﻿Mr SPEAKER: Question No 10, Eugenie Sage.
EUGENIE SAGE (Green) to the Minister for the Environment:
Will proposed changes to the Resource Management Act 1991
safeguard the life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil,
and ecosystems as the Act requires; if so, how?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): Yes,
because it is National’s longstanding policy not to change section 5,
which specifically refers to “safeguarding the life-supporting
"capacity of air, water, soil, and ecosystems;”.
Eugenie Sage: Will his changes to the Resource Management Act
improve water quality, given the results
in today’s Environment Aotearoa 2015 report, which show total nitrogen levels
have increased at 60% of the monitored river sites?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The first thing I would point out is the figure
that the member uses is not accurate.
It was not accepted by the Government Statistician because the data around
swimming water quality is not of that standard, and that party repeatedly misuses data
that both the Government Statistician and the Secretary for the Environment
say does not match up. This Government does view water quality as a serious issue.
That is why we introduced the first national policy statement
under the Resource Management Act requiring improvements in fresh water quality.
In the changes that we are proposing, we are also intending to implement
National’s policy of requiring all cattle stock to be fenced off from waterways.
Eugenie Sage: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.
My question was about total nitrogen, not about E. coli levels.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The question was adequately addressed.
It also started earlier than that, with “Will the changes
"to the Resource Management Act improve water quality?”. The question was addressed.
Eugenie Sage: Can he assure the House that the forthcoming
Resource Management Act changes will not harm the environment
when previous changes have resulted in the loss of landmark trees in Auckland
such as the giant pōhutukawa in this picture, which has become this picture?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Government’s changes to the Resource Management Act
will streamline and simplify it for the very reasons
that are covered in the Productivity Commission report published today,
which points out how that Act is actually undermining the capacity
for average Kiwi families to be able to access an affordable home.
In terms of issues around specific trees, I would point out that it is up to councils—
for instance, in the case of some of the specific tree issues in Auckland—
to make decisions about what trees have the status of being protected trees
and what trees they may decide to allow to be removed.
David Seymour: Does the Minister anticipate the reforms will
increase the supply elasticity of housing
and therefore help alleviate child poverty?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Absolutely. If we look at the Productivity Commission report today
it shows that the price of land in Auckland has increased fivefold.
If any member of this House is serious about the issues of family poverty
and about increasing the affordability of houses, then we have to deal with the very high cost
of land that is driving up housing costs.
Dr David Clark: So why have you done nothing in 7 years?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: To the member who asks across the House
what we have done about it, we have done the special housing areas
as a short-term measure—opposed by that member—and when that legislation expires
next October we need to follow it on with further Resource Management Act reforms.
Eugenie Sage: Will the next set of Resource Management Act changes
increase the protection for our indigenous habitats and wildlife
when his proposed National Environmental Standard for Plantation Forestry
allows indigenous vegetation and habitats to be cleared and replaced with pine?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I do not accept the member’s assertions
around the national environment standard that is proposed for forestry.
It does not make sense for that industry to have different rules
in every part of the country.
Forestry is an important industry for NZ, and I am satisfied that that proposed
national environment standard will both improve the environmental standards—
in some areas it involves a substantive step up on the environmental rules—
as well as reduce the compliance costs from the hundreds of consents that are currently
required for the forestry industry.
Eugenie Sage: I seek leave to table a report from the Ministry for the Environment
and the Government Statistician showing that total nitrogen—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! That information will be very available to members.
David Seymour: Does the Minister believe that conservation
should be based on robust science; if so, what is the scientific basis
for retaining paragraphs such as “the ethic of stewardship:”,
“the maintenance and enhancement of amenity values:”, and “intrinsic values of ecosystems:”
in sections 6 and 7 of the Resource Management Act?
Mr SPEAKER: The Hon Dr Nick Smith—either of those two supplementary questions.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Government has made plain that it does not
wish to make any changes to section 5, in the original primary question.
It is the Government’s view that there are significant improvements
that can be made to section 6 and section 7. There are a range of views
across different parties in this Parliament; my hope is to be able to secure a majority
so that we can make sensible changes to those sections that will both protect
the environment and also enable NZ to grow and to prosper.
Mr SPEAKER: Question No 11, Joanne Hayes.
Subtitles by the Amara.org community