Estimates Debate — Environment Sector

Members, I understand the responsible Ministers are available to speak to the Votes in the environment sector. Again, the question is that Vote Conservation, Vote Environment, and Vote Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment stand part of the Schedules.

Tēnā koe, Mr Chairman. Look, first of all, I just want to start on a sombre note. It arose in our Estimates hearings that Dr Edward Hearnshaw, who had provided advice to the Environment Committee, tragically died in the Ruahine Forest Park. He was an economist who provided us very useful advice on climate change. I just wanted to take this moment to record that and record the sadness of his passing. He worked with the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment.

The Estimates were, as always, a useful insight into the operations of both conservation and environment. Conservation provoked particular interest, given the COVID circumstances. One of the points that came up was the loss of income from the conservation and tourism levy, and also the issue of concession fees. At that time, there had been some media attention around concession fees and the fact that, obviously, concession operators didn’t have the income, in some cases, to meet them—and I note for the record that that has now been addressed by the Minister, giving considerable relaxation and forgiveness of those fees.

Other things that were of particular interest—and I know some other members will touch on other matters, but the whitebait regulations and the progression of that was of considerable interest as well, along with the forever relevant and pertinent Himalayan tahr situation, and that matter has been addressed by the court. It was very good to see the Minister of Conservation, the Hon Eugenie Sage, committed to the preservation of our fragile alpine environments.

In respect of the environment Vote, there are a number of matters that stood out there, as well. Really, the headline issue there is the freshwater initiatives, and that has, obviously, seen considerable progress under this Minister, and also the Minister was questioned and may want to touch on the cost-benefit analysis of those freshwater initiatives and the fact that the cost-benefit analysis made it clear that it was a net gain to embark on this, particularly due to positive health effects, cleaner water, and less water-borne disease, and also some other things that weren’t taken into account, such as the clean, green brand of New Zealand that is going to be enhanced through this—so, arguably, the costs are lesser and the benefits are even greater, again.

Obviously, the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management was a key matter and those issues of winter grazing and also nitrogen levels. There was some discussion around the amount of nitrogen, whether the balance had been struck at 190 kilograms of nitrogen per hectare, per year, whether that was the right amount—the general sense seems to be that it is. It’s fair to say that whilst some croppers thought it should be greater, there was an equally large body of opinion that suggested that, in fact, it was too great, indeed.

The other thing that the Minister may want to talk about is the progress of resource management legislation. Obviously, there has been some work in this space throughout the course of this Parliament. Some discussion in the select committee existed around the progress of the inquiry into the Resource Management Act and where that’s at, and, indeed, some discussion around what the shape of that might be like, as well as the COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Bill with those 11 projects which have been—or greater than 11 now—fast tracked.

Also relevant, of course, was the headliner of climate change, the fact that the Climate Change Response Act and the emissions trading scheme is well in place, and the regulations now, which will be actually implementing those, will be coming. I’m interested to know any movement there.

There was some discussion around the Green Investment Fund, another fund which, rightly, was pointed out that it has taken a while to get the money into the public sphere, but it was good to see the Wellington announcement come out in respect of greening the port, making Wellington port carbon neutral.

So, overall, very useful. All of the Ministers came to the party, answered very fulsomely the questions put from both sides of the table. There was also just some discussion around climate change adaptation and how that will be addressed, what kind of legislative instruments will be part of, perhaps, the next Parliament, and what the Minister’s thinking is around there.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I think the select committee chair has accurately and fulsomely summed up the Estimates hearings. One Minister we didn’t hear from was the Associate Minister for the Environment. She did, however, come and brief us subsequently on her delegated responsibilities for waste and waste minimisation, which we certainly appreciated, and it was a good opportunity to hear from the Associate Minister. So thank you very much for having done that, Minister.

