4. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) Link to this
to the Prime Minister
What was he referring to when he said his Government would “take action this year to remove particular regulatory roadblocks to … irrigation in Canterbury”?
Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) Link to this
I was referring to a range of options currently being developed and considered by the Government to deal with some of the issues around irrigation, such as those identified in the Canterbury Water Management Strategy. However, no final decisions have yet been made. It is also important to note that the Land and Water Forum will be reporting to the Government this year on wider issues of water management.
Does he consider the elected councillors of Environment Canterbury to be one of the roadblocks to more irrigation in Canterbury?
I am not sure it is possible to answer that question. What I can say is that having read the report about Environment Canterbury, the level of dysfunctionality currently operating in that organisation was very alarming to me.
With reference to the review he referred to in his answer, does he have confidence in the review of Environment Canterbury’s administration of the Resource Management Act given that it was headed by Wyatt Creech, who is the director of Open Country Cheese, a dairy company with 12 convictions for breaching the Resource Management Act in the last 3 years?
Yes, I have enormous confidence in Wyatt Creech as someone who is well equipped to handle these issues. As a former Deputy Prime Minister of New Zealand he served New Zealand very, very well and put aside his private and personal interests.
Rahui KateneWhat is the Government’s view on the recommendation from the review group that iwi liaison be elevated in importance with Environment Canterbury, based on the finding that iwi are typically recognised only as a special interest group rather than being recognised as the Treaty partner?
Does he agree that the dairy industry has a vested interest in seeing more irrigation in Canterbury?
In that case, how can it possibly be appropriate for a senior member of the dairy industry to be conducting the review of Environment Canterbury when Environment Canterbury is the regulator of the dairy industry in that region?
Because I think Wyatt Creech is a person who understands the industry well. He is able to analyse problems in organisations, having been around them for a long time. When I say yes to the dairy industry it is a statement of fact—that is, if Canterbury and the areas around Canterbury and Otago were to have greater irrigation, it would lend itself to greater economic output and therefore it will of course be in their interest. But any increase in production in dairying would have to be matched by care and concern for the environment.
Does he agree that Canterbury’s water resources are already under enormous pressure, that there is already over-extraction of water from aquifers and rivers, and that there is already enormous pollution as a result of dairy intensification; if so, how will more irrigation result in anything other than more environmental decline?
Yes, I do agree that there is pressure on the aquifers in the Canterbury region. The way to resolve that is potentially to build greater water storage, so that less pressure is on those aquifers, and less of the water that currently pours out to sea continues to do so.
Can we take from the Prime Minister’s answers that this Government will always put short-term private interests ahead of long-term public good when those two things come into conflict, as they are in the case of—[ Interruption] I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The noise in the House means I can barely hear myself. I would ask—[ Interruption] This is a point of order.
Mr SPEAKERA point of order is being heard, and there is a lot of noise around the House. The House is very noisy today. I sympathise with the honourable member. I did not interrupt because I did not want to interrupt his question. I could hear him, which was a little unusual. Sometimes I cannot, because the noise is so loud, but I could hear the honourable member quite clearly.
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My point of order is very simple. The Standing Orders are clear that questions are not to include reputational attacks on members or a Government.
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
Yes, it was. It said that the only interest we have is short term and that we are not interested in long-term interests or environmental concerns. It is very plain from the report that—
The member must not get into a debate when raising a point of order. I accept the point of order raised by the member. It does get difficult to maintain order in the House when members feel that questions are breaching the Standing Orders. I must say that the honourable member’s question did contain an assertion about how he saw the Government’s reaction to a certain situation. Members should remember that they should ask questions rather than make that kind of assertion, which tends to lead to disorder. I invite the honourable member to ask his question again.
In the case of the limited water resources in the Canterbury region, how can we be certain that the Government is not putting short-term private interests ahead of the long-term public good?