Annual Review Debate — Environment Sector

As I rise to begin the debate on the reports from the environment sector, I do so in the shadow of a very recent report from the UN that tells us that a million species are facing extinction, but over 4,000 of those species are in New Zealand, including our beloved kererū, our kiwi, our fish, so many of our birds, and that the key drivers of this extinction that is facing our taonga is land-use change, exploitation and overfishing, climate change, pollution, and invasive species crowding out native species. All these issues are covered by the agencies within the environment sector. Our committee reviewed the work of the Department of Conservation, the Ministry for the Environment, the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority, the Environmental Protection Authority, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, and Predator Free 2050, and all of these entities are critical to saving our taonga and to saving our world, and to addressing some of the issues that we face.

The Ministry for the Environment is deeply involved in work on climate change. In particular, it is focusing on water quality: water quality in the agricultural sector, water quality in the urban environment, and trying to ensure that when we use water, we use it responsibly, that the water that we use is not polluted, and that we do not pollute our waterways. Currently, 71 percent of our lakes and rivers are swimmable; we want to get that up to 80 percent, and that is some of the work that the Ministry for the Environment is doing.

The Ministry for the Environment is also working on waste minimisation and resource efficiency, and there is a significant move in New Zealand to move away from plastics and from single-use products. That is all to the good, and it is work that the Ministry for the Environment is engaged in as well.

The Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority is also involved in work on climate change. Their previous focus had been on energy efficiency, but their focus is now changing to work on promoting decarbonisation, to ensuring that we actually have methods and ways of reducing our carbon footprint. It’s critical for us, and they’ve chosen to go down that route because it will have a greater impact on our environment.

Turning to the Department of Conservation, which, of course, is working so hard to preserve our taonga—they are deeply engaged in a battle to save our birds. That is particularly so this year when we are facing a mega mast—not just a mast year but a mega mast—when our native trees will have so much fruit that it will not only support birds but support predators as well. So they are working on ways to ensure that our native birds survive, and 1080 is a critical part of that fight. They’re also working on something dear to my heart: kauri dieback, ensuring that we protect our beautiful trees.

It is in the context of our fight to save our birds that Predator Free 2050 becomes very, very important. It is said that conservation in New Zealand mostly involves the hunting and killing of small furry animals. Predator Free 2050 is deeply engaged in that task. They have an objective of developing a science solution that will enable one small mammalian predator to be eliminated from the mainland by 2025. It’s a difficult task, and they may not get there, but they are engaged on working with partners in developing the science to ensure that we can do that. Again, this is particularly dear to me, because one of the areas which is a focus for the predator-free work is Taranaki maunga, the mountain of my heart. So that is important work that is being done by Predator Free 2050.

I end with a call from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, our independent expert, who wants to advise us on what we can do to promote a better environment. When he came to talk to us, he invited MPs to make contact with him, that members of Parliament make use of his expertise and call on him for advice and information. Through this report, I invite members of this House to take up that invitation.

Thank you, Mr Chair. It’s sort of a pleasure to take a call on this discussion of annual reviews in the environment space, but before I get into the material that I want to talk about, I just want to acknowledge the chair of the Environment Committee, who I think chairs that committee in a diligent and professional manner, and I’m sorry that she will not be chair of that committee for much longer. It seems inevitable that she will, after the Budget Cabinet reshuffle, be promoted to the inner Cabinet, and we’re going to miss working with her—we’re going to miss working with her. She’s one of the few new MPs that have come into this Parliament that will, I think, rise to the challenge of an otherwise lacklustre Cabinet, and, as I say, we on the committee are going to miss working with her.

As we went through the various reviews of the organisations and the agencies in the environment sector, it became immediately apparent as we had chief executive after chief executive coming before the committee and, essentially, apologising for a lack of performance, or lack of progress, or lack of speed, or lack of haste in this area. If there’s one area where the Government has failed utterly to achieve its high expectations, it’s been in the environment space. We have a Minister for the Environment who is largely focused on things not environmental, we have an Associate Minister who is ideologically driven and who is biased to the point of concern in terms of her ministerial responsibilities across her portfolio areas, and that’s deeply challenging for those of us who want to see a better environmental outcome for New Zealand and our natural resources and species.

So we’ve seen no progress on the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary. We’ve seen no progress on waste minimisation, apart from airy-fairy, fluffy talk, which is helpful to a degree but doesn’t actually do anything tangible about a circular economy. Actually, apart from an expensive discussion in Rotorua a few weeks ago, there hasn’t really been any action in that space. We’ve seen no cameras on commercial fishing vessels put in place. We’ve seen, perversely, a reduction in the number of electric vehicles that are being registered in the country. We’ve seen a very good member’s bill that would have increased the fines for litter that councils could impose voted down—voted down—by this Government. It’s bizarre.

