11. JACQUI DEAN (National—Otago) Link to this
to the Minister for the Environment
Has he received the recent report from the Ministry for the Environment that pinpoints a further deterioration in rivers already polluted by nutrient run-off; if so, what is his response?
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister of Agriculture) Link to this
Yes. The Ministry for the Environment has recently released two technical reports on water quality. They are a snapshot of lake-water quality in New Zealand and stated trends in the National River Water Quality Network from 1989 to 2005. The reports confirm that approximately one-third of our rivers and lakes are under pressure for both volume and water quality. They confirm that our major water-quality challenge is managing non-point-source discharges. This reinforces the importance of the Labour-Progressive Government’s sustainable water programme of action and the leadership being taken by the agricultural sector to improve water quality for all New Zealanders.
How can spending half a million dollars on a fluffy water-awareness campaign—“New Zealand. A valuable body of water.”—showing fully clothed people standing in pristine bodies of water possibly remedy the poor state of New Zealand rivers?
There is no question that raising awareness of the importance of water to New Zealand is relevant to the education process that we have to go through here, in my view. However, I am aware that half of all advertising is wasted. The problem is that most of us do not know which half it is.
Martin Gallagher
Hon Dr Nick SmithLike the member’s inaction that lasted 3 days in the deputy leadership of the National Party, presumably. That member should never ask for what he wants—he might get it. The Government is a partner in significant current work programmes that target improved water quality. This work builds on the significant investment in science and extension activity by the partnership of Government, industry, and local government, which has developed management tools and approaches that will, with time, reduce the impact of runoff and non-point discharges to water.
Nandor TanczosIn light of the interesting work being done around the use of nitrogen inhibitors to reduce nitrate losses from farms, is the Government involved in, or aware of, any work being done to study the effects of nitrogen inhibitors on soil or soil microbiology?
Yes, there is considerable work being done on nitrogen inhibitors, the effect of nitrification of soil, leachate into waterways, and so on. Lincoln University is well ahead in programmes of this kind and the Government is taking those matters into account as it moves through the climate change programmes with our industries—particularly the agricultural industry—and budgetary considerations are being given as we speak.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wonder whether the Minister did not quite understand my question. I am aware that there is work being done on the use of nitrogen inhibitors to reduce nitrate losses. What I was asking specifically about is the effects of nitrogen inhibitors on soil and soil microbe biology. The reason for the question was that I am not sure that there is a full understanding of what the unintended consequences—
Madam SPEAKERI think the member had the opportunity to put his question and the Minister had the opportunity to address it. He addressed the question, and if the question is to be more specific, then it should be framed more clearly. [ Interruption] I have ruled on the matter endlessly in this particular session.
Tariana TuriaWhat remedial action has the Minister taken following angry protests in Palmerston North last month which highlighted the issuing of 190 permits to local companies to allow the discharge of pollutants into waterways that are likely to result in the death of the Manawatū River?
I am aware that the Ministry for the Environment and all other Government agencies with any concern for the future of New Zealand’s ecological environment would give consideration and concern to such matters. But in the real word, of course, these things are going to take some time, and usually local authorities are giving exemptions on the basis that time is also being given for industry and other users and polluters to sort out what is happening to their environment and give them the occasion and the opportunity to rectify matters.
Gordon CopelandCan the Minister confirm that the whole subject of water quality, and, in particular, reference to nutrient runoffs, is included in the confidence and supply agreement between the Labour-led Government and United Future, and that part of that policy advanced by United Future is to plant trees on marginal strips around our rivers and lakes?
Yes I can, and, of course, the Government is actively involved with its support partners in promoting the kind of developments that the member has spoken about. Budgetary consideration will be given to active involvement.
Yes, a bit like the member’s political record. The Government is giving considerable attention to the development of appropriate measures for these matters and that will be dealt with in the Budget.
How will the half a million dollar publicly funded campaign, “New Zealand. A valuable body of water.”, improve water quality when the website it directs people to has only one practical tip and that is that running a full load of a dishwasher uses less water, less energy, and is more hygienic than washing by hand?
I think I already indicated that raising the consciousness of New Zealanders about the importance of water and its future use and efficiency of use are important educative matters. When Government departments or any other industry body is doing that, they should be applauded for it. The quality of what they do, of course, is always in the eye of the individual beholder.
Who came up with the idea of spending half a million dollars of public money on the “New Zealand. A valuable body of water.” ad campaign for a website that contains thought-provoking gems such as “Freshwater can be found in two places, underground … and above ground …”, “Surface water includes things such as lakes, rivers …”, and “Water availability problems occur when water demand outstrips supply …”?
As in all these original ideas, if there is proven to be success we will find that many authors came up with the idea; if there is not, then we will find there will be orphans.
Why, instead of spending half a million dollars on a fancy ad campaign showing people standing in pristine bodies of water, do we not show them just standing in rivers like the Manawatū, the state of which was enough to get more than 200 people marching down the main street of Palmerston North recently, screaming for the Government to do something?
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Try as I might, I cannot see how the Minister, in any way, addressed my question on the health of the Manawatū River. I am very interested in his reply.
Well, if the member is suggesting that the Ministry for the Environment or any other Government agency—or local government agency, for that matter—is not interested in the health of the Manawatū River, then she is not living in the same world as I am. Of course these matters are important, and all the initiatives the Government takes are meant to make a contribution to that welfare.
Why, instead of wasting so much money merely trying to get people to think about something, does the Minister not spend his half a million dollars of public money on something concrete aimed at people actually doing something?
If the member really wants to go down the expenditure route, rather than focus on quality, I say that the Government is contributing $36.7 million towards reducing nitrogen levels in Lake Taupō, a project it is funding with Environment Waikato and the Taupō District Council. It forms the largest project of its type in the history of New Zealand. The Government is contributing $4 million towards building a structure to divert the outflow from the Ōhau Channel that links Lakes Rotorua and Rotoiti, and it is assisting the improvement of the water quality of Lake Rotoiti. There is much more than that, and if the member is really asking for something she should expect to get the answer.
I seek leave to table a picture of a man standing up to his waist in water, which is the Labour Government’s answer—
Leave is sought to table that document. Is there objection? Yes, there is objection. [ Interruption] The member has displayed the document. She should read the Standing Orders on such matters, please.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I raise a point of order not to question your ruling that you previously made, because of course no member would dare to do that, but simply to seek a clarification. I raise this point of order because the Green Party, like other small parties, has a very small number of questions. We have one question per day most days, and we have four supplementary questions, so we do not have the ability to squander questions as some other parties do. But I questioned whether the Minister answered my specific question, and I raised that not because I thought he was trying to evade the question but I genuinely thought he had not heard it properly. Often the noise in this House means that Ministers cannot fully hear questions. I asked one question, not a number of questions, and I asked a very specific question. It was a point of information; I was not trying to score a political point. I know that that is rare in this House, as well. So my question for clarification is: how can I be more specific, in relation to your finding, than to ask one question—and a very specific question?
Hon Dr Michael Cullen Link to this
Unfortunately in this place good intentions do not get members different rulings from bad intentions, in asking questions. I accept that the member had good intentions, but he has to be treated the same way as other members in response to their questions.
I think that members have to be reminded, also, that the purpose of supplementary questions is in fact to elucidate, through those questions, what the primary question was. Obviously, that does not always satisfy the member, as in this instance, but the Minister did actually address the question. It may not, as I said, have been to the satisfaction of the member. I would also just like to remind members that points of order are used to raise matters of order; they are not used to elucidate an answer through a point of order.