One of the questions that I don’t think was properly answered at the Estimates hearing by the Minister sitting in the chair relates to a commitment, a very clear and concise commitment, in the Speech from the Throne. And when quizzed about it at the select committee, I don’t think the Minister gave it an adequate answer. So I’m hoping that he will be able to give a more fulsome and detailed analysis tonight. I quote from the Speech from the Throne, where it says, amongst other things, “Commercial users who profit from bottling water and exporting it overseas will pay a royalty.” Clearly, that hasn’t happened. There has been no implementation of such a royalty, and I’m hoping the Minister can now give us a more detailed explanation than he was able to do at select committee.

I’m happy to essentially say what I said at select committee, which is that concerns about exported water in bottles, which is amongst the most pristine water in our country, don’t really relate to environmental effects. The quantities are small, and the effects on the environment are less adverse than many other abstractions of water for other uses. But the concerns for New Zealanders really relate to whether it’s fair that that water should be exported overseas without any financial return to New Zealanders with the use of that water. I explained to the committee that there are pros and cons in proceeding with a levy on bottled water without looking at wider issues relating to water, including whether you might create problems in the Crown Māori relationship dealing with that particular aspect of water allocation in advance of others.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Sadly, that was no more fulsome in terms of an explanation than the Minister did give at select committee. So I guess we’ll keep asking questions about that in other forums.

Another issue that arose at the select committee was a discussion around elite soils and urban development and the decision that the Minister has taken to make some changes in regard to that. When it was put to the Minister in the select committee that there had been a commitment to remove the Auckland urban boundary, the report from the select committee says, “The Minister did not accept that suggestion, but said the Government was ‘relaxing it’.”

Now, since that hearing, I’ve had an opportunity to go back again and check very carefully the exact wording that was in the Speech from the Throne, and the Speech from the Throne says: “This Government will remove the Auckland urban growth boundary.” It’s emphatic; there is no hint of anything other than that being a firm and very committed promise. And I want to know from the Minister why his Government hasn’t taken any steps to remove the Auckland urban growth boundary as promised in the Speech from the Throne.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. My point of order is that this is a debate about the Estimates of Appropriations. I’m not sure that policy issues such as the urban growth boundary do relate to the Estimates hearings.

It’s a debating point.

Mr Chairman, I’m happy to respond briefly. We have just promulgated a change to the National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity, which does have the effect of relaxing that urban boundary in respect of planned changes that will be necessary for councils facing high rates of population growth. It both encourages good urban form by encouraging the natural intensification that will occur but for strict plan rules preventing it and also in respect of planning for growth. Growing centres will require councils to consider whether they’ve got their zone boundaries correct.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to change the topic slightly to climate change, if that’s all right with the Minister. This Government came into office with the self-imposed title of being the greenest Government ever. And we all have noted that our emissions have continued to rise during this Government’s term of office. Now, the transport sector is the fastest growing source of our emissions and yet here we are in a perfectly placed country with 85 percent renewable energy to tackle that low-hanging fruit when it comes to the uptake of electric vehicles (EVs).

Now, in 2016, the Minister will well know that the National Government put in place some very practical steps to increase the uptake. We removed the road user charges and we had a target of doubling the EV fleet every year. The first year, 2016 to 2017, it was a 143 percent uptake—an increase. In this Government’s term it’s increased between 2017 and 2018 by 50 percent, and then in 2018 to 2019 by 25 percent. So the increase in uptake is dramatically decreasing. This is despite the Government’s policies of 100 percent Government fleet of EVs by 2025, the clean car standard, the “feebate”, which was a poorly thought out highly punitive policy.

My questions to this Minister are: via the Estimates what has this Government done in terms of the Government fleet? So how many electric vehicles are in the Government fleet and why has that promise not been met? How many EVs are in New Zealand now and why has the uptake slowed so dramatically? What policies has this Government implemented and what have they spent to increase the uptake of electric vehicles? And would the Minister actually agree that, in terms of practical steps to increase the uptake of EVs and reduce our emissions, this Government has failed to offer any solutions to increase uptake of electric vehicles in New Zealand, despite their hand-wringing and their claims of a climate crisis and this climate change being the nuclear-free moment?

