Appropriation (2026/27 Estimates) Bill

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d just like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the Ministry for Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport (MCERT), because most of our examination that we did back in June for Vote Environment took place before MCERT was established on 1 July. Obviously, now that ministry is established. We did speak a lot about that during our examinations.

The appropriations sought for Vote Environment in 2026/27 total $2.166 billion, but the bulk of this funding is the responsibility of the Minister of Climate Change, while the Minister for the Environment was responsible for appropriations totalling $376 million. During the appropriations for Vote Environment, we heard about the waste disposal levy, Environmental Investment Fund, tyre stewardship fees, and activity that related to waste minimisation work. During our discussions, the focus also included the transition of the environment functions to MCERT, to the new ministry.

We also spoke heavily around the resource management reform and the appropriations that were directed to Resource Management Act reform—obviously a big job of our Environment Committee. During these discussions, we also spoke about the freshwater farm plans. The Fast-track Approvals Act was also part of what we spoke about and what we heard during this time, and, of course, product stewardship—Tyrewise, as we’ve already spoken about. Other matters considered include the city and regional deals, renewable energy, and upcoming legislation, as well: the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill and the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Amendment Bill, and, of course, the Waste Minimisation Fund.

I would just like to thank the Environment Committee for the work around Vote Environment and appropriations and Estimates. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Before I take a call, I just want to clarify with the Minister: so we have Minister Grigg and Minister Hoggard here at the moment—

Hon Nicola Grigg: And Minister Bishop will join at 8.00 p.m.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): OK. Thank you. The Hon Rachel Brooking.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for the clarification. I’d like to start with waste tonight. I know that there will be lots of questions about the range of issues, but for anyone who didn’t hear, it was that Minister Bishop is coming around 8 o’clock, and Minister Hoggard is here for the whole thing, as well.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Correct.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: And no Minister Watts, I presume? For climate? No—OK. So, waste legislation: we might have some climate questions for you, then, Minister, given that the Estimates report included that and, as the chair of the Environment Committee said, most of the Budget is, in fact, related to the emissions trading scheme.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I can clarify for the member that climate is not currently included.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Thank you. Now, waste legislation. The Minister will be aware, of course, that at the end of last term there was legislation that was ready to be drafted to modernise the Waste Minimisation Act and also the Litter Act. If she could give us an update of where that is at—it mentioned in the select committee report that it was ongoing, so when will that bill be introduced?

And then my next question is that her predecessor and the Ministry for the Environment sort of banned the use of the term “circular economy”. I have heard other members from her party embrace this term “circular economy”—looking at you, Grant McCallum. Does the Minister have a position on “circular economy” and will that be included in the legislation, or does she agree with her predecessor that it’s merely an ideological term?

Good evening, members. It’s a pleasure to join with you here this evening. As has been noted, I’m joined by Minister Hoggard and Minister Bishop is on his way.

I’m happy to answer questions around the progress of the Waste Minimisation Act amendments. I do intend to reform the Waste Minimisation Act and the Litter Act to ensure that New Zealand has a fit for purpose and modern waste legislation that, I think, does need to provide more flexibility and more options to reduce waste efficiently and effectively. In October last year, the Cabinet approved policy proposals for the waste legislation and for the Parliamentary Counsel Office to commence drafting the bill. Unfortunately, we seem to have run out of runway. I would humbly request that Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition perhaps utilise the time that we have remaining in the House this parliamentary term wisely and perhaps we might get more bills introduced.

Look, you will be aware that public consultation has been carried out and it closed in June 2025. There are a number of proposals that have been consulted on, particularly around creating frameworks for extended producer responsibilities, which is an area of work that I am very keen to lean into when we have the time, because I think it is a very, very good model that will allow New Zealand to very much improve recovery and recycling of materials and products.

There will be changes to how the waste disposal levy is allocated, particularly to territorial authorities and how they might consider spending it. There will be an opportunity to improve and provide more proportionate tools for compliance and monitoring and enforcement. I’ve had a number of members of Parliament from parts of Auckland who are concerned about increases in littering, and they are looking forward to more opportunities for compliance and enforcement.

As to particular vernacular chosen or declined to be used by previous members and Ministers, I can provide no comment on that.

Thank you. Well, of course, I was asking the Minister what her view on the circular economy is and if that’s a term that she is allowing the part of the ministry that reports to her to use. That’s the question on circular economy.

And then, in response to the answer, will the new legislation contain any waste reduction targets? That’s a specific question.

The Minister mentioned the waste levy and how there will be changes to that, particularly to district councils, to territorial authorities. Will waste minimisation activities be able to be funded by that levy? That is the first question about the levy. The second question is if she can confirm to the House that the general approach—and this goes beyond waste—to funding Vote Environment is to take the waste levy, feed it back into the part of the Ministry of Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport that is the Vote Environment, and then reduce the funding that comes from the centre to go into Vote Environment.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to touch loosely on the very clear distinction that has been made between the last Budget and this Budget, and that is the formation of the Ministry for Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport (MCERT). I wanted to ask the Minister specifically about that, because despite not one Government party campaigning on it and not one credible submission in support, the Government did move to disestablish the Ministry for the Environment and that core dedicated voice for the environment that had been in place for 40 years.