We’ve seen in the water space, water quality, which is a hugely important area, no positive action at all other than the creation of a few more working groups, and working groups that iwi are not participating with. We’ve seen noises about punishing farmers, and we’ve seen our urban waterways degrade even further—no progress on marine reserves, a ruling out of a discussion on the introduction of biotechnology to assist in things such as Predator Free 2050, and a ruling out of a very good suggestion to introduce a container deposit scheme. Now, one would have thought that these were matters that a Green Party Minister and a Labour - New Zealand First Government would want to advance.

But the frustration in the sector is probably no better summed up than it was by one Kevin Hague, who happens to be a former member of this Parliament. He was on the television only a couple of weeks ago, and he said New Zealand is far from transformative in their approach to the environment, says Forest & Bird chief executive Kevin Hague. Hague said he thinks Kiwis will be a bit surprised by “how poorly this Government is doing.” He went on to say, and I quote, “I would say we’re a one or a two, and that’s probably shocking for New Zealand.” He said the Government’s response to the current environmental crisis is far from adequate or what was promised.

He went on to say “In freshwater, in climate change, we’ve heard good rhetoric from the Government so far, but actually in this year of delivery”, he said, “we need to see [transformation] action from them.” He said marine areas were actually doing worse under this Government, and he pointed to stalled plans to put cameras on fishing boats and reduce irresponsible fishing. Then he said that the environment was going to be a major focus, but he said we haven’t seen much evidence of this from this Government.

That’s an appalling indictment on a Government that came into power, that is halfway through its term in office and has done so little—so little—in the environmental space that now their supporters are their greatest critics. It’s the Green environmental supporters who are most frustrated, most concerned, and most disappointed with the lack of action, the lack of delivery, in the environmental space.

Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. It’s a pleasure to rise and talk about our annual reviews. It’s a real pleasure because our Prime Minister has said that the environment is our nuclear-free moment for this generation. In fact, if I reflect on that, I think that climate change and the environment is a much more serious issue than what we faced when we stood on the right side of eliminating nuclear weapons and allowing them to come here.

I am really excited to be here today, because I note that today we had the biodiversity report. The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services has just come in today and reported that there are 1 million species threatened or at risk of extinction globally, and 4,000 of those species are in New Zealand—4,000, people. That’s why I’m really delighted that our Government has turned around the $200 million in cumulative cuts under National around conservation. That’s why I’m really delighted that we’ve invested $186 million to enhance biodiversity and to control and eradicate predators. I’m really pleased about that, because when we think about what has happened and that we are so very rare in where we sit in this world—we have so many rare species, or so many species that only exist here.

So I’m really, really happy that we’re actually doing something significant. I’m really, also, excited that we’ve allocated $19 million from the Provincial Growth Fund to develop innovative approaches to expand predator control. While that may sound, from the Opposition, like we’ve said that we’re not looking at options, we actually are looking at options. We have no mandate from the community around genetic modification—we have no mandate. If that’s the mandate that the Opposition thinks they have, then maybe they should write a paper on it and suggest it. I’m absolutely delighted that across the plethora of work that we are doing we have absolutely managed to systematically work in a way that ensures that we’re going to try and get swimmable rivers—not wadeable rivers, swimmable rivers. We’re going to be looking across the environment about ways to protect and ensure, under the Resource Management Act (RMA), that our people have the opportunity to have their say, which, of course, was rolled back previously.

So here’s a little bit of progress to date: we have no new offshore oil and gas permits. Now, you will all remember—sorry, Madam Chairperson, everyone will recall—

Tim van de Molen: How many species does that save from endangerment?

You will recall—how many species does that save? You’re asking, across the floor, how many species does the change of—

Tim van de Molen: The ban of oil of gas.

Banning oil and gas—absolutely. What happens is that when we have global warming—which is a result of oil and gas—we, therefore, have species extinction. It’s the science and it is well understood.

So we have no new offshore oil and gas permits; we have a zero carbon bill under consultation and we look forward to that coming to this House; we have the $100 million Green Investment Fund; we’re countering myrtle rust and kauri dieback disease—all of us here appreciate that if our taonga species such as kauri go extinct, then we have a catastrophic disaster occurring in our native forests. So it is with great pleasure that I sit now—

Well, look, as the Opposition spokesperson for conservation it is a pleasure to take a call on these reviews of the 2017/2018 year. In particular, I’m going to focus my contribution on two entities: the Department of Conservation (DOC) which is, of course, charged with the mandate of protecting, conserving the kaitiaki of our natural and historic heritage in New Zealand; and Predator Free New Zealand, which is an independent and separate entity that was put in place to look after the initiative that was, of course, the New Zealand National Party’s initiative, of Predator Free 2050—to eradicate rats, possums, and stoats from New Zealand.