Government procurement sits within the portfolio of economic development, climate change emissions within the climate change Minister’s remit, and transport fleets with the transport Minister’s remit, and I’m none of those. I’m the Minister for the Environment.

Notwithstanding the very excellent questions posed by my colleague the member for East Coast Bays, Erica Stanford, the Minister in the chair is responsible for this package of Estimate’s debates, which does include climate change. There was some discussion at the select committee about the relative merits of at some future point separating climate change responsibilities, in terms of Cabinet responsibility, away from this environment package. So the Minister should be in a position to answer questions relating to the climate change portion of this Estimates debate and this appropriation hearing.

It’s on that note that I want to ask a question about the Green Investment Fund. At the time we had the hearing, some 560 days after the formation of the Green Investment Fund, there had been not one single investment made. There had been lots of international travel, there had been the setting up of a lavish and well decorated and furnished building and office facility in central Wellington, and there had been a lavish, grand, cocktail party—an opening—but no single investments. And then the very day after, I think it was, that the select committee heard from the climate change Minister, a modest announcement was made of a $15 million investment to CentrePort in Wellington. And my question to the Minister in the chair is why did it take the Green Investment Fund so long to make even a modest investment? And why was it that CentrePort was the chosen recipient of the funding when the Ports of Auckland has essentially done exactly the same thing but using their own funding stream? Here we have a situation where the Wellington port company, or CentrePort, is the beneficiary and the recipient of Government largesse and an investment from the Green Investment Fund but other ports around the country essentially decarbonising their operations have not been so privileged to receive that kind of investment funding, and they’re doing it off their own bat. I’m keen to know why.

Mr Chairman, the Minister for Climate Change, James Shaw, I think, told the committee, and I can confirm, that the experience of creating other green investment funds around the world is that it does take some two years to set up the institution and make the commercial arrangements necessary to begin making investments. As the member who has just taken his chair, the Hon Scott Simpson, has recorded, since the select committee met the first investments have been approved.

In terms of transformative investments that are being advanced in coming years, I was with the Minister for Energy and Resources on Sunday when we announced a feasibility study into a project to consider creating a giant battery in Lake Onslow, taking water from the Clutha River, pumping it up into an enlarged Lake Onslow, and releasing it back through a hydro generation facility, and thereby creating both dry year reserve and reserve against the intermittency, which would help decarbonise New Zealand’s electricity, reduce reliance on Huntly, which produces our most expensive electricity, and would also lead to a future, many billions of dollars over the years, of investment in intermittent renewables, which are likely to be the key to the decarbonisation of New Zealand’s economy more broadly, including in industrial heat and transport. That feasibility study will look at alternatives, but I think could make a huge difference to the energy and environmental future of our country.

Just sort of following on from matters generally relating to climate change, the Budget documents indicate that in the preceding financial year, a sum of over $400 million was received by the Government in terms of the emissions trading scheme (ETS) contributions that went into the consolidated fund. That was at a point when the carbon price was kept at $25 dollars, and since the changes that this Government has introduced to the ETS have been promulgated, a carbon price today, I think I had a look, was in excess of $33 a tonne. So the funding stream that will eventually find its way into the Government consolidated fund is going to grow and even more so, potentially, when the trigger point that will get the cost containment reserve triggered is likely to occur if carbon gets to $50 dollars a tonne. What I’m keen to know from the Minister is: what’s his view about how that money should be invested? Should it be hypothecated, should it go into the consolidated fund, or should it be ring fenced, in his view, for other items that relate specifically to carbon emission reduction?

Those decisions are for a future Government. We haven’t taken those decisions. From the point of view of Treasury, the remission of or exercising the emitter’s right to use the fixed-price option and pay the Government, who then takes on the emissions liability—from the point of view of Treasury, there’s a future liability for the Crown to take responsibility for those emissions that were previously the responsibility for the emitter. So Treasury would disagree that all that money should be remitted on emission reducing projects. But those issues will need to be considered in the future.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I would like to chat with the Minister for the Environment for a while, if he doesn’t mind, about the waste sector. We did get a briefing from the Associate Minister Eugenie Sage this year, which was almost as good as having her in for Estimates, but that’s all right.