I’m interested because the Minister at the time said that she wanted to assure New Zealanders that this bill signals a new chapter for environmental management in New Zealand. My question specifically about that is: does she mean improved environmental outcomes, and what specific outcomes does she envisage will be strengthened by the disestablishment of the Ministry for the Environment and it being subsumed into this MCERT ministry? Really keen to hear that. Thank you.

Thank you. Moving on, then, to the Ministry for Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport (MCERT) as well. The select committee report-back noted that: “The Minister told us that she intends to set clear expectations for the incoming Secretary and chief executive, that environmental considerations are to be paramount in policy development, consent considerations, and anything else that MCERT looks at.” Can she give this House an update on whether or not she has in fact acted on that intention and set those clear expectations?

Yeah, I am happy to give a little bit more detail on that. I think I said last time we were here in this House, that with the formation of the Ministry for Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport (MCERT), and thanks to the work of the Environment Committee, there is now a requirement of the Secretary for the Environment to report on the performance of their Environment Act functions every year, and for that to be included in MCERT’s annual report.

Further to that, I do want to reassure the committee that since I informed the committee of that information, the Secretary for the Environment has set about establishing a new role in his office, in the Office of the Chief Executive, that will specifically assist with developing the approach to undertake the Environment Act functions—and, of course, preparing those quarterly reports on the progress as well as the annual report that’s required by the Environment Act. It’s envisaged that the interim role will provide independent—I think that’s a really important point to make: it’s independent advice, independent visibility and assurance to the Secretary regarding their performances under the Environment Act functions across MCERT.

So that’s the whole point of the merger. It’s to stop the siloing that’s been occurring and to make sure those functions are occurring across the new ministry. The future of that role will be considered through the MCERT operating model process, but I’m really looking forward to seeing the impact that it will have.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank the Minister for that information that she shared. I’ve got a couple of questions around the environmental advice piece within the Ministry for Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport (MCERT). During the Estimates examination for this particular Vote, when we asked for details around that, the response that we were given was that MCERT’s operational practices at the time were yet to be determined. And so I wonder whether the Minister would be able to give us a little bit more insight into that piece within MCERT, whether the operational practices that were previously mentioned have in fact been put in place, and what they look like.

That went back to the point that many of us on this side of the House raised during Estimates examinations around how Ministers responsible would be able to—with the amalgamation and Vote environment moving into this new ministry, how would members have any comfort that environmental advice will remain sufficiently prominent within MCERT, given that the chief executive of MCERT is also the secretary for everything, all of the things, cities, transport, environment and so on and so forth? We were quite concerned that environmental advice, specifically both around the urban environment but also the natural environment, would be subsumed within this larger ministry. So really keen to get a sense from the Minister around what those practices are that have been put in place to ensure that that advice retains its prominence.

I’ve got a couple of other questions related to the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s recent report around environmental information, and a particular Budget line within Budget ‘26 as well. But I’ll see if the Minister would like to answer this bit first.

her I thank the member for her question. Look, I’m aware of the concern that was raised, particularly during that select committee process, and indeed by members of the Opposition, that the disestablishment bill would somehow subsume, to use the member’s words, the environment functions or that they’d be deprioritised as they became a part of a larger ministry. But again, and I have said this a number of times, those amendments simply transferred the Ministry for the Environment’s existing functions to the Secretary for the Environment, and they will—and I expect that they will—continue to be performed appropriately by that new ministry. Again, to be clear, and I’ve said this a number of times, the previous statutory functions under the other Acts do continue to be performed. And, you know, it is my expectation that the environmental capability does remain a core capability within the new agency. That includes, of course—and I’m sure Minister Bishop talked to it—the implementation of the resource management reforms.

I have to say, you know, I think I’ve had the portfolio for nearly five months now, but the more I get to know the officials within the Ministry for Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport, who were once the officials of the Ministry for the Environment—I would call them world class. I think we’re very, very lucky to be to be supported by such high-calibre experts.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I take the Minister’s point that the intentions and expectations that Ministers hold is for the environment not to be deprioritised, and that is good. I also have absolutely no objection to what the Minister said about the quality and calibre of officials in our Public Service. However, I would like some comfort from the Minister in terms of how those intentions will be realised. Because while it’s one thing to say that it’s a lift and shift off Vote Environment and the priorities of the Ministry for the Environment into a much larger ministry, having been previously a Minister who held portfolios that were serviced by a larger ministry, I do have some experience as to how it could be subsumed or deprioritised.