💬 Hon Member: That’s transformational.

Absolutely transformational. In this, “the year of delivery”, all I can say is that these Government departments—notwithstanding, I agree, with the chair, Dr Deborah Russell’s statement that the rangers at DOC work very, very hard—unfortunately have had a mixed bag under this Government.

There are a couple of things that I want to focus on. The first is, definitely, what we’ve seen come out, under the guise of direction of this Minister to the Department of Conservation, is a return to the bad old days of the 1980s where “Minister knows best”, and consultation, simply, does not occur. Now, in the past the Department of Conservation have been very good at engagement with stakeholders. They’ve been very good in the education space, working with people at the coalface to get them involved in conservation, to get them to buy into initiatives and help out on the ground. But, unfortunately, as was raised in the reviews, even the Director-General of Conservation had to admit that in recent times consultation has been less than adequate. I’m referring, specifically, to, first of all, the tahr cull. The tahr cull that was launched into—spearheaded by the Minister, ignoring the wishes and will and thoughts of recreational hunters, to simply go in and cull to extreme levels, without engaging with that sector group. We saw a huge mobilisation and, simply, what that suggests is that the Minister has no respect for recreationists, no respect for their contribution to the conservation estate, and had no faith in them as to what they could achieve with, and in partnership with, the Department of Conservation.

Subsequent to that, we had the rushed introduction of the Conservation (Indigenous Freshwater Fish) Amendment Bill which, again, was introduced to this House with a lack of consultation. Practically no stakeholders were engaged and, again, it mobilised recreational fishers to such an extreme that we saw a backlash as to that bill, which was introduced under the guise of technical but it was anything but technical—again, a tried implementation of a bill which ran roughshod over recreationists’ viewpoints, their activity, and, again, their contribution to tourism and investment in the conservationist state.

So one of the things that I’ll be looking for into the future from the Department of Conservation is for them to pull their socks up and to again engage with the community, because if we do not have buy-in from the community then we simply lose, with respect to environmental initiatives moving forward.

With respect to Predator Free—and my colleague Mr Scott Simpson touched on this—again, an independent entity charged with eradicating predator species. But the Minister has come in over the top—she knows best—and made a direction that there should be no investment or looking into biotechnologies. It’s Predator Free themselves that have come out and said that, without biotechnologies, there can be no achievement of Predator Free 2050. It’s certainly not a silver bullet but without looking at it, without having that conversation, simply, the goal will not be achieved. This is unfortunate. The National Party still believes in that vision, and we believe that an honest and transparent conversation needs to happen with the public about this initiative.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s a great privilege to rise and speak for a few minutes on the annual reviews on the Ministry for the Environment. What a tremendous contribution from both my colleagues. Can I particularly reference Scott Simpson’s—it was very funny watching from this side of the House as he, quite appropriately, talked up the potential of our chair, Deborah Russell.

💬 Hon Scott Simpson: She’s the new LINZ Minister.

It’s extraordinary—and is likely to be a new Minister, post-Budget. Just watching the blood drain from the face of Kieran McAnulty, it was quite extraordinary. Then also from Willie Jackson—with the mere mention of a Cabinet reshuffle the blood drained from his face as well. It was very awkward; it was extraordinary.

But we’ve had some very interesting reflections on the conversation that we had at the Environment Committee about the annual reviews. In particular, I’d like to draw attention to the conversation that we had around climate change. We started, first, with a reflection and a series of questions relating specifically to the Climate Change Adaptation Technical Working Group that had reported back around the importance of a national adaptation plan with a whole series of recommendations. It, essentially, landed on the table with a thud. There was no commitment to operationalise those. We’ve heard nothing since; it’s just silence from the Government in terms of what they’re actually going to do, which reinforces this view that they are good at rhetoric but very, very poor at follow through.

There’s been reference, as we had at the Environment Committee, about the zero carbon bill, and I suspect that’s getting close, and I watch with interest the shaking hands of New Zealand First as they have to sign it off as it goes through Cabinet, trying to marry the commitments they’ve made to their rural sector versus what they’re prepared to support in terms of commitments for the future of this country. I wait with interest to see how that unfolds.