I wanted to chat with the Minister about the problem with plastics in this country—well, the problem that we have with waste in terms of the lack of overseas markets that we have to get rid of that anymore, because of the fact that there are countries who have closed their doors to taking our waste; the fact that it was, and is, still being stockpiled in this country and, in fact, for the most part now, those plastics are being sent to landfill, because of the inability to recycle them here.

Again, with the Government’s claim of being the greenest Government ever, I was keen to hear what the plans are for onshore recycling in this country, and what the Government have done in their aim to get rid of some of the plastics in New Zealand rather than sending them to landfill, and, specifically, whether or not the Minister in the chair believes that we should be investigating a waste-to-energy option. I know that the Associate Minister is vehemently opposed to waste-to-energy, but I’m keen to know whether or not this Minister believes that there should be some investment, and thorough investigations, into the technology that’s available these days, and whether or not the New Zealand landscape would suit a waste-to-energy scheme.

I think that it’s true that most New Zealanders now realise that New Zealand hasn’t done a particularly good job of taking responsibility for our own waste streams. Until very recently, we used to send it overseas. Quite often, it was poorly sorted, and the waste streams were degraded, with either glass being mixed in with plastic or paper, or different grades of plastic being mixed together. As a consequence, various overseas countries—in my opinion, wisely—have closed their borders to those sorts of low-quality waste streams, which has had the effect of forcing developed countries—like New Zealand, Australia, and various other countries—to take responsibility for dealing with their own waste streams, and we’re in the process of trying to advance plans to do that.

The Associate Minister, Eugenie Sage, has already made significant steps during this three-year term—including banning single-use plastic bags—and has advanced various other projects to advance better dealing with waste, and she has more announcements planned soon in that regard. It’s also notable that some of the options being explored are being funded by the Provincial Growth Fund.

There’s also decisions being taken to, over time, increase the waste levy—which has not moved for a long time—to create an additional pool of money for both central and local government to use to better manage those waste streams. I would be quite hopeful that in the future, in the years to come, we’re actually going to do a lot better in that regard. I know that Minister Sage, as well as myself, have inspected some of the facilities overseas, in order to get an idea as to how much better things can be done than is currently the case in New Zealand.

💬 Erica Stanford: Waste-to-energy?

If I could, just in respect to the waste-to-energy, there may be some small residue at the end of that that it is wise to use for energy. But the better course is to reuse as much of it as possible, rather than draw more oil out of the ground, convert it into plastic, and send it into the air with climate change effects.

Thank you very much. I want to acknowledge the Minister in the chair, David Parker. I think the discussion so far has been very fruitful. I’ve got a few questions around elite soils and also the national policy statement (NPS) for fresh water. I’m interested in two aspects: where the elite soil processes up to in terms of protecting those soils into the future, and that dovetails nicely into the NPS for fresh water, where, effectively, there’s been a carve-out for the likes of Pukekohe and Horowhenua growers and a few others, I think, possibly around the country.

So my first question is: how did the Minister get to that point, I guess, so slowly? Was it to do with COVID, where everyone realised that, suddenly, producing food in this country was essential and if the Government did go hard on particularly nitrogen levels, DIN levels—dissolved inorganic nitrogen levels—then that would mean that there wouldn’t be any leafy greens. In particular, my patch around Levin, they produce about 30 percent of the leafy greens across New Zealand, and I know Pukekohe also has a larger amount that’s produced up there. So I guess the first question is around the elite soils. Where is that process up to? The Minister’s talked a lot about that.

