Appropriation (2024/25 Confirmation and Validation) Bill

Committee of the whole House—Annual Review Debate Environment CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Good evening, members. I hope you all dined well. The Minister for the Environment is now available for one hour to respond to members’ questions. Catherine Wedd from the Environment Committee. CATHERINE WEDD (Chairperson of the Environment Committee) (19:30): I rise to introduce the annual review of the Ministry for the Environment and would like to thank our Environment Committee members for their time and effort in this annual review report. The ministry’s total revenue for 2024-25 was $190.38 million. Its total expenditure was $180.21 million, resulting in a surplus of $10.17 million. Throughout the annual review, we looked at climate change; we were advised about a range of tools that could be used to support the uptake of methane-reducing technologies and discussed several emissions reduction initiatives being developed or trialled in the agriculture sector, which was very positive to reducing emissions. We also looked at adaptation and emergency preparedness. The ministry said that the overarching purpose of its work on climate adaptation is to ensure that New Zealanders are as informed as possible about climate risk and the potential implications for them to enable them to take action. We spoke about catchment groups, which was a very positive discussion. In July 2025, the ministry announced funding of $6.4 million for catchment groups. The ministry said catchment groups are incredible partners who offer key skills and capabilities to help achieve environmental outcomes, and the work that catchment groups do across New Zealand is very, very positive. We spent quite a bit of time discussing resource management reform, because this, of course, is the bulk of the ministry’s work at the moment. The Resource Management Act (RMA) reform, of course, is the largest reform in a generation. It’s predicted to cut consents by about 46 percent and is estimated to save over $13 billion in administrative and compliance costs. This took up a large amount of our discussions, because the RMA reform is intended to speed up infrastructure development, housing projects, and renewable energy, and cut red tape on the farm for our farmers. The ministry also said that the fast-track process had been very effective and that applications had increased, which was very positive news that we discussed. We also spoke about waste minimisation. The ministry is working to modernise the Waste Minimisation Act 2008. We also spoke about many product stewardship programmes that are going on, Tyrewise being one of them. I know our Minister has recently visited and found out all about Tyrewise and the amazing product stewardship programme that this is, where the tyres are repurposed and kept out of landfill and recycled into roading products, which, of course, is very, very positive. There’s many, many things that we discussed during this annual review. It was a positive annual review and report, where we all showed our passion for the environment. Thank you. Hon NICOLA GRIGG (Minister for the Environment) (19:33): Thank you, Mr Chair. It is indeed a privilege to rise and present tonight for my first time as the newly minted Minister for the Environment, and can I acknowledge the chair of the Environment Committee and, indeed, all of her colleagues across the Chamber for the work that they do. I’d also like to acknowledge the former Minister for the Environment, Penny Simmonds. I really do hope, genuinely, to continue the very excellent work that she’s done and, indeed, to explore some new opportunities for improvement, because I think everybody in this Chamber would agree that New Zealand’s natural environment is a great source of pride to us all. Not just that; it is, of course, fundamental to our economy and the health and wellbeing of our people. And so, the Government is taking the approach that we want to grow our economy by cutting that red tape and making it easier and more affordable to do things—but, I have to reiterate, that is absolutely within the bounds of environmental protections. As the chair of the select committee has alluded to, and I’m sure we will hear from the Minister himself, the Government has been working at pace and great volume to progress two new bills, our new Resource Management Act (RMA) rework. We’ve got the Planning Bill and the Natural Environment Bill—which, again, is very much focused on that protection and enhancement of our natural environment. For the pieces of work that very much fall within my wheelhouse, work is progressing on amending that Waste Minimisation Act and the Litter Act to modernise and consolidate, because a lot of these Acts are becoming aged and are no longer fit for purpose. I do intend to introduce amendments to the House this year and, hopefully, if time allows, we can enact them before the general election. I do want to talk to some of the noteworthy wins, to use the colloquial term. Minister Simmonds, across most of last year, launched a range of initiatives and strategies: one, to reduce waste disposal per person—data has shown we’re making great strides in that: two, to increase reuse and recycling of materials and products; to minimise emissions—again, I think across the Chamber we all agree with that, but I think, as always, it’s the “how” that we can vary on. We do also want to reduce that environmental harm from waste and litter and then, of course, to ensure that resource recovery and disposal facilities are managed to minimise their own environmental impacts. I’m fairly certain that conversations will turn to the waste disposal levy this evening, so I want to acknowledge that in the 2024 Budget, the Government’s changed the Waste Minimisation Act to allow that waste disposal levy to be spent on a wider range of environmental activities and, while doing so, to increase that levy incrementally over the three years from July 2025. That is so that we can actually help to fund a more comprehensive set of waste and environmental priorities. That levy can now also—or will also—support projects to improve fresh water quality, to remediate contaminated sites, and to restore the health of those very vital ecosystems. We’ve got about 50 active projects across New Zealand funded by the Waste Minimisation Fund and other waste-related funding. I’m sure, again, we will turn to the topic of contaminated sites and vulnerable landfills. We have a fund up and running. We’ve allocated since October 2024 about $21 million across seven projects, ranging from really vulnerable landfills to old mine sites, and so on and so forth. I know the topic of product stewardship has already been touched on, but I do want to single out Tyrewise, which the Hon Rachel Brooking is very, very proud of her involvement with—justifiably so. It is indeed our country’s first priority product stewardship scheme for end-of-life tyres. I was blown away with the briefing that I had on the project. Already, $6.5 million end-of-life tyres have been collected out of the system and repurposed for fuel. Then, indeed, as is so topical, climate change and ongoing weather-related events—emergency waste funding. The Government is here to support councils with the cost of managing waste following emergencies, and we can talk to a series of those that have occurred over the past year. But look, all in all, we very much are looking to take a pragmatic and balanced approach to the reforms that we’re progressing through this Parliament and, indeed, to our wider approach to protecting, enhancing, and preserving our environment and our ecosystems. With that, I take my leave and look forward to the questions. Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (19:38): Now, here we are, at the annual review that’s focused on the environment and, in fact, the Ministry for the Environment—but what does the select committee have in front of us? Oh, a bill, to disestablish that very ministry. Over the last year, this ministry has faced 278 redundancies. The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment has noted a $1 billion drop towards environmental spending in the coming year. Meanwhile, this Government has been making it easier to pollute, passing laws under all-stages urgency or dropping in a huge amendment at the committee of the whole House stage so that there is no select committee process. The public have not been able to have their say. We have missed regulatory impact statements. Ryan Hamilton: That’s not true. Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Well, for a lot of these laws, this is very much true. Now, this Government does not seem to be one that cares about the environment at all, and New Zealand deserves better. I’m hearing a lot from the other side, but I want to know from this new Minister today, on Earth Day: is there any inclination to do better for the environment, to improve the environment and embrace being the Minister for the Environment? Hon NICOLA GRIGG (Minister for the Environment) (19:40): I’m very pleased to be able to respond to that question and, indeed, statement, because I think it’s a really important opportunity to set the record straight. There are certainly some mistruths around the way that the disestablishment of the ministry has been characterised. Yes, we are disestablishing the Ministry for the Environment, but for very good reason. We’re establishing what is commonly referred to as MCERT—the Ministry for Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport. We are, of course, merging all of those ministries together. It’s an integrated approach, because, as I’m sure everyone will agree, the environment is, indeed, integrated and everything is inter-operational. MCERT will, at its heart, be tackling some of this country’s greatest economic and environmental challenges: housing affordability, infrastructure deficits, climate adaptation. There are very strong synergies between these four agencies. There’s very good intellectual heft between these four agencies. This merger is simply about reducing bloated bureaucracy. We saw, under the previous Government, something like 16,000 extra bureaucrats were appointed. The spokesperson—I was going to refer to her as the Minister—talked about— Hon Rachel Brooking: Ha, go on! Hon NICOLA GRIGG: —redundancies—another day! That’s been made very clear in the select committee’s own report, the annual review of the ministry. Yes, despite that reduction in workforce, the ministry has actually produced a record amount of output—a full 4,822 items, which included 896 briefings, probably most to Chris Bishop; 62 Cabinet papers, probably most to Chris Bishop; 452 Official Information Act requests, that’s probably a lot for you, Andrew Hoggard!; and many, many more parliamentary questions and pieces of ministerial correspondence. In fact, I’ve only known my colleagues—the officials in the Ministry for the Environment—for a little over a week, but I think it does them a disservice to say that the protection and preservation of the environment is going to somehow go astray or go asunder because of the merger of these ministries. Again, I want to be clear for the record: we are not getting rid of the Ministry for the Environment’s functions. Its role has always been advisory. We’re simply moving these functions to the newly appointed Secretary for the Environment, who I understand—not yet met—is an exceptional operator. I encourage that side of the committee to have some faith in the officials and their expertise, because I, for one, will expect the functions will continue at the same world-leading standards that they always have. It is simply that the statutory functions will continue as they always have; they are simply being shifted. Hon Chris Bishop: Mr Chair! Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (19:43): Thank you, Mr Chair. There are a couple of points I’m interested in there, and I’m sure the Minister for resource management reform will be able to have a say on this in a minute. One issue is that the Minister for the Environment just said that she agrees and that she thinks everyone will agree that everything in the environment is integrated. Yet we have an under-secretary for the resource management reform say that this Government’s Resource Management Act reforms are about ending this integrated management of the Resource Management Act, and we see that in the form of two different bills, being the Planning Bill and the Natural Environment Bill. I’m interested in whether the Minister for resource management reform might want to comment on how that is enabling an integrated approach—having those two different functions. Also, how is it consistent to merge the Ministry for the Environment in with these other ministries that are very much focused on that cities and planning area and—I mean, you can’t separate it, because it’s all integrated—not, say, more rural and less urban environments? How do those two work streams come together? That’s one question. A second question is: the Minister’s talked about how there will still be environmental functions, how is she going to ensure that those environmental functions take precedence and that in any conflicts arising between different Ministers, the environment will have the highest regard as the Minister for the Environment? Is she concerned—like the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment is—that we risk losing an independent voice for the environment? Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (19:44): Thank you very much. Can I echo the remarks of my friend and colleague the Hon Nicola Grigg around the Ministry for the Environment (MFE). One of the things that happened when the Government changed on 27 November 2023 is that I became the Minister for the Resource Management Act (RMA) reform, and walked in and said, “Your first job is to repeal two pieces of legislation that the previous Government had passed, that a considerable number of officials at the agency had spent a considerable number of hours working on.”—which obviously is tough for any public servant; they’re human, like the rest of us, and we sometimes need to think about that more, in my view—and the very professional way that was done. Then, I said, “We need a fast-track regime done by the end of 2024.” That was done and it is now rolling out. Just on Monday, yesterday, the 19th project was approved under fast track. In the meantime, we’ve had, I think, three RMA amendment bills—maybe even more than that—most notably of which is RMA Bill (No 2), which made a series of really good, substantial changes, actually, to the RMA, in preparation for the new legislation coming. You will not find harder-working public servants than the Ministry for the Environment. They have done that, as the spokesperson says, with declining baselines and reducing staff numbers. It is really a testament to the leadership of the outgoing Secretary for the Environment, James Palmer, and the leadership team at the Ministry for the Environment, that in the greatest New Zealand Public Service way, they have got on with the job of responding to a new Government’s priorities and provided free and frank and fearless advice, but they have also taken the Government’s direction. That tension is something that will always exist, but I’m very, very proud of the officials. I take this opportunity to say thank you to them for their exceptional work in difficult circumstances. The disestablishment of the Ministry for the Environment is not about reducing the importance of the environment to New Zealand; in fact, it is the opposite. It is about amplifying the environment. What has happened with the silo-isation, as I’ve put it—I think that’s a word—but the isolation of the environment into a separate ministry is that there is a tendency to ignore the advice from the Ministry for the Environment, because it can just be written off as “Oh, that’s just the MFE and they’re just doing all their environmental thing.” Actually, the reality is: how do you do proper transport planning in a spatial sense in a region and how do you do land-use planning in a city or a district, without thinking about the environment? Increasingly, as severe weather events happen and there’s greater awareness of natural hazards, and greater awareness of exogenous shocks coming to particular regions, thinking, in the long term, about proper spatial planning and the environment that that is part of is critical to how we do transport and housing. It is obviously true that things like flood mitigation and things like natural hazard mitigation are all intimately connected to transport and housing. The other thing I would say is that if you think about housing, which is my great passion, we have a Ministry of Housing and Urban Development, but the actual levers, the real levers, for housing affordability currently sit within the Ministry for the Environment because they are, essentially, the regulator of district plans when it comes to housing capacity and all of the rules and district plans, but the funding and financing of the infrastructure required to give effect to those district plans is the responsibility of the Ministry of Transport or the New Zealand Transport Agency—or local government, which is regulated or overseen by the Department of Internal Affairs. We have made, I think, the pragmatic and sensible decision to bring these functions together. I don’t think it’s going to change the world. No Government restructuring is a panacea or nirvana. It’s not going to change the world, but I do think it will make a difference. I plead with the Opposition to stop this sort of incessant nonsense about how disestablishing the Ministry for the Environment means that the environment doesn’t matter anymore. Like, to be honest, it is the height of facile debate to just kind of— Hon Rachel Brooking: It’s your record. Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I know it’s the name of the bill—I know it’s the name. If I could change the name of the bill, I would. I don’t decide what they’re called. It would be really good if it said “Environment (Establishment of the Ministry for Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport) Bill”. That would be good. If you want to focus on the name of the bill, can I plead with you to get into the substance, because the substance is actually good. Stop with the nonsense. Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (19:49): I just have a few comments in response to Minister responsible for RMA Reform’s speech, and one is: if, as he is so adamant, this Government is going to suddenly change course and do better for the environment, will he agree here, today, that every single part of that new ministry will do better for the environment? Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (19:50): Yes. In the round, the new ministry, I believe, will lead to improvements of our natural environment over time. That’s the reason we’re setting it up. Take the development of the national flood map, for example. That is going to be the responsibility of the new ministry. Well, why are we building a national flood map? Why are we doing that? It’s because we need to get better granular data led by science around where and what we can build to flow into spatial plans, for example. I mean, the Minister for the Environment talks about waste. Waste is actually—again, this is another example as to why the merger is a good idea—for example, delivered largely by the private sector and in conjunction with local government, and the Waste Minimisation Act gives various different powers and funding streams to local government. Another classic is stormwater and waste water. OK, so we’ve been having this ongoing debate for the last eight years about the three waters and how we deal with the ridiculous situation we’ve got ourselves into where local councils have been the ones responsible for the funding and delivery of, essentially, what’s a network utility infrastructure service, which is drinking water and waste water. Unsurprisingly, they have done a poor job of that, so we have essentially— Hon Rachel Brooking: Oh, if only we had three waters. Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, they have done a poor job of it. Look, we’re in Wellington right now. Try living in this city—try living in this city. I mean, the member who’s doing the questioning lives in Dunedin. I’m unfamiliar with the state of the Dunedin stormwater and waste water network, but I’m willing to lay a bet that it is better than Wellington’s, which would be about the worst in the country. You can’t walk down Lambton Quay without either (a) slipping on those ridiculous bricks that litter Lambton Quay or (b) walking past tobies that have fallen apart. Do you know, I am told that Wellington Water discovered that they installed a pipe from the top of Aro Valley down to Wellington harbour in the early 2000s that has never been connected to any network and, until they started actually going through their records as part of local water restructuring, they didn’t even know existed. It had been put in at vast expense in the early 2000s and had just sat there unconnected. All the records are based on paper. They use different sump specifications in Upper Hutt and Lower Hutt and Wellington, and there’s been decades of under-investment largely because local body politicians have prioritised building convention centres and half-billion - dollar town hall upgrades on the ground of heritage and not focused on the basics. But here’s the point. The delivery of waste water and stormwater treatment plants— Hon Rachel Brooking: You should have listened to Nanaia Mahuta. That’s the point. Hon CHRIS BISHOP: —is a function of, obviously, local government at some level, but the standards by which they are set and the impact they have on the environment and the flows has an environmental impact. Standards that are set there are set essentially through environmental standards, which is—well, actually, it’s a bit unclear who’s responsible for that at the moment. But in the new agency, it will be the responsibility of the Ministry for Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport (MCERT) because those functions are connected. I genuinely plead with the Opposition, who think they are going to be in Government after the next election—and we know that is not the case, but let’s just enter an alternative universe in which the Labour Party actually has some policies. I realise that’s a big ask, but let’s enter a fantasy world in which Labour gets it together and actually gets some policies; let’s enter the twilight zone and pretend. In the world in which Labour win the election, I plead with them to think about the system they will be inheriting because what the Government is building is not a system for this Government— Hon Rachel Brooking: Which is why we had a Spatial Planning Act. It was dealing with three waters. Hon CHRIS BISHOP: —well, it partly is for this Government, but it’s mainly, actually, about better public policy for a better New Zealand. Why are we here in this place? We are trying to build better public policy and that’s what we’re doing with MCERT. Jump on board the journey. It’s even electric powered. CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Ms Brooking, this is why it’s good to have interactions: so we can actually stand and say these things without having to yell across the floor so I can’t hear what’s going on. LAN PHAM (Green) (19:55): Thank you, Mr Chair. I do want to welcome the new Minister, the Hon Nicola Grigg. It’s somewhat a hospital pass when it comes to having to pick up the work not only, as we’ve heard, of disestablishing your own ministry—and I’m hearing the pleas around “please, please, please don’t write this off as something that is actually going to be worse for the environment”. And, Minister, I hope you are well informed about the submissions that we did hear on the disestablishment for the Ministry for the Environment because they were hugely concerning. I’m picking up the Resource Management Act reform Minister’s comments about getting into the substance, and I actually would like to get into the substance. Firstly, I would really like to hear some commentary from the Minister for the Environment, because a lot of the justification that went into a lot of the Budget decisions when it came to the Vote Environment appropriations were around this idea that the balance had swung too far in favour of the environment at the cost of getting things done. Minister, we actually had your colleague, the previous environment Minister, actually be called out for those comments by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. That actually lead to your colleague admitting in an official information response that she was “not provided with advice or evidence from any agency to support [her] statement” and that “the information requested does not exist”. Minister, I’m really keen to hear from you in this new role. Do you, as the new Minister for the Environment, share the view that the balance has swung too far towards environmental protection at the cost of getting things done? Where do you expect to see the impacts and the substantial results of, for example, this $1 billion reduction in expenditure—which, again, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment has pointed out? Where do you expect to see that? Because we’ve seen cuts across fresh water programmes, across climate adaptation, waste minimisation funding. Where do you think that might hurt the most in terms of environmental outcomes? Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (19:58): Thank you, Mr Chair. Still on this first general topic that seems to encompass the new ministry, integrated environmental management, and whether or not we want to improve the environment. In response to the Minister responsible for RMA Reform, he said something about wanting proper spatial planning and I questioned, then, why did this Government repeal the Spatial Planning Act that the previous Government introduced? And when he gives a plea to Labour to please look at good policy development, why is it that has Government also campaigned—or has party campaigned—to get rid of the work that Nanaia Mahuta had been doing on what was called the three waters and having entities that would actually work? Because of the issues that the Minister has just discussed with issues when you go council by council. I asked the Minister to answer those questions. I’m also interested in what some Ministers have been discussing, and there’s a document—and I know it’s not this Minister; it’s not the Minister of Local Government —but there’s some discussion about breaking up regional councils and making them into unitary councils. I’m interested in all Ministers in the room—what their view is on the importance of a catchment-based approach to environmental management. That’s one question as well, and then I’ll just end with one other question that is related to some of what the Minister was saying in terms of flood management and climate adaptation. That is: where in the ministry—and maybe where in this new ministry—does green infrastructure fit? We, as a select committee, have asked ministry officials to provide us some expertise on green infrastructure, and we were told that there was nobody in the ministry who had that skill set or was working on that issue— Hon Chris Bishop: What is green infrastructure? Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Green infrastructure: nature-based solutions, rather than grey infrastructure, looking at different things. Some in your Government might call it nice-to-haves, but the Aotearoa Circle just did a big presentation at Parliament that Tama Potaka spoke at. I think Minister Simon Watts was there as well talking about how you can—we’ve heard about sponge cities as well. There was that big Helen Clark report on sponge cities. That is what I’m talking about in green infrastructure. In the Natural and Built Environment Act, there was a reference to it that you would have national direction on the use of this green infrastructure as well. The idea is that it can save everybody a lot of money, and often there will be a dual purpose if you have a sports field that also serves a stormwater purpose in storms. That is a number of questions. I’m asking about regional councils and the idea of catchment-based planning. Why did the Minister refer to proper spatial planning when there was a Spatial Planning Act that he repealed? Also, if he’s talking about long-term infrastructure planning, why is it that the work that was done for the three waters and those bigger entities was got rid of, plus this green infrastructure—where is it going to fit with the new ministry? Hon NICOLA GRIGG (Minister for the Environment) (20:01): Sorry, a bit of confusion there—I just want to rise just to respond to the member Lan Pham’s questions, and I do acknowledge her expertise in this area. Look, the comment about where cuts will hurt the most in terms of environmental outcomes—I really want to push back on that because, as we’ve already explained, the reduction in expenditure for this new Ministry for Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport (MCERT) is entirely around creating efficiencies, reducing bloat, reducing double-ups. I just want to point out to the committee that there’s still an “E” in MCERT, for “Environment”. Environmental capability is very much going to remain a core capability of this new agency. As the Hon Chris Bishop so eloquently pointed out, everything is interconnected, and I really do believe there is opportunity. This is why we are taking bold, brave steps as a Government to do things differently. I do believe there is an opportunity to grow our economy and protect, preserve, and enhance our environment at the same time. I think what that side of the House is tending to forget or deliberately ignore is the scientific advances that are occurring every single day within this country and indeed around the world. There is an opportunity to grow farming, as an example, to increase our dairy herd, our dairy production, and protect, preserve, and enhance our environment. You see the extraordinary work that farmers across New Zealand are doing of their own volition. You see the extraordinary work that our catchment groups are doing. They are recharging aquifers and groundwater systems. They are rebuilding wetlands. Yes, everybody acknowledges that mistakes were made in the past. Quite extraordinary that the Canterbury Plains—alluvial flood plains, very leaky soils, piling on nitrogen over decades, starting about 30 years ago. Nobody knew the consequences. We do know those consequences now, and hence this side of the House is going to back development, is going to back economic progression within the bounds of environmental imperatives. Hence, we do have freshwater restrictions, we do have nitrate restrictions, we do have targets for emissions outputs, but, again, they are backed and founded in science, because we believe science will find the solutions to our environmental problems. Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (20:04): Thank you. I’ll try and follow the Minister’s lead there and go into water quality. I’m just looking at my friend in the Greens. We’re trying to be helpful, despite all my yelling and heckling. CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor) (20:04): I’ve never known you to be otherwise. Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Thank you. We’re moving on to fresh water, and I want to ask the Minister for the Environment a follow-up question from her statement then, and then some questions about section 107 and fresh water generally. She just referred to “We now know that Canterbury has leaky soils and there have been problems with nitrate.”—I’m sorry; I’m paraphrasing there. Why is she now going to make sure that the regulations that have lapsed that relate to that, which stopped intensification there—will she reinvigorate those to stop further conversions of dairy farms on those soils? That’s one question. The second one is: if that is her particular interest, will she also allow the regional councils who had their plans stopped from being notified—will she let them be reignited? Then, on to section 107, when I was opening, I referred to big changes that were made without a select committee process. One of those was the change to section 107. Some people were allowed to submit on it, and other people weren’t, and that was in the Resource Management (Freshwater and Other Matters) Amendment Act. A regional council can now grant a discharge permit that the council itself is satisfied will cause significant adverse effects on aquatic life. My question around this is: how is that change to section 107 consistent with improving freshwater quality? What steps will she take as the new Minister to improve freshwater quality? And does she think that New Zealand should have swimmable rivers? Hon ANDREW HOGGARD (Associate Minister for the Environment) (20:06): I’ll just touch on a couple of those points. In regard to reinstituting land use change restrictions, no, we have no intention of doing that. The reality is that farmers have got new science, new knowledge, new systems to enable them to do things better now than they ever have before. The attitude has changed with farmers around the focus on sustainability. If we look at particularly Canterbury, yes, there were leaky soils, but interestingly enough, if you talk to farmers there, they’ve actually grown their soil carbon through irrigation, through rotational grazing. They’ve actually increased the soil carbon and the topsoil on those paddocks. They’re not as leaky any more. The other thing is that, with precision irrigation, you’ve got soil monitoring where you can see how much moisture is in the soil. You can manage your irrigation. You can even turn off individual sprinklers on that centre pivot irrigation so that you never get the soils beyond soil saturation points, unless there’s a massive rainfall, which means that you’re able to keep nutrients in the root zone, so it’s growing; it’s not leaching through the soil. These are some of the cool things that are happening on our farms up and down the country. The key thing is that right now we’re seeing in the arable sector that times are tough. They’ve got a really challenging future in front of them, and some of them are electing—you know, there’s a lot of scaremongering around, “Oh, Fonterra’s forcing all these farmers to change, and the dairy industry is doing it.” These are individual families who are making choices for their farms, for their family, on how they can have a better life, to be able to provide for their children and move forward. This is not some big industry scheme or some conspiracy like that. These are individual people making choices on their own farm, and we’re going to enable them to do that, but at the same time we’re going to be asking for better management than there has been in the past, and we expect to see that. Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (20:09): Thank you, Mr Chair. Still on this topic, as I know my friend Lan Pham will have many questions on this as well, as a former Canterbury regional councillor. I want to pick it up again. I did ask the Minister—any Minister is welcome to answer this—whether we should have swimmable rivers and what steps are being taken to improve freshwater quality. That answer Minister Hoggard just gave there was that everything’s fine, don’t worry about it, but then at the end there, he decided to say that something was happening, so I’m interested in what that something is that might be happening. I want to know if it is going to change the maps that I have on my wall that were provided by Ngāi Tahu, which show the nitrate concentrations—little red dots all around the best island, the South Island, that show how much nitrate pollution there is in Southland and Canterbury. What is he going to do about that, and does he think that there should be swimmable rivers? I’ll leave it there. Hon ANDREW HOGGARD (Associate Minister for the Environment) (20:10): Of course I believe there should be swimmable rivers. My daughters love swimming in the river beside our farm every summer. They’re obviously not swimming in it today, because it’s in flood and it’d be rather stupid to do that. Sometimes, our measurements don’t tell the real story. Often, you look at the E.coli graphs—and I look at it for our river, and, yes, it shows the averages can be high, but that’s in spikes; that’s usually when it’s in flood. That’s not when we go swimming So, yep, it’s important to have swimmable rivers. What’s happening? You’ve got farmers up and down the country, catchment care groups, who are doing a lot of work. In my own catchment—you asked the question before about nature-based solutions, so a couple of things that are happening in my catchment: we’ve got these detainment bunds that have been trialled in some of the hill country area. What that does is it slows the water flow down when you get downpours in the gullies, slows it down—helps with flooding but also stops sediment, stops phosphorus going through. That’s one solution. Another one: bioreactor. A neighbour of mine’s put a bioreactor in. What’s a bioreactor? Basically, dig a big hole where water flows, fill it full of shavings. The water flows through those shavings, catches all the nitrogen, reduces it. And, as before mentioned, engineered wetlands—brilliant solution. I’ve seen a number of those around the country. And what are we doing to support those? Well, through the work Minister Bishop’s doing in the resource management reform, we’re going to actually make it a permitted activity to build an engineered wetland. At the moment, I’ve talked to a number of people who almost gave up doing it because of the resource consents they had to go through and all the drama they had to go through to actually build something that was good for the environment. These are some of the things we’re doing, working with the catchment care groups. The attitude I see amongst farmers around trying to do the right thing, understanding where the problems are coming from and then thinking about what are some of the solutions to those problems, is impressive. It’s an attitude we should all be getting behind and encouraging. Rather than having this debate of “Oh, bloody farmers.” this and that, actually get in behind it, let it move forward, and then we’ll see changes. LAN PHAM (Green) (20:12): Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, I do want to commend the attitude change. I think humans changing behaviours and mindsets is an absolutely crucial part of the way that we’re actually going to turn this table, particularly when it comes to fresh water. Unfortunately, we’ve been doing a lot of talking and a lot of attitude work for years, and, unfortunately, when we look at the actual statistics, the actual environmental statistics that our Minister for the Environment has within her own ministry, they’re going backwards, and very concerningly so. I wanted to pick up particularly on fresh water when it comes to rural communities and their drinking water, because the Ministers have likely seen the research that came out of Auckland Uni recently which says that two-thirds of rural communities are struggling with contaminated water supplies. We know that this is an issue not only in private supplies but in things like schools across the country. What we’ve heard really loud and clear throughout the resource management submission process is particularly from public health experts, policy experts that have said that without the hierarchy of Te Mana o te Wai, that sits so clearly in that national direction, communities’ drinking-water sources risk worse pollution, and that’s because there isn’t enough weight in the law when it comes to something that’s outside of that really clear direction that Te Mana o te Wai provides. Given this, what is the Minister’s contemplation when it comes to changing this national direction? Does it mean that they are satisfied with, you know, polluted rivers getting worse, with drinking water getting more contaminated, and, particularly when it comes to our groundwater sources, that they’re more and more at risk, and who do they anticipate will pay the cost of this? We know that a lot of councils around the country are actually having to face this massive challenge, and we know that their bills when it comes to, say, treating nitrates that are contaminating their drinking water are in the hundreds of millions—if not billions, when it comes to Christchurch City Council. I’m really keen to hear what specific measures are proposed to actually address this for rural communities. Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (20:15): Let’s just get a few things straight: number one, farmers are not the enemy in this country. Number two: you can improve the environment and grow the primary sector at the same time. Number three: our farmers are world leading and world class, and they deserve this House’s support, not condemnation. Number four: some of the biggest barriers to improving the environment in rural New Zealand are the Resource Management Act itself, which is why we are replacing it. And, number five, we should take a science-based approach and focus on innovation, which is precisely what this Government is doing. Let me deal with a few of the questions raised. Number one, from Rachel Brooking: will the new local government system, which we haven’t landed yet—should it be based on a catchment-based approach? Yes, is the short answer, and we’re doing quite a bit of thinking about that. Simon Upton, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, in his inimitable, eloquent way, has been quite an advocate for that. So we haven’t landed any decisions around unitary authorities or regional councils. We obviously released the Simplifying Local Government reform document at the back end of last year; all the submissions have come in on that, and we’re giving some consideration to that. It’d be fair to say the feedback was— Hon Member: Mixed. Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, yeah, it was mixed, to be fair. I mean, if you don’t like regional councils, you were in favour, and if you were a regional councillor, you were, unsurprisingly, opposed to it. But they were sort of at either end of the spectrum; there’s quite a bit of stuff in the middle. What’s been quite interesting, just to dwell on that for 20 seconds, is it sort of ripped the scab off this awful, festering sore that is kind of local government, right? Everyone’s gone, “Well, actually 78 TLAs; you know, X, Y, Z number of regional councils; duplication. Are the regional plans superior to district plans? Which one has the most power?”—all of the sort of difficulties we see in the current system—and it’s actually prompted quite a lot of regions to go, “You know what, there’s actually a better way here.”, and that’s been really interesting. To be honest, they want central government to act, so we’re sort of giving some thinking about that. Look, the previous Government recognised the problems here. Their approach was to do what Labour Governments often do, which is, you know, set up a three-year-long working group at vast public expense and issue a report which becomes the doorstop that I put on my office door to hold it open when everyone comes in for meetings. It’s a bit like the old Royal Commission on Social Policy back in 1986: it was, like, 5 metres high, and it kept David Lange’s door open—and he’s the one who issued it. But, anyway. Second question: flood management and green infrastructure. The reason I asked about green infrastructure is people mean different things by it, right, because, you know, building a stopbank, like we’re doing in the Hutt Valley at the moment, or lifting up the stopbank along the Hutt River to protect against a one-in-440-year flood, because the Hutt Valley’s the most densely populated area of New Zealand on a flood plain—well, that’s green infrastructure, but that’s just infrastructure. I mean, it’s green in the sense that it’s, you know, focused on resilience, but I would call that green infrastructure— Hon Rachel Brooking: I think that’s just good infrastructure. Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Oh, it’s just good infrastructure. Well, that’s sort of my point, right? I mean, like, everything’s green at a level. There will be people in the ministry who are far more expert in this than me, and they will exist in the new system. Yes, we can issue national direction pursuant to the goals of the new Natural Environment Bill, assuming it becomes an Act. On the Three Waters, well, we sort of played all this out in the 2023 election. It’s not that the Opposition at the time—now Government—disagreed with the idea of water reform. It’s obviously a good thing to do, because as I said earlier, local government’s been a disaster when it comes to managing three-waters infrastructure. We just disagreed with the approach of the Government of the day, which was to, basically—I mean, it started with four mega-entities without any kind of choice of the local authorities. Lan Pham: Point of order, Mr Chair. I’m really interested in hearing from the Minister for the Environment on a number of questions about the Ministry for the Environment report. The Minister is on a sort of explanation about the three waters reform system. I just wonder if we could, please, address what’s in front of us. CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Look, it’s been a wide-ranging discussion. Every speaker has gone well away from the period. I think that the Minister will be aware that he’s using up a lot of his time— Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yeah, well, I was just responding to the question. I apologise to the committee for my loquaciousness. The Minister of Local Government has just entered the Chamber, and he might like to explain the rest of the story to the Government’s three waters reforms, which put democracy back at the heart of local government. Anyway, everyone seems to want me to move on. In response to the fourth question, on national direction on fresh water, the member knows, I think, that that is a priority for the Government, and we are working away on that, but we want to land the bills first. National direction, we’ve consulted on it but that will flow—flow—in due course. CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): I just note that there’s 10 minutes left to go. I’ll take a question from Rachel Brooking. [Interruption] It’s just we’ve got three Ministers now who are covering a lot of the same ground, I might say, from different angles. Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (20:21): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ll be quick. I have a number of questions. One is for Mr Bishop, who said something about science—“We’re going to be science based.”