Annual Review Debate — Environment Sector

I want to address the issue of fresh water. The annual review for the Ministry for the Environment is before me—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Sorry, I am just going to interrupt the member, and I am not going to take the call off him. I am going to say that I did look to the chair of the committee to take a call and he chose not to. I just want to put on the record that the Hon Scott Simpson is the chair of the committee until 9 o’clock in the morning.

I was not trying to gazump anyone, either. I was just worried that the vote would pass if no one took a call. Of course, there is something to be said in respect of fresh water, which is that 8 years after this Government took office, fresh water quality still declines in so many of our waterways. Seventy percent of monitored waterways have increasing nitrate levels. We increasingly see pictures in the newspapers of rivers that are so polluted in summer—which is the time when people swim in our rivers, in summer—not only are they not safe enough to swim in, dogs die if they lap up water that contains some of the toxic algae.

We have got the medical officer of health in South Canterbury telling mothers not to feed their babies bottled milk made out of the water that comes out of their taps that is drawn from bores. We have got some serious problems with water quality. We discussed this with the Secretary for the Environment from the Ministry for the Environment. We also discussed a petition that we are considering around fresh water as well, which leads me to focus a little on the latest controversies in New Zealand, which have been the very belated moves by the Government to have a standard somewhat higher than wadeability for some of our waterways.

The Government got so panned for its ambition for waterways being set at the wadeable level that it thought that it would do something. The wadeable standard, effectively, meant you could walk through a river but you could not swim in it without having a serious risk of getting crook. The position in the Labour Party has for a long time been that we should have swimmability as our minimum standard for rivers, except where natural events render them unswimmable.

For a long time, the Minister for the Environment, Nick Smith, said that was an impossible ideal, and he quoted ridiculous examples like floods—well, no one swims in their rivers in floods—and the acid wash of some of the volcanic areas increasing acid levels in rivers. And I think the third example he used was bird droppings and the Ashburton River, because there were birds that nested on the banks of the river. All of them were ridiculous because we are not trying to have those rivers made swimmable; we just do not want rivers degraded below swimmable by human intervention.

So the Government came out a couple of months ago with this proposed change to the national policy statement to up the levels a little bit, and they tried to pretend that this was to a swimmable standard. What were some of the problems with that? I will not use just my own comments, I will use some of what—just about the only environmental NGO left on the Land and Water Forum (LAWF)—the Environmental Defence Society (EDS) submitted recently. Others have pulled out of the Land and Water Forum because they have been so abused by the Government through that process—namely Fish & Game and, recently, Forest & Bird, as well as Federated Mountain Clubs. This is what EDS, which is still in it, said. They said they “do not support how these concepts that have been approved by Land and Water Forum have been incorporated in the proposed standard on swimmability”. It says the “consultation document has taken the LAWF’s recommendations, manipulated them, and watered them down”. That is one of the Land and Water Forum’s own participants.

Then it goes through some of the problems with it. It notes that there are not appropriate controls on increasing nitrates where you have a river that is found to be degrading, as evidenced by the little bugs in it—the macroinvertebrates—that sit on the bottom of the rivers, dying away. There is nothing in the standard that makes you stop doing that. I think one of the obvious examples is in respect of slime—periphyton is how it is described in the document; and yet there is no adequate control on excessive rates of periphyton—slime growth—caused by nutrient enrichment or by artificially decreased flows, which, of course, are caused by irrigation.

Perhaps the two worst of them all—one is that National says it wants 90 percent of rivers cleaned up. But that 90 percent includes all of the rivers in our national parks; they are not the ones that need to be cleaned up. It should be the ones that are running through agricultural areas where there is intensive agriculture. The final, and perhaps worst, one is that it is going to exclude test results that are adverse 20 percent of the time. Twenty percent of the time would be from Christmas to 1 March, which is the summer period, which makes the standard ridiculous.

I would like to continue in the same vein as my colleague David Parker on fresh water. I did not have the privilege of sitting in on the Local Government and Environment Committee during the Ministry for the Environment presentation, but I have read its report, and I feel sorry for it. I actually feel really sorry for it, because it is meant to be the Ministry for the Environment. But on fresh water, as well as some of the other responsibilities that it has, it is a sad story.