Second question is: why didn’t the Minister, if he was going to make the decision that he has made, not allow the discussion document to run and cause a whole lot of anxiety and angst amongst horticulture growers, and rule that out at the start? I know that he has made the decision. He’s been up in my patch recently, and I commend him for doing that—meeting with iwi, growers, the council, and the like. I’m interested a bit more in how he foresees the future of Lake Horowhenua, starting and maintaining the momentum that we created under the National Government with several pools of funding to try and start the process of cleaning up Lake Horowhenua—what the Minister’s views are on that going forward into the future. Both of those aspects—or, actually, the three of them are all aligned: the elite soils around Lake Horowhenua, the carve-out for the NPS fresh water around the nitrogen levels, and Government support—working constructively with our local government, the Horowhenua District Council and also the Horizons Regional Council.

It’s interesting. Another point that dovetails into that as well is the One Plan, because 60 growers, as I understand it at the moment, in the Horizons region, which is a very large region—almost up to Whanganui, across to the coast, on the East Coast at Ākitio, down to south of Levin; so it is a massive area. So we’ve got 60 growers currently, as I understand it, who are unable to get a resource consent and meet the nitrogen levels under the One Plan. So there are four questions there that I would appreciate the Minister addressing. Thank you.

I’ll do my best to answer those questions. In respect of the point about the NPS on elite soils, the reason for that is if you’re going to rely less on hard urban boundaries for reasons of wanting to have competitive land markets, you do create a risk that you will have subdivisional pressure or additional subdivisional pressure on soils that are better kept for future vegetable production. So the view that we took was that they need to be better protected through a national policy statement, which we have under development.

💬 Hon Nathan Guy: What’s your timing on that, Minister?

Well, it won’t be delivered before the election, but it will be delivered either by us or the next Government. If it isn’t us—if we were unlucky enough not to be elected—that would fall to the next Government to finish off. In respect of how you do it, you actually do need to get down to quite a granular level and actually look at it on maps, and we’re in the process of doing that.

In respect of the vegetable production issues relating to nitrate toxicity, after consultation, we did decide that it was not feasible to have a nitrate toxicity level of 2.4, which is what the national policy statement requires for nitrate toxicity as proposed to be updated. The current standard’s 6.9—2.4 is entirely appropriate for just about the whole of the country, but it’s unachievable in both Horowhenua and the Pukekohe region. The main stream that leads into Lake Horowhenua, or the river, currently has a nitrate toxicity level of over 10—I think it’s 10.

💬 Hon Nathan Guy: The Arawata.

The Arawata Stream—thank you. Modelling that we did—because we did some very intensive modelling in this—showed that even if there was, I think it was, a 40 percent decrease in the area of vegetables and a 40 percent decrease in the area of dairying within that catchment, there would still only be a decrease in nitrate concentrations in that stream of about 30 percent—i.e., it would be at around 6.9, which is what the old target was, but nowhere close to the 2.4 proposed.

That left Government with a choice of pretending we could get there—we’re not into pretence—completely closing down all vegetable production and dairying in the region, and even then it’s unclear that you’d have got to 2.4. The third choice would’ve been to have a higher standard than 2.4 for the whole of the country—you wouldn’t have needed exceptions, but you’d have had an inappropriately lax level for the whole of the country to deal with those discrete problems in Pukekohe and Horowhenua—or to have some other regime for Horowhenua and Pukekohe.

Now, it’s a matter of some concern to two iwi groups within Horowhenua that there could be an exception to their area, and I understand their concern in that for far too long they’ve had to put up with Lake Horowhenua effectively being a dumping ground for pollutants from that catchment that they’ve had to put up with ruining their lake. So we’re determined to improve things in Lake Horowhenua, and we are considering whether our revised proposal to have a complete exemption for ever to the nitrate toxicity level is appropriate or whether there should be some narrower form of interim exemption which none the less sustains vegetable production, which, of course, we need for human health. There aren’t that many places that we can grow those leafy greens that we all need to have a healthy diet at an affordable price, particularly in winter.

I understand there’s a new Minister coming to the Table for conservation.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I have several lines of questioning for the Minister. I first want to acknowledge the work that the Hon Eugenie Sage has been doing in the conservation space and also to acknowledge with gratitude the way in which the Minister is open to engaging with myself, particularly over local issues. It is appreciated.