While the intention is not that, I would like some comfort from the Minister in terms of what practices have been put in place to ensure that there is the same quality of advice, that there’s timeliness around the environmental advice that is provided or received from the ministry. How many staff, for example, have transferred over from the former Ministry for the Environment into the Ministry for Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport? Who will specifically provide the Government with advice around both the built and natural environments? And if it is continues to be a priority for the Minister that there is independent advice around both aspects of the environment, what particularly has been put in place to ensure that that is actually delivered?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to again reassure the House that we are very much committed to ensuring that the Ministry for Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport (MCERT) continues to prioritise the environment. I’ve already outlined that the Secretary for the Environment has already established a new interim role in his office to help with developing the approach that will undertake all of the environment functions and to make sure that they remain front and centre of this new ministry. And again, in establishing MCERT the Government is neither removing nor diluting the environmental responsibilities. They’ve transferred, unchanged, into that statutory role of the Secretary for the Environment—who does remain directly accountable to the Minister of the day, which happens to be me at the moment.

To answer your questions around staffing, I can tell you that 621 permanent full-time equivalent (FTE) have transferred from the Ministry for the Environment to MCERT as of 1 July 2026, and 125 fixed-term FTE transferred.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Lan Pham. And I’ll just make a note that Minister Bishop is now here, too, and also available for questions. So we have all three Ministers.

Thank you. What a treat, Madam Chair, thank you. I wanted to pick up on freshwater, and particularly—I’ve just come from a lecture by Dr Tim Chambers, who spelt out really clearly that we’ve had a massive increase, particularly, in dairy herd numbers across the country. It’s gone from 100,000 cows in 1990 to 1 million just in Canterbury alone. Over that time, we’ve had a threefold increase in nitrogen fertiliser application.

As a result, there are numerous studies and research and even the Minister’s own data which shows nitrate pollution in many of the country’s drinking water sources, but particularly around Canterbury and Southland are now breaching drinking water standards. Communities are having to pick up the costs. For example, there have been numerous schools currently in Ashburton who cannot drink the water and are having to dig deeper bores to search for water that is less polluted than they currently have. We have Selwyn and Christchurch both facing bills in the hundreds of millions to treat their drinking water for increasing nitrates, and the Government has put in place, unfortunately, rules that are going to exacerbate this issue.

I’m really interested in the Minister’s response, particularly when it comes to the environmental health aspects of nitrate pollution. How is her Government addressing this and what does she expect the environmental implications will be over the next few years, particularly as the new planning regime is put in place that this Government is so set on putting in place?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank the member for her question. I don’t want to get into a debate over data and her sources versus my sources, but the information that I have been given today from the Ministry for Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport is that cattle numbers are actually declining in Canterbury. At so-called peak cow, 2023, there were 1.36 million cattle, and I’m rounding here. As of late last year, it was 1.33 million, so, again, we can—

Lan Pham: So worse than what I was saying.

Hon NICOLA GRIGG: Well, it has declined. Look, we can debate those numbers until the cows come home—bada boom. Look, equally, what I would say is there are conflicting reports across Canterbury and, yes, there absolutely are areas that are reporting nitrogen increases and they have to be dealt to. I’m sure the Minister Hoggard will be able to talk to that effusively at some point, but, again, there are a lot of variances.

I can talk specifically to Canterbury as a Canterbury-based MP. I suspect that the data you might be referring to has come from the regional council. If you look to some of the actual irrigation providers, which have, in my view, far, far more robust measuring capacity—different depths, different sequencing, more frequent intervals. I think every 15 seconds was the last count I got given. If you look to Central Plains Water who irrigate 45,000 hectares, they’re actually showing that 60 percent of their dedicated groundwater monitoring bores are seeing a reduction in nitrates, and that trend has been very evident over the past five years of the data I’ve got. Again, it’s not perfect, but there is a material improvement being shown.

Look, interestingly, they have actually also, as a scheme, reduced groundwater use by 75 million cubic metres, which is actually equivalent to 22,000 Olympic swimming pools, for those who were interested. But, look, we all accept that agriculture does have an impact, but we note that the most significant reductions across the Canterbury plains have been made on-farm and I think collectively we need to start to look to the urban environments and the pollution that they are causing.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just for the Minister, is she aware of some of the research and the progress the farmers are making in Canterbury, with research into aquifer recharge and the use of plantain and the research that has come out of that which shows that a 17 percent increase in the pasture content of plantain can lead to a 33 percent reduction in nitrate levels? Would she care to comment on that and other work farmers are doing?

Oh, I thank the member for that question. Look, I think—and, well, I might as well sit down if Grant McCallum made the best contribution of the night. Look, again, there are real gains being made. I note that of their own volition, I think farmers have fenced off some 25,000 kilometres of waterways around the country. Stock exclusion rules are in place and winter grazing rules are in place. I’ll invite Minister Hoggard to get up and talk about the freshwater farm plan announcement that he made today, but certainly I think we all should collectively accept, as a Parliament, there are parts of the freshwater system across this country which have been degraded and I think collectively we have to work towards improving them. I think with the new planning regime, that lightens up on the low-intensity areas but comes down a bit more heavily on the high-intensity areas. I think there will be gains to be made out of that. Minister Hoggard.