I have just been touring the country. I have now visited eight out of the 10 rivers that I am visiting in communities, and at each one of these rivers there is a story to tell—Mataura is my next one—about degradation, which is reflected in the failure of the Government to allow the Ministry for the Environment to actually set standards that are coherent, that work, and that protect water.

You would think that the vision of the Ministry for the Environment would be healthy rivers, healthy lakes, an ecosystem that is in balance, and water that is truly fresh and is actually safe for children to swim in, actually safe for kai gathering, where native fish could live, where tuna would be thriving, where the pH would be in balance, and where the biodiversity would be lush. This is what some of us remember of rivers, but now our lowland rivers, under the auspices of this Government and this ministry, are so degraded that the ministry’s own report last week is a record of failure.

In the annual review, the ministry talks about its long-term outcome for water being the capacity for the environment to sustain itself being safeguarded. Well, it is not doing it. Its own report from last week contradicts this, and says that the river water quality—sometimes it says 55, sometimes it says 78—is so damaged by nitrogen that it fails to meet the most basic of standards, and that the river water quality is worsening. It is not stable. It is not improving. It is worsening.

However, its next goal tells you why. The Ministry for the Environment’s next goal is the use of the environment, including natural resources, to optimise for the betterment of society and the economy—blah, blah, blah, blah. So we are not going to protect water; we are going to maximise its use. It goes on to say that one of its performance measures—you are going to love this one—for protecting the environment is an increase in the number of hectares under Government-subsidised irrigation. Well, it has certainly met that key performance indicator, with the Government subsidising of central plains water. If any of you have seen the state of Canterbury’s rivers, there are canals, there are drains, and then there are rivers that no longer look like rivers. They look like puddles of algae, or half the time they are dry—not to the same extent as is natural; this is unnatural, from over-allocation.

This ministry and this Government have overseen the over-allocation of rivers, the subsidisation of vast irrigation schemes that have stripped our water from our communities, the ludicrous announcement for the clean water plan that no scientist understands—and now the Government is having to rush out another set of analysis and statistics to try to explain itself to the science community. This is the fresh water performance of the ministry and the Minister.

The people of this country have had enough. It is the one issue now. When I get into taxis, taxi drivers are telling me: “2040, that’s not very visionary for clean water, is it?”. People on aeroplanes are asking what is going on with the Government and water. I was in a cafe in Kerikeri, and there were two very conservative-looking blokes saying: “Oh, the greenies have got a point. The farmers are ruining our environment.” I am not here to blame the farmers. I am saying the Government is responsible for setting low standards, allowing pollution, maximising profit at the expense of water, and ignoring the tangata whenua and their proprietorial rights guaranteed under the Treaty, because it does not want to face up to the fact that we can have sustainable agriculture and clean water, but the model has to change.

This annual review is sad, because it is an inbuilt contradiction between protecting water and exploiting it.

It is a pleasure to be talking in this appropriations debate, because this is a very important issue to New Zealand, as a number of speakers have already alluded to. I think the debate we have been having is around water quality, which is part of it, and I am going to come back to that in a minute, but also what the Government is doing around climate change and what we are doing around conservation.

I am particularly proud to be able to stand here as the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee, but also as a Bluegreen and someone locally who has done some of this work in his electorate, with what we are seeing with what is going on with—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I am going to get the member to sit down for a second and say that it is really important in these debates, when it comes to titles, that people are factual. I think there is a minor thing called “an election” to happen before the member can claim the title.

Thank you, Mr Chair. In terms of the three areas that we are talking about, water is the one where there has been a bit of a discussion. I think some of the reforms that the Government has put in place over the last 12 months have been absolutely revolutionary, in terms of what we are trying to do with the environment and with water claims.