But, specifically in the select committee, we were discussing the interim climate change reports, both of which were signalled by the chief executive to be made public by the end of April. One of them related to the move to 100 percent renewable energy generation, and the second, of course: whether or how agriculture gets included in an emissions trading scheme. Of course, silence. We know those reports have been landed. We know those reports have been finalised. But unlike the commitment made by Vicky Robertson at that select committee, there is still no public disclosure of what is in that report.

💬 Hon Scott Simpson: Why?

Exactly, Mr Simpson—why? So here we have a scenario where, only a few weeks ago, we’re told explicitly at the select committee to expect those critical pieces of thinking to be made public and discussed and reflected on, and instead they sit behind a wall of silence of the Government who, yet again, is trying to find out how on earth three hands hold the pen at the same time—with great difficulty; with great difficulty.

It’s interesting, when we reflect on some of the conversations that we had in a climate change context—and I build on the very good contribution from Sarah Dowie, my colleague just before—that whenever we have a conversation, as we did with the conservation area representatives, there is a complete aversion to the opportunity of using biotech and gene editing for the future challenges that sit in front of this country. We posed the questions. We’ve posed them at the select committee, and we pose them here in this House. Despite the fact that Professor Gluckman has made it very clear that any attempt or ambition that we might have in the climate change space to reduce our emissions over the next 10, 20, 30 years is utterly dependent on using world’s best technology wherever it comes from, being open to all ideas, all innovation—because that is the secret of enabling New Zealand agriculture to thrive and feed the world—that side says no; they’re not interested. They’re only interested in science that supports their political narrative. They’re not interested in the interests of people of rural New Zealand, which takes me to the last issue that we traversed at the select committee that is covered in our report: urban-rural divide.

If there is a singular issue that we can see coming forward in this House that talks to this Government’s inability to deeply understand provincial New Zealand, it’s the response to the questions that we put on that issue. We were given fudge answers, that “We try to connect our Ministers with rural New Zealand”—that was the answer—“We try to connect our Ministers with rural New Zealand”. They only had Damien O’Connor, and he’s been on the job for 30 years. That’s it; the singular voice. Provincial New Zealand, the underpinning economic engine of this country, and they have to say that they try hard to connect their Ministers with rural New Zealand because they’re not naturally understanding their interests.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to rise above the negativity of the National Party and celebrate some of the things that the Department of Conservation (DOC) has done in the 2017-18 year. Today, the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services came out with their global assessment of biodiversity, yet the National Party objected to a motion in the House to recognise the seriousness of our biodiversity crisis. Yet, in—

💬 Hon Scott Simpson: That’s because the Minister didn’t follow process.

We did consult, Mr Simpson. So in that report it highlighted that a million species are threatened with extinction; 4,000 of those are in Aotearoa. It is pressures on habitat, it is pests and weeds that are a major threat to them, and we know from the work that the department presented to the Environment Committee that where the department invests in predator control, it significantly improves the prospects for threatened species.

So two of the things to celebrate in the 2017-18 year are the world’s first successful eradication of a problem butterfly—the great white butterfly, which DOC and a multi-agency team, over three years, succeeded in eradicating in the Nelson-Tasman area. That butterfly was a major threat to our native cress species—we’ve got 79 species of native cress, and 57 of those are amongst those million species at risk of extinction. The eradication also helped the horticultural industry, because the great white butterfly is a major threat to brassicas.

Another area where the department was really successful in 2017-18 was the Million Dollar Mouse programme, eradicating mice from the Antipodes Islands in the subantarctic. I was fortunate enough to go down there last February to see Reischek’s parakeet, to see the Antipodes parakeet, and to see them flourishing in the absence of mice. That was a major investment in partnership with a number of organisations from the World Wildlife Fund, to the Morgan Foundation, the Jasmine foundation, and others. It was a dedicated and committed team of DOC staff, helicopter pilots, and others that succeeded in what was a very complex island eradication project in a very challenging landscape.

DOC is investing in conservation, and this Government is investing in conservation. Unlike the National Party, objecting to motions on biodiversity, this Government, in Budget 2018, gave the biggest increase in conservation funding in 16 years, which is allowing the department to rebuild its capability and capacity. It’s allowing the department to develop ever more partnership initiatives—totally disagree with the comments of Ms Dowie—and it was recently in the Mackenzie Basin. Te Manahuna Aoraki is a major partnership between 18 leaseholders, DOC, Land Information New Zealand, Ngāi Tahu, local councils, and the New Zealand Defence Force. That ambitious project: over 300,000 hectares, investing in predator control, broom control, rowan control, rabbit control, research on how we better address threats in those high country environments, because the department and I recognise that we need to mainstream conservation. The department cannot do it on its own. It has to work with other players, it has to work with the community. Te Manahuna Aoraki and that vision for the Mackenzie Basin of reducing predators, controlling them so that we can have species like kakī, the black stilt, and so that species like the robust grasshopper thrive, is all about a partnership approach, and it’s all about a Government which recognises the seriousness of our biodiversity crisis and is investing in conservation.