Thank you, Minister, for that. I totally agree. I think I’ve said it before, but when I started dairy farming in 1998, the attitude of farmers was way different than what it is today. Back then it was “No, we’re not part of the problem. We’re not causing anything. Go away. Leave us alone.” Now the attitude is far different. You’ve got catchment groups up and down the country. You’ve got people looking at what options they can do.

Just touching on the farm plans, I did a trial run on my farm and it was very informative in terms of being able to highlight the parts of your farm—what the soil types are, what the risk factors are, what the challenges are that can be caused to the environment, and coming up with solutions in terms of how you mitigate that. The farmers being engaged in the space and coming up with tools that work alongside them will help that.

As the member Grant McCullum mentioned, great news on the plantain. We’re seeing more and more of that being planted around the country, and I’ve mentioned bioreactors and engineered wetlands before. Part of the new system is we’re going to make them a permitted activity to put in an engineered wetland. I was blown away over some of the visits I’ve done with community groups who had built engineered wetlands to do all this great work to remove contaminants. They had to spend upwards of $100,000 on consents to be able to build this. It was improving the environment.

We’re moving in the right direction in terms of coming up with these solutions. The farmers are in the right mindset to do this. We need to move out of the blame game and work towards how we’re going to improve all of this. We know what caused it and we’ve just got to work towards coming up with solutions.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just reminding the Minister of my questions about her view on the circular economy, whether waste minimisation activities will be able to be funded by the remaining waste levy, whether the legislation has waste reduction targets, and if my potted history of how funding for Vote Environment happens via the waste levy is correct.

Moving to the freshwater farm plans that we seem to have moved on to, a small question: the Minister cited a number there about cattle. I guess the question is how does that reflect dairy?

Then for Minister Hoggard, I note in our Environment Committee report we talked about the gaps where catchment groups are not set up or where one member of a community is not a member. In those areas, the Minister said it is important that challenges are still identified and addressed. I’m interested in the addressing of those challenges that the Minister intends to do, but in particular, I’m interested in the relationship to proposed local government change and the getting rid of regional councils that are largely based at a catchment level. What are the plans for keeping that catchment approach?

Then a question for the Minister for the Environment: is she advocating for catchments and catchments as an important unit for any resource management?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): All of the above.

I’ll try and deal with the farm plan question. I believe what I was talking about in the previous situation was where not everyone in a catchment might be a member of a catchment care group. That’s why it was important for every individual farm to have a farm plan, so that even if they weren’t being part of the group effort, they were still recognising the challenge on their farm and taking actions to improve it.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Tēnā koe to the committee. In relation to local government reform, I think the point the member makes in relation to catchments is an important one and is certainly something we are thinking about when it comes to the next steps on the Head Start pathway and broader local government reforms. That was one of the criteria that was listed in the Head Start document that people have been cogitating over over the last few weeks and months and—

Hon Rachel Brooking: Panicking over.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: What’s that?

Hon Rachel Brooking: Panicking.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I don’t know about panicking. I mean, what’s interesting is there’s quite a bit of desire from some councils to crack on with it—that’s why Head Start was started: people said, “Rather than you guys run through some long-winded process, we’re keen on cracking on with it,” and we said, “OK, well, come and give us your best shot.” We haven’t made decisions on it yet, and once we’re in a position to do that, we will make announcements in due course.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Other than a sunny attitude of farmers, I wasn’t hearing anything that would practically address the very real issues that I just outlined, which I won’t repeat. What I am really interested in is asking about the cost to New Zealanders of the fact that numerous plans, particularly that pertain to fresh water, will not be able to be implemented, even though there’s been millions of dollars put into them.

I particularly want to touch on two instances of this. It was reported just recently that after the numerous horrific cyclones up in Gisborne, Tairāwhiti, and unfortunate tragedies that occurred in the aftermath, Gisborne District Council came up with a plan that would actually urgently tackle those forestry issues and the destructive land use that is currently going on across Tairāwhiti. This was through a regional plan change, Plan Change 7, that was proposed to protect erosion-prone land—but this plan change couldn’t go ahead because of this Government’s plan-stop legislation, and they asked for an exemption and they didn’t get it.

Now, the same is happening when it comes to the Waikato, when it comes to Otago, and when it comes to Canterbury. Regions are ready and in place to put in rules and frameworks that will actually help their environment and help their communities. What I’m really interested to know is who does the Government expect will pay the costs of these issues remaining unaddressed for the years that are to come when it comes to health costs, when it comes to a lack of recreational opportunities, the costs of ecosystems passing tipping points, or impacts on our international clean, green image? This is even extending to the cost of illness from polluted drinking water. These are serious costs that are being borne by community, and I’d really like to hear what the Government is proposing to do in this space.