—and that something relates to innovation. This was in the context of the previous discussion with Minister Hoggard about protecting our waterways and having swimmable rivers. Can the Government provide any comfort that saying we’re waiting for innovation does not mean that we are not having limits that must be followed? When I hear that, that is my concern. That’s one question. The second one is a comment. We’re not hating on farmers; it sounds like the Government is hating on councils, though. We haven’t said anything along those lines. On farm plans, I am interested, on page 8 of the review, we asked what the role of the farm plan is; if it’s to replace resource consents or not, how the ministry sees this. They said that it is to be an enabling tool in comparison to having a resource consent, which it described as a more rigid, hard tool. Do you have both a farm plan and a resource consent? What is the Minister’s view on that? The Minister has also traversed—looking at Minister Hoggard here—catchment groups and some of the good work that we know about from catchment groups. Does he see them as having a regulatory function at all? Hon NICOLA GRIGG (Minister for the Environment) (20:22): I just want to respond to Lan Pham’s request for me to actually take a call. I’ve been trying, but I have some very verbose colleagues. Look, I do want to talk to— Hon Members: Ha, ha! Hon NICOLA GRIGG: They’re very eloquent and articulate. CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): No one took a point of order on that! Hon NICOLA GRIGG: The member refers, of course, to our freshwater report that was released just a matter of weeks ago, I think, on the day that I got told that I had this ministerial warrant, so I’ve had to think fast. Look, I think it’s really important to acknowledge that this report is neither a win nor a loss; it’s quite a balance report. We do need to note that of the 998 groundwater monitoring sites, 45 percent had E. coli concentrations above the maximum acceptable levels of drinking water at least once across a five-year period. It is acknowledged in the report that, together, these indicators show that, while some aspects of freshwater quality and ecosystem health are good and improving, others are deteriorating, which corroborates my earlier point. That, of course, reinforces the need to view fresh water as an interconnected system where multiple pressures accumulate and interact over time. Again, I think we all acknowledge that. Look, again, some key statistics that have, I think, been lost in the commentary are that the long-term trends, the 20-year nitrogen trends—that’s all forms of nitrogen—do show improvement when you compare this 2026 report to 2023. Yes, worsening sites are reduced from 41 percent to 32 percent. Again, these aren’t amazing results, nor are they bad. They are indicating improvement. We do know that improvements to groundwater, particularly deep-seated aquifers, do take time to present themselves. Then, again, to respond to the questions about what we are doing to improve fresh water: of course, no one in this Chamber would disagree that protecting drinking-water sources is an imperative public health issue. Again, we know that rising nitrate concentrations in some areas do give rise to growing public concern, and quite rightly so, but of course we have to consult, we have to get this thing right. We did consult on requiring that source water mapping, so councils and landowners would be clear about where activities can be, particularly putting drinking-water supplies at risk, and therefore the appropriate management can then take place. Decisions on that freshwater direction, as the Hon Chris Bishop has alluded to, will be made in the near future. The new legislation will require limits for human health and fresh water. Again, I do want to push back on this rhetoric that we’re going to create this wild west and everyone can be pouring effluent into our water streams. That is simply not the case. As the member will know perfectly well, as a former regional councillor in Canterbury, the Avon River and the Heathcote River, two urban waterways, are amongst the most polluted in the district. Of course limits will need to be set, and they will be informed by relevant health guidelines to prevent that significant and irreversible harm to people in the communities, which we’ve seen in the likes of the Hawke’s Bay when that Havelock North outbreak occurred. I do want to reaffirm to the committee that we are progressing these improvements. We look forward to presenting them. LAN PHAM (Green) (20:26): Thank you, Mr Chair. There’s so much to respond to in that, but I really want to move on to climate adaptation because that is such a key part of the work. From what we’ve seen in recent days, particularly here around the Greater Wellington and Wairarapa regions—and also up in the Manawatū, I must add—it’s very real, the challenges that communities are facing. What I was really concerned to see with the annual review is that there’s this strategic priority that says it will strengthen the resilience of communities, businesses, and places to climate change and natural hazards. What is really clear is that there isn’t actually much progress in this area, as far as I can see at all. There was a report that was commissioned by the previous Government, a report on the Expert Working Group On Managed Retreat. The recommendations in that have been, unfortunately, ignored, to be replaced by a short report that one member on the working group described as “one of the most philosophically misguided, morally questionable, administratively inept, and politically naïve documents” that he’d read in many years. Does the Minister consider that meaningful progress is actually being made when it comes to not building in bad areas, in terms of having communities actually have discussions and face the realities around managed retreat, given that the Minister of Climate Change has said there are no plans to actually speed up the decisions around who will pay and who will protect or move these communities threatened by climate change hazards? We’re really seeing this around and across the country, increasingly so. We really would like some feedback from the Minister around how this objective will be achieved when protections for things like forests and wetlands, those natural infrastructure protections when it comes to climate mitigation adaptation, are actively being weakened by the Government. Hon ANDREW HOGGARD (Associate Minister for the Environment) (20:29): Just quickly, in response to the Hon Rachel Brooking’s question, in terms of farm plans—“Will we still need consents?”—I would think there would still be a need for a consent when you are having a water take, so trying to manage those allocation-type regimes. Where it comes to things like, in some regions, there having to be a consent for winter grazing, I believe a farm plan would be a much more useful tool to replace those consents. At a farm I was on a couple of weeks ago, it cost them $40,000 to get that consent; an absolutely ridiculous waste of money for a very simple process where they can detail what actions they are going to take to mitigate the impact from that practice. They can do that through the farm plan. And to your second question, catchment groups, no, I don’t see a role for them as a regulator. They are better served as a sort of ground-up, community action. Getting them involved with regulatory powers would probably drive the farmers away from them. CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Members, our time with the Minister for the Environment has ended.