What we have heard today is we have heard a number of people talking about what is going to happen around water, with the degradation of the water quality. In fact, I would like to remind you that we are now having this debate because the Government has put in place the measurement around water courses, so we actually know what the quality of water is. If we did know what the quality of water was, as we have for so many years, we would not actually be having a lot of the discussions. We have actually put in place these measurements, and we are requiring councils to measure them on an ongoing basis. That is a great start point in terms of trying to remediate some of the adverse waterways that we have in New Zealand. It is not just in the rural areas; it is also in the urban areas. At least it is an honest conversation. I do just want to acknowledge the $500 million that the dairy industry and the Government has put into cleaning up the waterways, and the further $100 million that was committed earlier this year, which are all good things, because we all believe in cleaner waterways.

I want to also just touch on the wonderful work that Deputy Prime Minister Paula Bennett is doing in the area of climate change. I think the change this year—not only in terms of signing the Marrakesh Agreement, which has been a great thing to set in motion. New Zealand was at the forefront of signing that agreement, and to see a 30 percent reduction below 2005 levels by 2030 is great. I also thank her move to reduce the two for one on the emissions trading scheme, which, again, has been a courageous and good move, and a good steer for New Zealanders to know which way we are headed—towards minimising our carbon emissions. Also, the work that all parties played in the GLOBE International report that has recently been announced about how we are dealing with issues around climate change and reducing our footprint, not only in the areas of forestry and how they can mitigate some of those, but also a number of other factors that were raised by that very valuable report. I do commend all members of the House in terms of the work that they did in that area.

The final area is the area of the Hon Maggie Barry, particularly in the area of conservation—this is fundamental to New Zealand, protecting our fauna and flora. I think her work, in terms of giving the life and the money to actually pursue some of the fundamental protections we want to put in place, is absolutely to be valued. Her War on Weeds and protection of our bird species—they are both very credible, strong, and good initiatives, in terms of some of what we are trying to protect. Obviously, the kiwi is absolutely important to New Zealand, but some of the other very important birdlife that we have in New Zealand—the takahē and things like that—some of those programmes are wonderful, and I fully endorse them. Then we get on to the War on Weeds, Maggie’s list of ten—it has been fantastic in terms of trying to reduce these invasive weeds. Again, that conservation is really, really important to New Zealand. We all have a right to make sure that these species are removed from our environment, and we move to a situation where New Zealand can justifiably continue to be proud of its credentials as a wonderful place to live, in terms of protecting our birdlife. I just think the work that has been very comprehensive over the last year and going forward is a valuable contribution to New Zealand.

It is a pleasure to take a call on this annual review for the Ministry for the Environment. When the ministry came to the Local Government and Environment Committee, according to the report—I was not present at the select committee—the chief executive told the committee that climate change is, perhaps, the global issue of our time. When you then look through the report of what the Government is doing, you would hardly recognise that that is indeed the fact. The initiatives that the previous speaker outlined simply are not enough. They are not going to get us to reach our low emissions target that we placed on the table in Paris, and they are not putting us on a pathway of doing our bit in the global initiatives around climate change. Nor are they about putting our economic security at the fore in terms of us doing our bit to reduce our domestic greenhouse gas emissions.

One of the things that the report makes absolutely clear is that agriculture will continue to be excluded from the emissions trading scheme. That is something that this Government will not act on, and until it does act on that, we have absolutely no chance of reaching our greenhouse gas emission target, so I would like Government members to reflect on that when they talk about the wonderful work that their Government is doing in climate change. There is still much to be done.

One of the big issues in the report that is covered off is one that colleagues have already addressed, and that is around fresh water. It is something that a great proportion of the report covers off, and it is no wonder, because when the ministry came to give its annual review to the select committee, it talked about the 6,000 people who had submitted during the ministry’s Next steps for fresh water process.

Fresh water is something that New Zealanders care about. I think most of us have childhood memories of picnicking and holidaying near a river somewhere in this country. It is the stuff of the Kiwi Dream. I know for myself that Coes Ford, just out of Christchurch, was an incredibly important place for my family and me recreationally. That place no longer exists. That river does not exist anymore. It is a dried up area of land where no one would picnic, no one would holiday, and, certainly, where families would not go to recreate, and that is what is driving New Zealanders, in droves, to take this kind of interest in fresh water.