I’d just proffer a small comment, Madam Chair. The plan-stop process is not perfect—I don’t think anyone pretends that it is—but it’s a pragmatic attempt to deal with the transition problem we’ve got, right. The law is the law until it isn’t, OK. The Resource Management Act (RMA) provides that people do regular plan changes and councils update their plans all the time. Sometimes they’re small, sometimes they’re large. At a certain level, we just decided—and Parliament, in fact, agreed through the RMA consenting and other matters bill last year—that there had to be a point at which you say, “Well, hang on—tie-ho—and we’ve got to get ready for the new system.” There obviously had to be exemptions for that, and so there’s been a range of pathways—

Hon Rachel Brooking: We didn’t agree.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: What’s that?

Hon Rachel Brooking: Opposition parties didn’t agree. You say Parliament sought it, but that’s because you’ve got a majority.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, that is actually the way Parliament works. When Parliament agrees to something—

Hon Rachel Brooking: The way you’re saying it is making it sound as if we were all in agreement, and we weren’t.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Parliament agreeing to something is, by definition—it can either be by majority or by unanimity. That does mean Parliament agrees. That is the reality. That is the way our parliamentary democracy works.

Anyway, I have the power as the Minister responsible for RMA Reform to grant exemptions. Some have been granted—in fact, many exemptions have been granted. Others have not. Speaking generally, the more complicated the plan change, the less likely it is to happen now, because we didn’t want to find ourselves in a situation where a three- to five-year long plan change process is under way—because sometimes they can take a long time—that was happening simultaneously as everyone was gearing up for transition to the new system.

That’s not to say that the impetus for the plan changes is not important. Many of the issues the member is raising are important. It’s not that. It’s that, at some level, they have to happen in a different system, otherwise you end up with this endless duplication and churn and endless cost. And so, that’s where the position is. I accept it’s not perfect, but environmental law often isn’t.

To that Minister: do the complex plans that he’s talking to happen to relate to water quality?

Well, it depends. There’s been heaps of different plan changes—they’re all on the Ministry for the Environment website; the member can look for herself, and the member can see the law has the various different exemption pathways through, as well. So the short answer is that it depends. They’re across a whole range of different things. Some issues are to do with water; many others are not.

Reminding the Minister for the Environment about my waste questions; and, also, the cattle versus dairy; and if she has been advocating for catchments.

Going to Minister Hoggard: we were at the Environment Committee talking about the nitrogen cap and the low compliance with it. My question is whether there’s any further movement on—if he has an update on his approach towards a nitrogen cap and if there has been any additional work on compliance.

In terms of additional work, no, there hasn’t. Obviously, there will be a new system we will have—and it’ll be in the next term of Government—that determines what the national standards on all of this are. So that won’t be happening anytime in the next five weeks. In terms of compliance work, I don’t believe that fits under my delegation, so I haven’t heard anything on that. One of the other Ministers may have.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to confirm to the member Rachel Brooking, they were dairy cattle numbers that I was referring to. Yes, I advocate on behalf of catchment groups. I meet with them regularly. I also approved a transfer of some funds from the former Ministry for the Environment to the Ministry for Primary Industries to go in towards supporting catchment groups.

Regarding the question on waste levy, yes, money is available for waste minimisation as well as wider environmental benefits. That’s why the rules were changed a year or so ago.

Regarding targets, there are not targets in the legislation.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m going to move to resource management reform, and I want to again ask the Minister what she is doing in terms of advocacy for the environment with that. I’d like to start with asking her if she’s thought about advocating for future generations within that legislation. That may be because I have just been with the chair at a group talking about future generations, but, of course, the Resource Management Act does refer to future generations and all of those ideas have very much come out of the legislation, which is soon to have its committee stage.

When I was asking the Minister about catchments and advocacy for catchments, it was not just catchment groups; it is the idea of using a catchment as a tool for environmental planning, and particularly around water.

I’d also like her to comment further on a remark she just made in this House about how the resource management reforms are “lighter in some areas but harder in other areas,” or words to that effect, and if she can give some examples of where the new resource management legislation is going to be “harder”.

To clarify, I was talking about freshwater farm plans, and it’s been made very clear in the press release just this evening that there will be a lighter touch for low-intensity activity and more rigorous auditing for high-intensity activity.

Just responding to the query around thinking about future generations—well, I would submit to this Parliament that that’s been the driver behind the entire Government work programme this term. I speak specifically to replacing the Resource Management Act (RMA). That has been with the purpose to unlock economic growth, improve environmental outcomes for the benefit of all. We will have a new system passed into law before this Parliament rises, God willing. The likes of, if I can speak specifically to the Natural Environment Bill, that will very much provide a framework for protecting and enhancing the natural environment through limits.

I know that the Minister responsible for RMA Reform can talk very succinctly about the next phase of work regarding national direction and how those limits will be designed and where they’ll sit, but there will absolutely be clear limits for the environment to support better land and water management.

The Minister for the Environment makes a very important point, which is one of the many failures of the Resource Management Act (RMA): the failure to set limits. Everyone’s in favour of development within limits. The RMA has not allowed for that.