My first line of questioning is around the Jobs for Nature programme, which was announced and discussed at the Estimates for Vote Conservation—just noting that there was an allocation to the Department of Conservation (DOC) of $200 million to go through to 2022-23. That was establishing the Jobs for Nature fund and for DOC to partner with councils and tourism businesses, iwi, hapū, and communities to provide temporary nature-based jobs. Now, we know that those jobs will be for a period of up to three years. I am interested in not the nature of the jobs, because the Minister set out those—so it was planting, weed control, wetland restoration, that sort of thing. What I’m interested in is the fact that there is $200 million allocated. I would like to know, and have an update on, the percentage of that allocation which is going to different organisations by way of overheads, which—I am interested in—would include things like training fees. Will there be new equipment necessary to be purchased? Will there be additional support for a workforce which, essentially, has gone from, for example, baristas to wetland restoration?

Given the nature of these jobs which are temporary, for a period, what is the average period that the Minister is expecting people to stay in those jobs? Is it until tourism picks up enough again in Fiordland, for example, or in Queenstown or in Rotorua, for example, so that those baristas go back into the hospitality industry? What then? Is there another round of training? Is there another round of uniforms and kit? I would like the Minister to update us on the percentage of that $200 million which goes into all of those overheads versus the percentage which goes into shovels in the ground.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you for the question. The Department of Conservation was allocated $200 million, as part of the Budget, for Jobs for Nature. That is part of a much wider Government programme of $1.3 billion involving the Department of Conservation, Land Information New Zealand, the Ministry for the Environment, and the Ministry for Primary Industries. Those four agencies are working together in order to deliver 11,000 jobs across Aotearoa.

In terms of the programme within the department, which has been renamed Kaimahi for Nature to separate it out from the more general Jobs for Nature, those jobs, as the member noted, are expected to be temporary. Some of the jobs will be provided by businesses themselves, and in the Queenstown area, for example, some of the tourism businesses’ staff are being employed on track cutting and the like. In South Westland, a number of former employees of tourism businesses in Franz Josef and Fox Glacier are out doing work like upgrading and maintaining the tracks.

So, where they’re working for the department, they’re generally using the equipment that the department provides. There is on-the-job training for others who are employed by contractors. It has enabled some forestry contractors to increase the number of staff that they employ. They provide on-the-job training. And, of course, there is also the $1.6 billion which Government has made available for apprenticeships and trade and other training. So there is the ability to integrate with that.

The department, for its part of Jobs for Nature, is working with other agencies for regional alliances, working alongside regional councils, hapū and iwi, and community organisations to prioritise the types of jobs which should be delivered in the regions and to enable people to fit into those structures as well, so they can also provide training.

In terms of the average period, the funding only started on 1 July. There have been some dozens of jobs provided already. If the member would like to put down a question for written answer, we can provide the detail about the average period, but it is expected that people will move through these jobs and go back into more permanent employment when tourism picks up or when other areas of the economy improve.

With regards to concession fees for tourism operators, there was an announcement very shortly after the Estimates examination around—and some confusion which surrounded that, because the Prime Minister appeared to announce that concessionaires didn’t have to worry about paying any fees. Yet when the detail emerged, the situation was quite different, and concessionaires started to get accounts coming through the mail fairly soon after the announcement, which seemed, from this side of the Chamber, to be a very unfortunate situation, and quite undermining for the Minister, where she, I would understand, was taking a slightly more pragmatic view. Yet the Prime Minister of the day announced something quite different.

So leaving that embarrassment aside, could the Minister outline to the Chamber—we understand that concession fees can include fixed annual management and monitoring fees, as well as the activity fee, which, of course, we understand is calculated as a percentage of revenue. There is not much revenue, so those fees are very little or nothing. But could the Minister outline to me the nature of the fees that are continuing to be charged to concessionaires throughout this period?