We hear Government members talking about the wonderful initiatives around that, but the fact of the matter is that, according to Nick Smith, rivers can exceed the already high limit for E.coli 20 percent of the time and still be graded as good quality for swimming. That is not good enough. That is not what we think about when we think about doing what we need to in this country to protect our heritage, to protect our rivers, and to ensure that we have swimmable rivers for future generations.

You just need to look at the Government’s broader approach to fresh water and you can see that there is no action. It has been put in the too-hard basket. The can has been kicked down the road and left for another Government to pick up—and it will be a Labour-led Government after 23 September that will pick up these issues.

The issue of water bottling is absolutely critical here. We have had the Minister for the Environment spinning on the head of a pin about how it does not matter, but to ordinary New Zealanders the fact that there are companies coming in, bottling our water that we can never get back, and selling it for a profit that New Zealand does not see any return from is not something that New Zealanders see as desirable or good for their environment.

We should not be letting multinationals come in and take our water for free, and letting them sell it for millions, but this is something that Bill English and the National Government are content to do. It is not something that a Labour Government would be content to do. We charge royalties on all kinds of resources when companies come in and extract them. For goodness’ sake! We charge a royalty on gravel when a company comes in and extracts gravel—but we do not on this most precious of resources, our fresh water.

This Government’s attitude to the environment is just indicative of its attitude to the future of New Zealand as a whole. It is kicking the can down the road. It is not making the hard decisions that need to be made and standing up for the kind of future that we want for New Zealand. These things are hugely important to New Zealanders, both now and in the future.

For the last couple of years, it has been my very great pleasure to chair the Local Government and Environment Committee. Over that period of time I have had an opportunity to see, firsthand and close-up, the terrific work that this Government has been doing in terms of environment, conservation, and protection of our natural environment.

This year the committee considered annual reviews from the Department of Conservation. We had the director-general, Mr Lou Sanson, appear before the committee. We reviewed the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority, the Environmental Protection Authority, and the Ministry for the Environment. I commend to members of the House and members of the public the reports that the committee has prepared following those annual reviews, because they encompass very clearly the broad policy issues and initiatives being taken by this Government in a very important area to all New Zealanders.

We see from the Department of Conservation, for instance, an excellent initiative about predator-free New Zealand: predator-free New Zealand by 2050. A few years ago, if people had been mentioning the concept or the visionary aspirational goal of a predator-free New Zealand, many people would have said that that simply was not possible—that it was a task too far, and something that no Government and no New Zealander could realistically seek to achieve. The Government’s initiative in this area has been, I think, incredibly empowering, and so we have set out an agenda, a plan, like our “Apollo mission”, if you want to put it that way, that means we are going to give this our best shot. In electorates like mine, the Coromandel, predators are wreaking enormous havoc every hour, every day, every week, every month of the year.

I have had an opportunity to visit, on a number of occasions, some of the predator-free islands, some of the predator-free sanctuaries, around the country. In fact, not too long ago I had an opportunity to visit, with the Minister, the Hon Maggie Barry, the Subantarctic Islands. What a wonderful privilege that was—to go to a part of New Zealand that very few New Zealanders get to visit and to have a firsthand, close-up experience of what a predator-free mainland might look like.

Members might be interested to know that the navy do a terrific job. They take people down there a couple of times every year. There is no permanent human habitation there. You get into these Zodiac boats; it is very James Bond-ish. You land on the islands. We were on Enderby Island. The first thing that happens when you land on that island and they turn off the engines of the Zodiac craft is you hear predator-free before you see it. The birdsong is immediately obvious and apparent. It is a wonderful experience. For me, the vision and aspirational hope that New Zealand could be predator-free by 2050 is an enormously worthy goal.

I want to spend just a second talking about climate change. Deputy Prime Minister Paula Bennett is, I think, doing a terrific job in this area. I have been privileged also to be an executive member of the Globe organisation. We, as a group of cross-party politicians, members of Parliament from this legislature, I think have been doing some good collaborative work in this area. So I was delighted to hear, just this very afternoon, that the Minister, in conjunction with the Hon Steven Joyce, has announced that the Productivity Commission will be instructed to conduct an inquiry into pathways that can help us as a nation to achieve our Paris commitments ahead of time preferably, and certainly in a way that is not going to wreak havoc on our economy. Those two objectives are not binary. It is not either/or. We can achieve our Paris commitments, and we can do it without detrimentally affecting our economy.