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: What about the Natural and Built Environment Act?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: What’s that?

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: What about the Natural and Built Environment Act and Spatial Planning Act? They set limits.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: What about them? They’re not part of the law any more. We got rid of them three years ago because they were disastrous pieces of legislation.

Hon Rachel Brooking: I’ve been rereading them—so much better.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, you’ve got to get over it, because it was three years ago, Rachel. No disrespect. But Parliament—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I just want to remind, the question is these Estimates, not historical.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Parliament dealt with those issues, and we’ve worked a damn sight harder to try and get you guys on board than you tried with us, but anyway.

Hon Rachel Brooking: Nonsense.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, do you want to know what actually happened? David Parker called me into his office the night before the Natural and Built Environment Act was introduced and said, “Here it is.”, and expected me to read 1,000 pages overnight. So that has not happened in relation to the backwards and forwards between the Government and the Opposition in relation to RMA reform. We have not been able to reach agreement, but it’s not—

Hon Rachel Brooking: That is not what happened in the select committee.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, it is what happened. I was there. You were never—oh, sorry, you were part of his little hand-picked advisory group writing the legislation in the first place. I forgot about that. I was going to say that you weren’t an MP, but you eventually became one. Anyway, I slightly digress. In fact, I wildly digress. One of the main benefits of the new system will be the setting of clear environmental limits across fresh water and across other environmental domains; we intend to do that. National direction will be part of that, which we will soon publish an illustrative draft of.

I think members will appreciate seeing a bit more flesh on the bones as to how the system will work in confronting some of these trade-offs, because environmental management is at some level about confronting trade-offs. You can’t do everything, you can’t have it all, and you’ve got to weigh up the costs and the benefits of things. Again, costs and benefits will be one of the key functions and features of the new system, because one of the things that I’ve learnt—I’ve learnt many things in the last three years, but one of the things that’s really been highlighted to me in Government is the concept of trade-offs. You can’t do everything. You have to prioritise and make choices. Part of good decision-making is confronting those trade-offs early, and that’s what we’re attempting to do through the new planning system and environmental system, and creating a simpler process down the other end of the funnel from a consenting and permitting point of view, which is in everybody’s interests and everybody actually agrees on that. So that’s all I have to say, really.

Now, this question is to the Minister for the Environment, and the Minister just spoke about limits before referring to the other Minister. Is she aware of clause 79 of the Natural Environment Bill, as reported back, that enables the Minister—a different Minister—to sidestep limits with very few criteria to constrain that decision? That’s one of my questions.

Another one is: has she, as Minister, advocated for the inclusion for provisions that would improve the environment, such as green spaces, to be provided in that legislation? I’ll leave those questions there, and then I’m happy to move to the fast-track legislation. No? No answer?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): OK. Keep going.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Great. Thank you, then. We will move to fast-track legislation. We’ve heard on Morning Report from Minister Bishop that fast-track has been designed to enable out-of-sequence housing developments and he’s not apologetic for that in the slightest. Has he been listening to his members of Parliament that come from Queenstown, that come from Selwyn, that come from where Mr Penk hails from, and all around the country, where they are making the point that they’ve made the whole time that this version of the fast-track has been a thing, that those councils already have planned areas for infrastructure for 30 years of housing growth, and yet this Government is just letting other developers totally ignore that, go over the top, and cost ratepayers a whole lot of money?

Well, there are a few things that are not accurate there. The first thing is Queenstown does not have 30 years of feasible housing capacity. In fact—

Hon Rachel Brooking: That’s what the mayor said.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, ha, ha! They wrote to me a few months ago telling me that, because the National Policy Statement on Urban Development that the last Government promulgated that we support was required by law to write to me when they don’t meet their development capacity obligations. The mayor and the council chief executive had to write me a letter saying that they admit that they have not done proper spatial planning, they have not planned for enough growth, and all the rest of it. So they might be claiming now they don’t, but I’ve got it in writing, and the member can Official Information Act it and she can see for herself.

It’s not entirely their own fault. The planning system has been difficult to do proper spatial planning, which is why we’re changing it. Unlocking land for housing has proven a burdensome and difficult problem, which is why we’re changing the law to make that easier. Fast-track is a way around that. The member assumes that all growth that is in sequence or phased and planned growth is good, and anything that’s out of sequence is bad but that’s not necessarily the case. The whole problem with our planning system is that we sequence it and we plan it and we draw a ring around a city and say, “You can build here but you can’t build here.”

That anti-development approach is precisely why we have overinflated land markets with high prices for the land that you can build on, which flows through to housing prices. Now, there’s extensive economic work around this. That’s why the new planning system, as we announced today, will contain a goal around abundant opportunities for development and competitive urban land markets, and create a statutory obligation on councils to create competitive land markets, so that when people want to build and they can fund the infrastructure and recover the infrastructure costs of that infrastructure and deal with the environmental effects of that infrastructure, they can build it. That is the system we are building. It’s not there yet, I accept that, but we’re going to get there.

