Freshwater Management, National Policy Statement—Cawthron Institute Report

Is the Cawthron Institute wrong when it says his Government’s own irrigation subsidies—the possibly $400 million of irrigation subsidies the Government has talked about—are likely to result in further intensification of land use and further decline in our lakes, rivers, and wetlands?

The Cawthron Institute report is one of opinion; it is not actually a scientific survey. In fact, no irrigation schemes will be eligible for Government funding unless environmental planning conditions are met, which include, in fact, the national policy statement, as well. The Government has, in fact, increased its spending on waterways by 500 percent over the last 3 years. For instance, in the 5-year period commencing in 2009, $94 million will be spent, compared with $16 million in the previous 5 years.

Does the Minister think it is a paradox that on the one hand his Government is increasing spending dramatically to clean up the mess created by earlier intensive agriculture projects, and on the other hand it plans to subsidise hundreds of thousands of hectares of new intensive irrigation projects that will increase water pollution? On the one hand the Government is spending money to clean it up, and on the other hand it is spending money to create it.

I think the member may not have heard the previous answer. No new irrigation schemes will be eligible for a Government subsidy unless they have a plan to deal with the potential increased runoff. That is one of the conditions of such a subsidy.

Will the Minister therefore provide a guarantee that not a single dollar will be paid in irrigation subsidies without a guarantee that there will be no negative downstream environmental effects on water quality?

Obviously, in any such application all the factors of the risks will be properly assessed on a scientific basis—unlike this particular report, which is in essence a matter of opinion.

I seek leave to table the Cawthron Institute report, Implications of the National Policy Statement on Freshwater Management, which was released in June 2011.

Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

I seek leave to table a statement by Professor David Hamilton, debunking the Yale report on water quality, which has repeatedly been used by the Minister from this year.

Is this a personal letter, or is it a—

It is a media statement by Professor David Hamilton. It is not otherwise publicly available.

It has not been published in the New Zealand media?

No. That is correct.

Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

I seek leave to table four documents, so I will do them as one block. These are from water scientists in New Zealand, all of which raise concerns about the National Policy Statement on Freshwater Management. They are published by the Science Media Centre. They are from Professor David Hamilton, Dr Mike Joy, Professor Jenny Webster-Brown, and Angus McIntosh, a professor at the University of Canterbury.

Burns Brendon Burns Link to this

Leave is sought to table those documents. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

Documents, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Will the Minister confirm that whereas the Land and Water Forum he established to consider the National Policy Statement on Freshwater Management made just four modest changes to the board of inquiry’s version, he allowed Cabinet to insert 19 more changes, none of them protecting the environment for which he holds the ministerial warrant?