The Local Government and Environment Committee is a great committee. I have thoroughly enjoyed my time as chair of that committee. Subject to an election this Thursday, I hope that my friend and colleague the member of Parliament for Hunua, Andrew Bayly, will assume that role. I know that he too will enjoy the job and, should he be elected, he will find it as invigorating and as interesting as I have. He will match the good work that this Government is doing in terms of the environment, conservation, and the protection of our natural heritage.

Two of the early actions that could easily be taken to improve New Zealand’s environment and to allow progress with climate change objectives under the Paris Agreement are to massively increase and improve New Zealand’s water management, and an early start to a huge new programme of afforestation in New Zealand.

I want to say, first of all, that New Zealand First deplores the Government’s lack of action on fresh water. The simple redefinition of what constitutes clean water hardly takes us very far and is, at best, irrelevant and at worst, retrograde. We want to do some rather more important things, and the first of those is that we say the current “first in, first served” approach to the allocation of water rights in New Zealand, under the Resource Management Act, is well past its use-by date and we need to do something better. We believe in a much more strategic approach, and we want to see a New Zealand water strategy developed for that purpose.

Rights to take and use water must only be available to New Zealand citizens and New Zealand fully owned companies. We do not think water should be taxed or subjected to any other financial imposition. We think that is not necessary. It is already very expensive for people to take water, whether it is for urban use or for agriculture or irrigation. We do not want to see that made more expensive. But when fresh water is exported in either a pure state or a substantially pure state, we want to see a royalty charged on that. We think that royalty should be developed on a region-by-region basis, in consultation with each region concerned, and that at least 25 percent of that royalty should stay in the region from which the royalty is derived and be used exclusively for the purposes of economic development and job creation.

New Zealand First also wants to see the special character of New Zealand’s wild and scenic rivers preserved. That is most important. They are at risk, and they continue to be at risk. We agree with the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, who recommends clearly identifying and listing them, and then adopting specific policies for their protection. We think that is the right way to go. Of course, we do need to move much faster to avoid the pollution of our waterways, which a lot of people are very concerned about at the moment. But it does need to be said that these apply to both urban and rural waterways. While there are many more rivers in the rural areas, the amount of pollution in urban areas is far greater, and that is actually an even more urgent requirement than the need to protect rivers in rural areas.

New Zealand First wants to see much more assistance given to cities and towns to achieve a much greater level of protection for their waterways, through better waste water treatment and better drainage facilities. New Zealand First also wants to see much greater attention paid to afforestation in New Zealand. We want to see a reliance on just exporting logs, and for there to be a much greater emphasis on using wood in New Zealand for manufacturing purposes. That can be done through Government leadership and incentives. We do not see that in any of the Government’s programmes, and that is something that is urgently required.

We actually think the Government should adopt New Zealand First’s targets, and those are, first, to increase the value of New Zealand’s wood exports from currently around $5 billion to $12 billion by the year 2022; secondly, to reverse the dismal rate of replanting of forestry in New Zealand, and we think that can be hugely increased and it should be done urgently; and, lastly, to contribute to New Zealand’s greenhouse gas targets by replanting a billion hectares of the 13 billion hectares of marginal land in New Zealand, which is ripe for the replanting of forests, which have so many advantages for regional economies, tackling climate change, and improving water and soil quality.

Tēnā koe, and thank you for the opportunity to take a call. Although I do not sit on the Local Government and Environment Committee, I have read the report and want to make a number of comments on the annual review of the Department of Conservation (DOC).

In 2013 the department undertook a significant reorganisation, a restructuring, and some time down the track we now have the opportunity to look back and say: “Well, what was achieved?”. There are three areas where we can see there was a certain theme that was led as a result of the restructuring—firstly, a greater reliance on private sector investment for some core activities within the department; secondly, some delegation of functions to the community for some core responsibilities of the department; and, thirdly, a lack of strategic oversight on some of the main drivers that will impact on our conservation estate, namely tourism.