This May, the department is implementing the biggest ever pest control initiative undertaken in mainland New Zealand in response to the mega mast year; $38 million being spent to control rats and stoats, in response to the mast year. I do thank and congratulate the select committee for its unanimous support of 1080 as a tool to control predators. This is what was going to be totally necessary if we are to protect our bird species from going extinct regionally, to protect insects like the giant land snail. The department, over a million hectares, 12 percent of the conservation estate—this Government has secured the funding for Tiakina Ngā Manu, or Battle for our Birds; under the last National Government, that was insecure year by year. So we recognise the seriousness of the biodiversity crisis, and we’re investing in a range of initiatives to tackle that. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. There we had it—right at the end of the Minister of Conservation’s contribution, her acknowledgement that 1080, in her opinion, is the answer to all of our problems. The reason that we get this from the Minister is because she has put the handbrake, effectively, on Predator Free 2050. Can I just acknowledge the previous National Government for that initiative—that incredible initiative, that big, hairy audacious goal that we put out there that we are striving to achieve that this Minister has, effectively, put the handbrake on.

I’m so pleased that she took a call before me, because it leads me so nicely into my contribution today, because I want to turn to the review that I found the most interesting, and that is from Predator Free 2050. The discussion that we had, in particular, was around the use of biotechnology by Predator Free 2050 in reaching their goals, and in that we took the officials back to some comments that they made a year ago, specifically around the use of biotechnology in ridding our country of these pests, these stoats, rats, and possums, to stop them killing our forests, and killing our birds.

The question was around the support from this Minister in the use of technological solutions in the area of biotechnology, and the answer that was given a year ago was “She’s given us support in regards to the strategy that we’re undertaking”, and we went on to ask “So she hasn’t issued any instructions that you’re not to proceed with the advancement of technological solutions?”, and the official replied, “No”. Two weeks after we asked that question, a mere two weeks, the Minister did a complete flip—a complete 180—and sent a letter, a directive, to Predator Free 2050, and she said to them, “Cease and desist. We don’t want you even looking at it.”

Now, fast-forward to just recently, when we had Predator Free 2050 back in front of our select committee, and we said to those officials, “What changed?”, and they mentioned specifically that directive—they mentioned specifically that directive. They brought up the letter of direction, and they admitted to the committee, they said to us, that it came completely out of the blue. They were blindsided. And no wonder. Two weeks earlier—imagine this—they had the full support and commitment of the Minister for the programme that they were working to in terms of technology, and then two weeks later a cease and desist letter, a complete flip.

We on this side of the House acknowledge that we have a massive problem, and it’s not the million mice, it’s not the butterflies; it’s the stoats, it’s the weasels, it’s the possums, and it’s the rats, and if we are to even start to think about Predator Free 2050, we have to have more tools in our toolbox than just simply dropping 1080 on our land, which is what this Minister wants to do. The only thing in her little tool box is these traps and 1080, and we know very well from the officials and from Predator Free 2050 themselves that this is only going to keep a lid on things at best. They admitted in our select committee, when we had them there in front of us—they admitted to us that they will need more tools in their tool box to achieve this very big goal, and just dropping more poison is not going to be the answer.

For the Minister to get up today and talk about the loss of biodiversity and about the pests being this major threat and how terrible it all is and how 1080 is the answer is absolutely appalling, because we heard from Predator Free 2050, we’ve heard from the experts. I don’t think there’s anyone out there who thinks that these tools on their own are going to get us to Predator Free 2050. This Minister has put an absolute handbrake on these poor officials and, you could say, tried to dance around the issue, but it was clear from their answers that they were going down a specific track, they knew the tools that they needed—

💬 Hon Scott Simpson: Ideological handbrake.

—it was an ideological handbrake; thank you, Mr Simpson—and yet, two weeks later from that original answer a year ago, this Minister drops a bombshell on them: cease and desist that one thing that you know is going to get there.

And they’re not saying, “Let’s do it.” This Minister isn’t saying, “Don’t do it at all.” She’s telling them, “Don’t even look at it, don’t even research it, don’t put a cent into even thinking about it. Just keep dropping poison on our forests.” That’s what this Minister is saying: “Let’s not look at new technologies.” Despite what other members of her Green Party say, that technology is going to be the future—not in this Minister’s mind.