In relation to the member’s points around infrastructure, I accept her point, and that’s why we are advancing an amendment to the Local Government Act via the Local Government (System Improvements) Amendment Bill in order to allow councils to retroactively—or at least in response to green fields fast-track projects—change their development contribution policies so that they can recover the growth costs because the issue, which I accept is an issue, is that the direct costs are locked in once an application is made, but, of course, the direct costs for out-of-sequence growth are deliberately low because no one anticipates the growth there. That’s fair enough; you end up with under-recovery of the growth costs, and that’s why the Government is changing the system around development levies, which we are a couple of years away from legislating, but we’ll get there eventually. We’ve done a whole lot of policy work around that. The changes to the Local Government Act are a sort of interim fix in the interregnum period between now and development levies. I think that will be—well, I know for a fact it’s been widely welcomed by councils and mayors and will allow for the recovery of network growth costs.

It is worth noting that people need to read the fine print on some of these fast-track conditions, because people just assume, “Oh, it’s been fast-tracked, therefore I can just go and build.” They can’t. You need to read the conditions. The conditions are often extremely extensive around highway upgrades, around waste water, around stormwater, around local roading upgrades. One of the ones that people are worked up about involves endless amounts of time and money being spent on wetland restoration, for example; before the project can happen, or at least to the extent the project sponsors want it to happen, it requires a whole range of ancillary infrastructure upgrades, so it depends on project by project. The point is that the panels are imposing quite extensive infrastructure conditions on projects. I think the sort of misunderstanding that “Oh well, it’s just been fast tracked; you can go and build.” is not actually the reality. Unless you can actually build and deal with the infrastructure conditions, you can’t. That’s part and parcel of the fast-track process.

There are a lot of “depends” in that answer. Does the Minister responsible for RMA Reform accept that there are areas with fully planned growth for over 30 years where fast-track applications can jump into separate areas?

Yes, but I see that as a feature, not a fault of the system.

Will the development contribution problem, the foreseeable problem that he just explained, apply to fast-track approvals that have already been approved or are in the system?

No, we’re just working through the fine print of that now, but we’ve made decisions and announced most of it. So anything that’s been approved now—no, it won’t, because I hope the member would agree it would be pretty contrary to good legal practice to retrospectively impose different draft conditions on approved projects. That would be bad, so we’re not doing it for those. It will apply to referral projects. The question is over the substantive applications, and so we’re just working our way through the fine detail of that right now. But anything that’s been approved—no, it won’t. Anything that is in the process of going towards the substantive application—the answer is yes, and we’re just working our way through that, and you’ll be able to see the Amendment Paper when it’s tabled in a couple of weeks, I think.

So it will be rate payers that are picking up the bill that would have otherwise been paid by development contributions for those fast-track approvals that are on land zoned for not being housing.

The short answer is that it depends. It depends on the project, and it depends on the conditions granted in relation to that project.

Now, moving to back to Minister Hoggard—and this is about farm environment plans. In a prior hearing, he mentioned that the industry did not want to audit their own farm environment plans, so the question is: why has the Government moved to allow the self-certification and self-auditing of those plans?

You’ll find that most industry assurance schemes—for example, the one I’m involved in, the Fonterra Tiaki plan, uses third-party auditors. In effect, all of them already use third-party auditors. Fonterra may provide a certified farm plan for myself and Grant McCallum, but it does not audit them.

I’d remind the Minister for the Environment of my many unanswered questions, and I’ll give her another one, and that is about the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill and the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Amendment Bill. Why were they sent to the Primary Production Committee and not the Environment Committee?

Well, I’ll cover one of those. It’s quite simply because the main challenge that we were trying to address with both of those bills is the fact that it was slowing down the ability to get in new agricultural chemicals, compounds, and sprays. That was the challenge we were trying to fix, so it felt most sensible that it was the Primary Production Committee that was the one that received those bills and worked through the answers.

Just further to that, as I understand it, it was also because the Environment Committee had an extraordinary heavy workload at the time with taking submissions on the resource management bills.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan—I’ll just remind the committee that we have about 5½ minutes left on this topic.

OK, I will be very quick. Thank you, Madam Chair. My question is for the environment Minister, and it’s around the environmental information system. Now, there’s been a recent report by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment (PCE) that shows that the information that we have is fragmented, there’s under-investment, and there’s a lack in system-wide leadership. I know that there’s $13 million, from memory, in Budget 2026 around environmental information but that it’s largely around policy and monitoring. I’m keen to get a sense from the Minister as to what that budgetary allocation is for and whether it’ll go some way towards addressing the issues that the PCE has raised.