I want to just look at a couple of those themes and make a comment, knowing that we can be very proud of our conservation estate and what it means to New Zealand and the identity of our country and the brand proposition it offers in terms of being clean and green and having the plethora of biodiversity that makes us proud to be a little country doing our bit to protect the very special aspects of our natural flora and fauna and the biodiversity that exists therein.

On the issue of partnerships, I wanted to pull a comment out from the report that highlights the amount of effort that the Department of Conservation is now putting in to partnerships for third-party, private sector funding and the types of relationships that are starting to be forged with companies like Air New Zealand and Meridian Energy. Although I applaud the efforts, it does concern me that Vote Conservation, which is for core activities, is being supplemented by this type of approach, and we need to consider whether that is achieving—to the best advantage possible for the conservation estate—our aspirations.

In the area of Treaty settlements in particular, more partnerships are being sought with the Department of Conservation. We can only look positively towards the template that Tūhoe has set with its activities, having seconded around about 25 DOC people into its organisation to better manage Te Urewera. But the matter of concern is what innovations have come as a result of that to apply to the rest of the conservation estate, knowing that there are around about 58 relationships with iwi and around about 50 settlements that have specific obligations in this space. It seems to me that what can be gained is an improvement of DOC mātauranga ā-iwi in the way that it applies its practices in the area of biodiversity and the protection of the conservation estate and working, I think, more productively with the community. So one of the areas that Tūhoe will highlight that may be of benefit to us overall is the way in which they want to look at minimising the impact of 1080 in their special areas and lifting the opportunity for local employment and creating a trade out of possum control.

Moving on to the issue of managing biodiversity, I just note that it is really encouraging to see in the species recovery area the improvement of species such as kākāpō, takahē, and kokako, and the effort that DOC has put in to getting those bird species to a sustainable level, and I encourage that. I am concerned, however, that we are waiting for a report around the protection of the longfin eel. In my electorate there is no customary taking of eel within the Waikato and the Maniapoto parts of our rohe for the very belief that we should be doing as much as we can to protect eel species. However, commercial eeling is still taking place. So in my mind the sooner we can get that report through and the sooner that the freshwater fisheries regulations can take a serious look at protecting the eel species and promoting, maybe, alternatives like aquaculture as a real option, then that would be welcome in communities like mine.

I note that the chair spoke around Predator Free 2050. The issue there—and it is an ambitious goal and I applaud the fact that it is an ambitious goal—is the fact that DOC itself said that the $28 million that was applied over 4 years is somewhat short; it in fact costed that at $3 billion if we were going to really achieve the obligation of a predator-free New Zealand by 2050.

So there are many things yet to be achieved within the DOC portfolio. I have highlighted some of the concerns. I think more can be done.

I want to focus on just one aspect of the annual report, and that is to do with climate change, which has become a theme from colleague Andrew Bayly, and then Dr Megan Woods, Scott Simpson, Denis O’Rourke, and others. I just want to make a couple of points.

Looking at the annual report, page 335, I think it was Dr Megan Woods who said: “The chief executive told us that climate change is ‘perhaps the global issue of our time’ ”. I would actually make a separate, different comment, and that is that she magnificently understated it. That is not to say that we do not highly regard the chief executive and the Secretary for the Environment and her deputies—they are all extremely competent and capable public servants. But that is a gross understatement. Compare it with the statement by the UN Secretary-General a year earlier at his climate summit on 24 September 2014 that humanity has never faced a greater challenge. That is a sentence we should be rallying around: humanity has never faced a greater challenge. The dreams of humanity hang in the balance. “To ride this storm we need all hands on deck.”

If we take that as our departure point throughout this Chamber—all 121 members of Parliament on behalf of the 4.5 million whom we represent—then we are in the business of taking climate change seriously, with a recognition of the imperative of urgency. On that basis, I think it is incumbent on all of us to move forward purposefully and collaboratively while contesting each other’s ideas and challenging our different parties’ views of where we should be going, or, rather, having agreed where we should be going, we challenge each other on the pace and the particular path that we take. That I think is what is underpinning the cross-party group that is GLOBE-NZ, of which Scott Simpson—and others—has been a tremendously constructive and supportive and influential member of the executive committee. It underpins the theme with which I think we in GLOBE-NZ are pursuing climate change policy now.

