.
How can the Minister expect Kiwis to believe that the Dairying and Clean Streams Accord is working when the highest priority target—and the only target with any teeth—which is for all farms to immediately comply with resource consents, is nowhere near being met, with more than one in 10 dairy farms significantly in breach of cowshed effluent disposal rules?
As I mentioned today at the launch of the Dairying and Clean Streams Accord: Snapshot of Progress—2007/08, some farmers are not playing the game, and it is the intention of the Government, in conjunction with local government and Fonterra, to deal with those farmers. The Green member ought to acknowledge what the snapshot clearly shows: the great majority of farmers have done a very credible job. It is time the Green Party acknowledged the work done by the great majority of New Zealand farmers, instead of bagging farmers on every occasion.
Amy AdamsThere are many, aside from the Dairying and Clean Streams Accord. Local councils, farmers, industry-good organisations, and Government are actively cooperating on a range of initiatives aimed at lifting the performance of the sector. Some of these initiatives include the Primary Sector Water Partnership, the dairy sustainability assurance scheme, and the Dairy Industry Strategy for Sustainable Environmental Management. There is much work under way, and the vast majority of the sector is demonstrating a clear commitment to being effective guardians of our vital waterways.
Does the Minister accept that, even based on the report’s own numbers, at least 750 dairy farms are seriously breaking the law; if so, does he really expect Kiwis to agree that these are small numbers?
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise to my colleague, but that is the first example of an allegation since your recent ruling. That supplementary question contains an allegation. It is also a fact, as reported in a particular report. But it is an allegation of people breaching the law, and I ask you, consistent with your previous rulings about allegations not being allowed in supplementary questions, whether this is an appropriate supplementary question to continue with.
Hon Rodney HideThis picks up on the point that was made in response to the Hon Clayton Cosgrove. The difference is that it is the Minister’s taking objection that alerts your interest. If no one is particularly offended by it, then I think the position is that we carry on. We do that quite often for the smooth running of Parliament. As you pointed out in your ruling, it was actually once a Minister had taken objection to the question that your hands were tied.
Mr SPEAKERI thank the honourable members. I ask the Minister whether he recollects the question and is able to answer it.
Jeanette Fitzsimons Link to this
Speaking to the general point made in the Hon Trevor Mallard’s point of order, if statements of fact taken directly from a Government report are not to be allowed in supplementary questions if a Minister should take exception to them, I think we are getting into quite dangerous territory.
The member does not need to be concerned. I was about to call the Minister to answer the question. I do not consider there is a problem with the question. I invite the honourable Minister to answer the question.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. The report certainly identifies some farmers who are not complying. Some of the non-compliance is of a technical nature; some is quite serious non-compliance. If the member had been at the launch today, he would have heard both the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister for the Environment being critical of that small number of farmers who continually fail to comply and who wilfully pollute. Those farmers risk bringing the whole of the New Zealand industry into disrepute.
Does the Minister agree with Bryce Johnson, the chief executive of the Fish and Game Council, that “The Accord has always been a stop-gap programme and fundamentally incomplete, is voluntary not mandatory, … has no riparian buffer zone requirements, doesn’t deal to small streams, only includes Fonterra suppliers, and never focused on measurable improvements in water quality.”; if not, why not?
I agree with Mr Bryce Johnson to the extent that the accord is voluntary. I note that three press releases have been put out today criticising the progress: one by the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society, one by the Fish and Game Council, and one by the Green Party. It looks to me as though all three press releases were written by one and the same person.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Again, I apologise for interrupting, but I think a very serious allegation has been inferred in that reply—
Metiria Turei
Hon Darren Hughes Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Opposition notes that earlier, when the Hon Dr Nick Smith took a point of order and when the Leader of the House took a point of order—
I apologise. It appears that Metiria Turei called a point of order first, and I did not hear it. I apologise to the honourable member. Out of courtesy I should take the member who called first.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I raise the issue that an allegation like that being made in a reply to a question is none the less still an allegation that would, according to your ruling, be out of order under the Standing Orders. The rules in the Standing Orders—
The member will sit down. I am on my feet. I think that this issue is getting quite ridiculous, because what the Minister said in his reply was hardly an offensive allegation, whatsoever. I invite the House to come back to the business. I believe that Kevin Hague was asking a supplementary question.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. If my comment upset some people in the House, then I am only too happy to withdraw it.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I take exception to the Minister’s comment, and I ask that the Minister be required to withdraw and apologise for it.
