5. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) Link to this
to the Prime Minister
Does he stand by his comments in the House yesterday that “intensification of dairy operations will have had some impact on our river quality … But in reality, the impact is not great …”; if so, why?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) Link to this
Yes; as I said yesterday, the impacts need to be kept in context, as our water quality is ranked second only behind Iceland, with a score of 99.2.
Therefore, was Dr Mike Joy, a senior lecturer in environmental science at Massey University, wrong when he said, as quoted by the BBC: “Nearly half of our lakes and around 90 percent of our lowland rivers are classed as polluted.”?
It may depend on the definition of “polluted”. I will give an example of where sometimes people play with numbers. Yesterday in the House the member claimed that 43 percent of sites in New Zealand are unsuitable for swimming.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister was alleging that I was playing with numbers. One might argue I made a mistake or I had got it wrong, but to suggest I played with numbers suggests I manipulated them in a conscious way. That is suggesting I was acting in a misleading way.
Mr SPEAKERThe member cannot litigate the Prime Minister’s answer by way of a point of order. I apologise to the member; I was distracted while the Prime Minister was answering, because I did not perceive that the question was likely to lead to difficulty. I apologise for that. I invite the Prime Minister to answer the question again and I will listen very carefully. I think everyone remembers exactly what the question was.
I certainly was not trying to be disrespectful to the member in any way, shape, or form; I was simply making the point that yesterday people gave interpretations of numbers. Yesterday the member said that 43 percent of sites are unsuitable for swimming most of the time. I have gone away and had a look at that number and in fact it is incorrect. Fifty-seven percent of the 206 monitored freshwater swimming spots meet the guidelines all the time, but 32 percent meet the guidelines except in certain conditions—for example, after rainfall. Even the remaining 11 percent meet the guidelines 75 percent of the time.
Hon David ParkerYes, I know, but the member said most of the sites are unsuitable all of the time. That is the point; people play with numbers, my friend.
Therefore, was his Minister for the Environment, Nick Smith, wrong when he said in 2008 that “The facts are that water quality, particularly in lowland streams, is deteriorating … with water in many iconic lakes and rivers unfit to … swim in.”?
No, Nick Smith was not wrong, which is why on Monday he was at the forefront of leading the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management. That is why in the 2009-14 period this Government will spend five times what the previous Government spent. We care more about the environment than Labour does.
Was Professor David Hamilton, Chair in Lakes Management and Restoration at Waikato University, wrong when he said yesterday: “Over the past decade or so New Zealanders have witnessed accelerated degradation of many waterbodies in response to diffuse nutrients derived from mostly agricultural sources”?
Not necessarily. I have not seen the full context of the quote, but I think we all accept that there needs to be a balance between intensification and dairying and environmental concerns. That is why the national policy statement and national environmental standards are there, and why the Government is working hard to get that balance right.
Given the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence that intensification causes water pollution, is there not a contradiction between the Government’s goal to increase intensive agriculture by 300,000 hectares and the Government’s goal to clean up our rivers?
No, because I think it depends on how that is done. I refer the member to what has happened in Ōpuha. The Ōpuha Dam Water Management Project, which has been in place for some time now, was the supreme winner of the 2008 Environment Canterbury Resource Management Award. The scheme is supported by Fish and Game New Zealand, local iwi, and the community. It clearly demonstrates that there can be increased economic performance and environmental benefits. So often I hear from the Greens a call for this Government to spend more money. Where do they think that money comes from? We have to have a vibrant economy, and I think we can balance economic growth with good environmental protection. This Government is doing that.
With reference to the Ōpuha Dam, was Environment Canterbury wrong in January when it accepted that the Ōpuha Dam was linked to an increase in toxic algae blooms in the Ōpihi River, as was reported by their principal surface water quality officer, Adrian Meredith?
I simply have not seen the statement. If the member wants very detailed answers like that he should refer them to the member.
If the Prime Minister thinks we should trade off increased water pollution for more economic growth in the dairy industry, why does he not just come out and say that, rather than pretend that we can have a million more cows and cleaner rivers?
I have not said that. What I have said is I think it is possible for New Zealand to increase its economic performance and to improve its environmental outcomes. That is why we are doing all the things we have proposed through the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management and the like.
I seek leave to table a report from NIWA, dated July 2010, that shows the link between intensification and water pollution.
I seek leave to table an article from the Timaru Herald. I know it is a newspaper but it is not necessarily that easy to access.