Thank you, Madam Chair. My question is to Minister Bishop. Across Canterbury, I’ve had a lot of conversations around flood management, and many residents are asking the question: “If we’re building more houses, are we also increasing exposure to those natural hazard risks?” In fact, Waikuku residents have also sent me a petition regarding the concern about upstream developments and how that might affect our stormwater management and the cumulative effects of that, particularly around the proposed Gressons Road development. I believe there’s a letter in your inbox about that and that petition. Also I just want to actually say the voice of reason around the Pegasus golf course development, declining that fast-track application—that’s fantastic, the voice of reason, and the sustained pressure by the community, so I just want to shout out to the Pegasus Residents’ Group. But back to the crux of my question, Minister, for the benefit of Waikuku residents, any views that you could provide on greater transparency regarding flood modelling and technical assessments would be much appreciated. Thank you.

I thank the member for his question. I don’t want to get into specific projects, because that way lies danger as a decision maker on it, or as the decision maker on some projects. What I will say in relation to natural hazard risk and flood modelling is that those are clearly environmental effects and things that need to be considered through assessment of projects and are rightly matters—as they are in the Resource Management Act (RMA)—for expert panels under fast track and as they are through council consenting applications.

Speaking again at a general level, the Government’s working pretty hard to do better with natural hazards. For example, we are developing a national flood map. Version one of that is not going to be perfect. In fact, it will be substandard in my view. But for the first time, we will have a national federated data-system of where the flood risks are in the country and the extent of them. It baffles me, for example, that we have all this data between the insurance companies, the Crown research institutes, and councils. It’s all disaggregated in different places, so we’re going to bring it all together into one place. Over time—and again, the RMA reforms are an important part of this—over time, we’ll be able to bring together a second version, a much more sophisticated and comprehensive version of the flood map, which will factor into planning decisions made in the new system. So spatial planning, and land use planning, and environmental management plans. And it will factor into where and what you can build, for example.

It is not correct that just because something is a flood risk, that you can’t build. I mean, there are flood risks all over this country. The key is the severity of the risk and the possible mitigations against that. That is context specific, right? That is fact specific. Some areas should just be no-go areas, you shouldn’t build here, it’s too dangerous. Probably, in the past, we’ve been far too liberal at allowing building in places where we shouldn’t be.

Hon Member: Hear, hear!

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: In fact, there are many people in Auckland who would say that.

Hon Nicola Grigg: Yes, Christchurch

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Exactly, there’s many places. But there are also places where with a bit of targeted investment you can, and we should be upfront and open about that. The key is data—can I just stress that? It’s impossible to make good decisions in this space, for councils or developers or landowners themselves or homeowners. It’s impossible to make good decisions without having good data, and the problem we’ve lacked is the data. Because we haven’t had the data, we haven’t been able to make good evidence-based policy. We’re changing that, I fully accept we’re not there yet. I would hope that the Opposition, and all political parties, could come on the journey, because, frankly, successive Governments have kicked it into the too-hard basket. We’ve made a good start, but there’s a long way to go.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Madam Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): We’ve actually got about 20 seconds left, and Minister Grigg has indicated she wants to take a call.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It was just to answer the question from PriyancaRadhakrishnan, but Chris Bishop did answer it very fulsomely. But just to your point about the reports made by the PCE. Yes, we accept that there is much more to do, but, for the first time, a Government is actually responding to his urgency regarding the need to fund and capture data, which Chris Bishop has just been talking to.

Madam Chair, I seek leave of the committee for a short time more to ask just one question.

Hon Chris Bishop: OK.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: He did say, “OK.”

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’m told you don’t need to seek leave. If everyone’s happy, you can ask a question.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: The question is directed to the Minister responsible for RMA Reform, in relation to his flood map work, which I agree is important and needs to be done. There’s a very real risk that, when those first flood maps come out, there will be a significant impact on people’s property values. I just want to understand—because people will be alarmed by it without sufficient planning under way. I was just wondering what thinking you’ve done around that.

The short answer is that I don’t think that will be the case—although I could always be wrong—because the first flood map brings together data that’s already there. It’s already available in public; it’s just bringing it into one place. Version No. 2, I accept, we should do some thinking about as a country and as a polity, but version No. 1 is pre-existing information.

The next step after that is the National Policy Statement for Natural Hazards, which the last Government did some work on and which we picked up and have done in the last two years. That is about to flow through into the national policy direction in the new planning system. Putting it succinctly, the National Policy Statement for Natural Hazards says that councils have to take a risk-based, proportionate approach to land-use plans in light of natural hazard risk.

Having got the data into one place, we can then make good evidence-based decisions, but it sort of goes to the point that I’ve made a couple of times, which is that we’re not there yet; there’s a long way to go on this. I think version No. 1 will be OK—although I stand to be corrected. Version No. 2 is when things are going to get crunchy, and we’re going to have to have some tough conversations as a country about that.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, this Minister’s time in the chair has come to an end, and we now have the Minister of Transport. The Minister is available to speak to that portfolio from 8.30 p.m. until 9.30 p.m. I’ll give the first call to Andy Foster, the chairperson of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee.

Committee of the whole House—Estimates Debate

Transport