6. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) Link to this
to the Prime Minister
Does he stand by his comments on BBC HARDtalk yesterday that “intensifying our dairy operations … had some impact on our river quality”; if so, what is that impact?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) Link to this
Yes. In some areas of New Zealand, the historical intensification of dairy operations will have had some impact on our river quality. That is why we announced yesterday an increase in funding for the clean-up of our rivers, lakes, and aquifers. But in reality, the impact is not great and needs to be kept in context. We have a 2010 ranking second only to Iceland in the water quality index of Columbia University and Yale University, with a score of 99.2, which is significantly ahead of other developed countries.
Is the Prime Minister aware of statistics provided by the Ministry for the Environment that show that 43 percent of our monitored rivers are not safe for swimming most of the time?
I have not recently seen those figures. I have no doubt they are there, but I have not recently seen them. But that would explain why a National-led Government is spending more money—in fact, five times as much—on the freshwater clean-up between 2009 and 2014 than the previous Labour Government did, which that member supported.
If, as he said on the BBC, the intensification of dairying causes water pollution, then why is he promoting hundreds of thousands more hectares of dairy intensification?
I honestly cannot remember what I said on BBC HARDtalk, because I have not seen the show, but I have also said on numerous occasions that one needs to balance the environment with the economy. Looking, for instance, at dairy intensification that may come from water irrigation schemes, I refer the member to the Ōpuha dam water management project in South Canterbury. It won the 2008 Canterbury Resource Management Award. It is a sustainable project that is supported by Fish and Game New Zealand, local iwi, and the community. It demonstrates that we can actually have both economic and environmental benefits.
Is the Prime Minister aware of the statement by the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research: “There is no doubt that our declining … water quality over the last 20 years is associated with intensification of pastoral farming and the conversion … to dairy farming,” and how can he possibly support massive conversion to dairying while avoiding those environmental effects?
I have not seen that particular comment but, again, we are aware that there are always environmental risks when one increases intensification of dairying. I am also aware of all the steps the industry is now taking to make sure it is a good custodian of environmental responsibility. In my view, the industry is meeting those challenges.
If the industry is to be a good custodian of the land, does the Prime Minister believe that we need regulation in order to ensure that the industry actually does look after the land?
Inevitably, some legislation is always required in that area. When there are controls they are covered by things like the Resource Management Act. The legislation will also be assisted by the national policy statement that the Minister for the Environment put out yesterday.
Is the Prime Minister aware that the national policy statement that was put out yesterday removed the requirement that dairy intensification requires a resource consent? The draft national policy statement on freshwater management stated that a resource consent was needed for dairy intensification, which the national policy statement has taken away, so there is no ability to regulate.
I am advised that the Government had legal advice that the proposed national policy statement was ultra vires, and that it can set policy but not rules. That is why Cabinet did not proceed with those provisions.
Was the Prime Minister taking a bit of a gamble in inviting BBC HARDtalk interviewer Stephen Sackur to swim in our rivers when, according to Ministry for the Environment statistics, 43 percent of our monitored rivers are not safe for swimming most of the time, so Mr Sackur would have stood a one-in-two chance of getting the runs?
No, I do not think I was taking a big risk asking him to come for a swim. I think the member is taking a much bigger risk if he continues to support Labour.
I seek leave to table the document where the Ministry for the Environment says that 57 percent of monitored swimming spots have water quality that meets the requirements almost all the time.
Mr SPEAKER
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I thought Russel Norman was going to raise a point of order about gratuitous comments made by the Prime Minister—I think for the third time today—that were totally irrelevant in this case. At your advice, we on this side of the House have worked quite hard—not always successfully—[ Interruption]
I do not want to ask the member to resume his seat; that is unfair to the honourable member. I ask the House to please show some courtesy to a colleague.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
The point is that you have given the House advice, and members on this side of the House have been making a real attempt to follow it and to stay within the Standing Orders. I think it is generally accepted that there has been a lot of progress in that area over the last year or so. It is just a question of whether the same advice is going to the Prime Minister. If we made that sort of gratuitous comment three times or had interrupted you when you were on your feet in the way the Prime Minister did, we would have been asked to leave the Chamber.
The member was doing pretty well until that point. The member will have noted that today I was not very happy with the Prime Minister at one stage, but it was my assessment that it would have been unfair to the Opposition to ask the Prime Minister to leave the Chamber, because there are several questions to the Prime Minister that I am sure the Opposition wanted him—and not anyone else—to answer. The Speaker has to make all sorts of judgments at a time.
I do not want to be too unreasonable. As long as there is a little bit of humour in the comments, I do not want to be too unreasonable. The member says the Labour Opposition has tried to get their questions much tighter. I think many members have tried, and I congratulate members on it. But I invite him to reflect on the fact that many questions still seek opinions. A particular question asked the Prime Minister about risks. The Prime Minister, in answering, shared a risk with the questioner that maybe was a bit flippant, but if I were to try to prevent that kind of comment, I think we would almost destroy question time. There is a risk when a questioner asks a Minister about risks that the answer may include risks that the questioner did not expect.
That is my dilemma as Speaker. I do not want to be too unrealistic. Members will note that where a straight question is asked that seeks information, I am pretty tough on Ministers. Where questions seek opinions, it is much more difficult for me. Where supplementary questions contain statements—alleged statements of fact—it is much more difficult for me. I hear the member’s point, and I will do my best to achieve what he is seeking, but I do not want to destroy all humour. In that particular case the questioner asked about risks, and a risk was included in the answer that perhaps was not totally expected. I do not want to rule out that sort of thing completely.