Which conclusions in the censored final chapter of the government's State of the Environment report caused it to be pulled because they were not supported by the facts? Green MP Jeanette Fitzsimons tried to find out in Question Time yesterday; unfortunately the answers she got were less than convincing:
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister for the Environment: Does he agree with chapter 13, dumped from the report on the state of the environment, that “significant intensification of land use, particularly pastoral land use” is “arguably the largest pressure today on New Zealand’s land, freshwaters and coastal oceans, and atmosphere”; if not, what does he believe is the largest pressure on New Zealand’s land, freshwaters and coastal oceans, and atmosphere?So, first the conclusions are supported by the facts, then they're not, but Mallard won't say exactly which conclusions are problematic. This is both unconvincing, and deeply unsatisfactory. If Mallard is going to say that there are unsupported conclusions there, he should be able to point to them and say why. The fact that he won't, and instead roboticly repeats his single talking point again and again when asked "was it this?", "was it that?", speaks volumes about the sincerity of his excuse, and suggests that the Greens' underlying accusation that it was pulled to avoid offending the farming lobby is entirely correct.Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for the Environment): As I am sure Dr Norman told the member, because he was there, both myself and the Ministry for the Environment officials spoke at length about the damning facts in the main body of this report and the summary document, which clearly showed that this was the case. If the member has not spoken to Dr Norman about it, could I recommend that she opens the report, just to the forward, and reads my comments in there where I say that the report highlights the decline in water quality in New Zealand “as a consequence of the increasing intensity of agricultural production.” Clearly, that is the case.
Jeanette Fitzsimons: In that case, which conclusions specifically was he referring to when he told the media on Monday that *chapter 13 was scrapped because it made a series of conclusions that were not strictly supported by the facts, and on what peer-reviewed reports is he basing that conclusion, or does he just disagree with the specialists who wrote chapter 13?
Hon TREVOR MALLARD: That is the very area—because it is forward-looking rather than backward-looking, as the report is—that was outside the scope and actually not matched by the facts in the report.
[...]
Jeanette Fitzsimons: Was chapter 13 pulled because it clearly points the finger at agriculture and recommends a polluter-pays principle at a time when the Minister’s Government is subsidising the farming industry’s greenhouse gas emissions to the tune of $1 million every working day and allowing it to pollute our rivers for free?
Hon TREVOR MALLARD: The chapter was pulled for two reasons: first, that the qualitative comments contained in the draft section were not backed up by the facts contained in the report itself; second, the substantive comments being made were actually right through the report.
Jeanette Fitzsimons: Was the chapter pulled, then, because although the Minister’s Government proudly proclaims its biggest road-building binge in history, chapter 13 states that doubling the distance travelled by vehicles on our roads over the past 20 years is putting pressure on the environment and human health?
Hon TREVOR MALLARD: The chapter was pulled because the qualitative comments contained in the draft report were not backed up by the facts contained in the report itself, and the substantive comments being made were carried through the report itself.