Two particular points: Scott Simpson mentioned the release this afternoon by the Hon Paula Bennett, climate change Minister, and the Hon Steven Joyce, the finance Minister, about the Productivity Commission. I think that is an extremely welcome development, where they now say that the next step in the climate change work programme will enable us to properly assess the economic trade-offs and we need the Productivity Commission to tell us the right path to go down. In the press release the Ministers actually say that this complements the work undertaken by the parliamentary cross-party group GLOBE-NZ and I wish to thank the Minister for that and respond that I am sure GLOBE-NZ will take a particular interest in that. That does not mean that we will stop calling upon the Government to consider seriously the establishment of an independent climate committee, which is a different thing again, with far broader powers of recommendation and advice to the Government for a macro-economic approach to climate change.

Finally, to address another issue and that is climate-related investment, which does not get enough attention as much as it should. There is the latest global climate index 2017, which has been put out by a French-based official agency in advance of the G20 meeting in July, which rates New Zealand’s Superannuation Fund at No. 15, which you could be disposed to say is an excellent record. Or which you could be disposed to say could do with some improvement, because if we look at the fact that there are 14 other sovereign wealth funds or pension funds ahead of us, we can do better. Thank you.

E Te Tiamana o Te Komiti, tēnā koe, tēnā koutou katoa e ngā mema. Can I begin my contribution to this Appropriation (2015/16 Confirmation and Validation) Bill debate by thanking and congratulating the two previous members from the Opposition who spoke. Often during these appropriations debates we have a lot of political invective, but I thought both made very thoughtful, well-considered contributions, and whilst not agreeing with every single thing, I noted that they actually did pay tribute to some of the work that this Government is doing, and, I think, doing very successfully in this space.

Before going on to climate change issues, I do want to touch on some of these big battles that have been fought in the conservation estate. My colleague, now the Associate Minister for the Environment, the Hon Scott Simpson, whom I had the pleasure of serving under for 2 years in the Local Government and Environment Committee, did touch on this. If we look at page 307 of the compiled reports of committees, we will see the conservation report, and that covers such things as the Battle for our Birds, which we have heard about. We have heard about the War on Weeds, and that includes everything from old man’s beard, which David Bellamy highlighted back in the 1980s, through to the wandering willie, which is a threat not only in the world of weeds but, it seems, wandering willie does beset the Labour Party from time to time as well.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Te Tiamana. Thank you very much, Mr Chair. As I was saying before I was interrupted by the dinner break, the issue of weeds in New Zealand is something that this Government is addressing with the $16 million to control wilding pines but also the funding that we have provided for the War on Weeds, weeds such as old man’s beard—

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Must go.

—and the dreaded wandering willie, which also must go.

I want to move from the Department of Conservation appropriations to our progress that we are making in climate change issues. I refer specifically to page 318 of the tabulated reports of select committees, the report on the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority review. There are significant programmes in the areas of fuel efficiency. I want to congratulate all the Ministers involved, particularly the Hon Simon Bridges, who has been a real driver of electric cars, I have to say. We are seeing a programme being rolled out that will lead to some of New Zealand’s leading companies committing to having 30 percent of their fleet turned to electric over the next couple of years. We are talking companies along the lines of The Warehouse and Fonterra, some of the very big employers that have very large vehicle fleets. This will make significant inroads into our objective to double the number of electric vehicles on our roads to 64,000 in the near future. This will contribute to the Government being able to achieve our goal by the year 2030 of a 30 percent reduction in carbon emissions below 2005 levels. 2030 may sound like a distant time in the future, however, it is only 13 short years away, and with some of the technological innovations and the sensible and wise policies of this Government, as are laid out in the committee reports, we will make, I think, a lot of headway towards achieving those targets and reducing our carbon dioxide emissions in New Zealand.

I also just briefly want to touch on agricultural emissions. The $20 million investment in our sustainable agriculture programme, and having seen the research they are doing at Massey University—

I move, That the Committee report progress presently and move to consider the Fire and Emergency New Zealand Bill.

Progress to be reported presently.