5. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) Link to this
to the Prime Minister
Did he tell the Prime Minister’s South Island Forum that the Government would “front up with some cash” for water infrastructure in Canterbury, as reported in the Press on 12 June 2010?
Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) Link to this
That particular story stretches things a little bit, but I can confirm for the member that the Government is keen to see progress on water storage and irrigation. We have been focusing on removing regulatory roadblocks but, under the right circumstances, we would also consider some form of financial involvement in order to get things moving. As I said in my statement to Parliament, we want to make sure that water storage and irrigation projects that meet environmental standards and that are good economic propositions can happen within a decent time frame.
Does he agree with the Canterbury Water Management Strategy that “Even if resource consents could be obtained for new infrastructure on this scale it would be uneconomic to build.”; if so, why would the Government even contemplate subsidising irrigation projects that do not have an economic return?
That statement seems to refer to one particular project. I cannot believe it applies to all of the projects, because not all of them have been priced up. On that basis, I would not agree with that statement.
Is he aware that intensive irrigated corporate dairying has already drained and polluted many of Canterbury’s rivers, and that more intensive irrigated dairying will only drain more water from our precious braided rivers?
Yes, I am aware that increasing intensification of dairying in the South Island is having an effect on the water table; that is the very reason why building water storage in the South Island makes so much sense.
Brendon BurnsWas the Prime Minister briefed on the 20 December 2008 Water Infrastructure Forum in Christchurch promoting irrigation for Canterbury, attended by three of his senior Ministers, and was he aware that one Wyatt Creech was also briefed about that forum via David Carter’s political adviser within 2 days of it being held?
Can the Prime Minister explain why Mr Creech, 11 months before he was appointed as an independent consultant to head an independent review of Environment Canterbury, was taking an intense interest via a Minister’s office in the same Canterbury irrigation issues as the Prime Minister?
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was about something that happened via a Minister’s office. My submission to you is that saying that someone has no responsibility for Wyatt Creech, when clearly the Prime Minister does have responsibility for all his Ministers’ offices and the briefings they give, is not a satisfactory answer.
Hon Gerry Brownlee Link to this
The question was whether the Prime Minister could explain why Mr Creech was taking an interest. Clearly it is not his role to explain why Mr Creech was taking an interest. Mr Creech, of course, is a prominent New Zealander who has a great interest in these matters. It is not unreasonable, at all.
Mr SPEAKEROn this occasion I will enable Brendon Burns, if he wants to, to rephrase the question to try to bring it within the Prime Minister’s responsibility, rather than just losing a question. He does not have to; it is just if he would like to.
Could the Prime Minister say why Mr Creech, 11 months before he was appointed as an independent consultant heading an independent review of Environment Canterbury, was taking an intense interest via a Minister’s office in the same issues as the Prime Minister was taking?
I seek the leave of the House to table an Official Information Act document, which shows Wyatt Creech wanting a “comprehensive picture” of Canterbury irrigation and Resource Management Act issues from David Carter’s office—
Has the Prime Minister seen the latest Landcare Research annual report, which states that intensified agriculture is currently driving the fastest rate of loss of native vegetation since European colonisation; if so, why is he thinking of subsidising more intensification in Canterbury, with the result that more native vegetation will be lost?
No, and I cannot believe that irrigating land that already has a form of agriculture taking place on it, just not to the level of intensification that would be possible with irrigation, would affect native vegetation.
Is he concerned that 10 percent of groundwater wells monitored in Canterbury last year had nitrate levels exceeding the drinking-water standard, and that converting thousands of hectares to irrigated dairying will only increase nitrogen leaching in Canterbury?
Yes. In relation to the second part of the question, I do not think the member can actually make that statement.
Is he concerned that the Canterbury medical officer of health has already warned that high levels of nitrate in groundwater could put infants at risk of death from blue baby syndrome, and that converting thousands of hectares of Canterbury land to irrigated dairying will only increase the risk?
Yes, and that is why we replaced Environment Canterbury. It was so that we can have an effective water plan in place in a quicker amount of time than the 19 years Environment Canterbury took yet still failed to put a water plan in place.
How much taxpayer cash does he plan to front up for these uneconomic irrigation schemes, which cannot attract commercial funding, will result in massive environmental destruction, will put human health at risk, and are really just another form of corporate welfare?
Firstly, if the member stuck to some facts in his questions he might get a more satisfactory answer. But anyway, the Government could put some cash into these projects if at the end of the process they were proved to be economic over time. There may be some cash-flow issues; that has been the case in previous irrigation schemes. I might add that the previous Government set up the Community Irrigation Fund, which also put some cash into irrigation schemes. This Government will probably put quite a bit more into that fund.