Hon Darren Hughes Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The point I was going to raise was that it seems that when Government members have taken points of order this afternoon they have been allowed to complete their point of order before you comment or rule on it, but on several occasions when Opposition members have taken points of order, before they have been able to get to the point they are trying to make you have stood up and shut them down. In the case of the Hon Trevor Mallard, you did not even comment on the point he was making; you just said that you had heard enough and then proceeded to the next item of business. We want to be able to make our points of order and take them to a complete end before you then give your ruling to us and—
The member will resume his seat. I hear what he is saying; I hear his point of order. It is the Speaker’s judgment as to how he deals with points of order. Where I assess that the point of order is not genuine, I will tend to sit members down, because otherwise the House would get into endless disorder. I have taken on board the point the member made, and if I have created that impression, then I apologise, because I do not want to create that impression.
But the business of the House is important, and where points of order become trifling, it is not in the interests of the business of this Parliament and it is not in the public interest. I think that we should just think today about the issues. It all stemmed from an allegation in a question that was objected to and was found offensive by the Minister being asked it. I think that it was reasonable to require the question to be reframed so that it did not cause offence, and where offence was taken from the Minister’s answer, again the Minister withdrew and apologised for that. I think the House should move on with its business. But I note the point the member made, and I certainly do not want to create that impression.
Hon Dr Michael Cullen Link to this
I am sorry, Mr Speaker. You have a tendency to stop and look as though you are sitting down, which is why people then rise to a point of order. We are not trying to be discourteous; we are actually just trying to keep things flowing along.
I want to pause for a second, if we possibly can. I think we are getting into trouble here, and I do not like being in the situation where there are endless points of order. I remind you of a conversation we had. I offered the advice that playing the advantage rule is the best move for a Speaker, rather than continued involvement in rulings. When a Minister takes objection, then in general terms the appropriate thing is for you to seek a withdrawal and apology or ask the member to rephrase the question, as you did. It is not an absolute requirement upon you. Sometimes people take objection when there are no particular grounds for that objection. We cannot rule everything out just because we take objection to it. But when you proceed with a statement that any allegation is out of order, you are inviting us to be very, very pernickety from there on about every question and every answer, because, I am afraid, the same comments apply to answers. Either we are to have a reasonably free-flowing question time, or we will revert to the worst period of my parliamentary career in terms of question time—from 1985 to 1987—when on one famous occasion we ended up at the end of question time with only one supplementary question having been in order. I do not think that that contributes to the good flow of parliamentary business.
Hon Gerry Brownlee Link to this
I support the comments made by Dr Cullen. I think they are very, very useful. If you look at the clocks, Mr Speaker, you will see that we are only on question No. 5 after 55 minutes. For many people watching this process, and for those who—God love them—may even read the Hansard of this process, it will look as though we have wasted an enormous amount of time on relatively pedantic points. I think that as we progressively put ourselves in a straitjacket, the tendency is to try to break out of it. That is largely what I think has happened with some of the frustration expressed by the Hon David Parker, and, similarly, responded to by the Hon Nick Smith and various others. So perhaps we should take on board the comments of Dr Cullen and look to that advantage rule, which, by and large, serves this House reasonably well.
I take on board the honourable members’ points. It is worth viewing the replay of question time. I do so every day to try to ensure fairness.
Is the Minister aware that one cow defecating in a river is equivalent to 14 humans defecating in a river and that therefore—as in this picture I am holding—nine cattle in the Manawatū River is equivalent to all the members of this House going down to the local stream and defecating simultaneously; and would that be acceptable to the Minister?
I was not aware of that amazing statistic. I thank the member for that information today, but I say to the member that when I read his press release, when I read the press release from the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society, and when I read the press release from Fish and Game New Zealand, I see that too much time is spent criticising the farmers who are not complying. The great majority of farmers are doing a very good job, and instead of criticising our primary industries and our image, that member would do a lot better to appreciate the good work that is occurring in this regard.
Will the Minister’s Government commit to cleaning up our rivers and lakes so that they are safe for our kids to swim in; if so, by when?
This Government is committed to cleaning up our waterways. I note for the member that the previous Government, the Labour-Green Government, had a programme of action that became known by the bureaucrats as the programme of inaction. This Government is intent on doing something, not ignoring the issue as was the case for the last 9 years.
Jeanette Fitzsimons Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I take offence at the previous Government being called a Labour-Green Government. The Greens have never been a part of the Government.
Is it not blindingly obvious to the Minister that this completely hopeless voluntary and industry-controlled accord was only ever an excuse to avoid regulation; and given its complete failure to date, will he commit to setting quality standards for clean water?
I do not accept that the accord has been a complete failure. We are ahead of the great majority of targets, which were set some time ago, in 2003. We are on track to achieve those targets by 2012.
I seek leave to table a document. It is a photograph from March 2008 of cattle in the Manawatū River.
Dr Kennedy Graham Link to this
I seek leave to table a document displaying a photograph from a book published in 1999 showing the Mayor of Stockholm, Sweden drinking a glass of water from Lake Malaren, just outside the city hall—a goal that the Mayor of Rotorua could strive to emulate.