Mr Chair, thank you. So there was no embarrassment here. What the Prime Minister announced is what is happening. The member will be aware that in some areas, as in her electorate, in Aoraki/Mount Cook National Park, the Department of Conservation acts as the local authority. It collects the rubbish in the area. Similarly, at Whakapapa in Tongariro National Park, the department provides waste-water systems. So those fees do continue, because as when ratepayers pay rates, they’re paying for those services that are provided, similarly here, those fees continue.

Concession fees have been waived, but, as the member also knows, under the Public Finance Act, it is incumbent on the department to send out invoices. The department couldn’t simply decide not to charge for fees that were due to it. So with the waiving from 1 March through to the end of the financial year, the department is recognising that there is significant pressure on concessionaires. It’s providing this cash-flow benefit by waiving the concession fees. Initially, some operators, because of the cash-flow pressures, were seeking to have their activity fees pre-COVID waived as well.

Thank you, Mr Chair. In 2014, the Government of the time, as the Minister will know, established a marine reserve—39 percent of the territorial sea around the Campbell Islands to protect marine species and their habitat. Now, obviously the Minister’s well aware that this legislation required an independent review within five years to consider whether or not the remaining 61 percent should be included in that reserve as well. Now, in February the recommendation by the consultant was clearly that the Minister should extend that marine reserve, and the decision was due in March—so the decision took a while to come through; it wasn’t until June.

The questions I have for the Minister are: why was the decision delayed? What was the reason for the decision against the consultant’s clear recommendations? How much influence did the fishing industry have on this? Did the Minister herself want to protect the remaining 61 percent, and why didn’t she? And is this indicative of a wider problem in terms of a lack of progress with any other marine reserves in her term, for example, the Kermadecs? I’ll leave it at that just for now. I’ve got more questions relating to a slightly different topic, but if the Minister would like to speak to those questions, that would be appreciated.

Mr Chair, thank you. So certainly the legislation did provide for an independent review, and that review did recommend that the reserve be extended to—the independent review, there was a decision that had to be made by myself and the Minister of Fisheries. Ngāi Tahu raised some concerns, and the Minister of Fisheries, in response to those concerns, did not agree to the extension, so it did not proceed. That has been stated publicly, so it should have been known.

In terms of the influence of the fishing industry: in the marine space, the fishing industry is obviously a significant stakeholder. We have, working with the Minister of Fisheries, significantly strengthened the threat management plan for Hector’s and Māui dolphins; are in the process of expanding marine mammal sanctuaries, improving the protections so that those sanctuaries are not Clayton’s sanctuaries, as they were under the former Government; and to ban seabed mining and seismic surveys, except for current interests in those sanctuaries. I reject the assertion that we’re not making progress on marine protection.

The south-east marine protected areas are out for public consultation until early August. That was interrupted by COVID. That is implementing the recommendations of the collaborative group. In the Hauraki Gulf, this Government has moved—myself and the Minister of Fisheries—to establish a ministerial advisory committee to provide advice on the recommendations that came out of Tai Timu Tai Pari, the Hauraki Gulf sea change plan. Those recommendations are expected shortly, so looking forward to them. So there is certainly progress in terms of marine mammal sanctuaries, the South-east Otago, and work being done in terms of policy work that’s needed to reform our marine protected areas legislation. There is a programme of work that is well under way.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Leading on from that, it seems that the answer from the Minister in the chair, the Hon Eugenie Sage, is indicating that there has been some real to-ing and fro-ing between her and the Minister of Fisheries, and it seems that the Minister of Fisheries has won out, because we haven’t had any new marine reserves in three years. But I guess the way that leads into my next question is that we’ve got 15,000, I think it is—if I remember correctly—seabirds dying every year, and I want to know what the Minister’s opinion is on cameras on fishing boats, because I think that—

💬 Hon Scott Simpson: She used to like them.

She used to like them—that’s true, Mr Simpson. She used to like them. She used to advocate for them, but in the three years, we’ve seen hardly any additional cameras on fishing boats, and our seabirds—especially some of those that are very threatened—continue to perish. It would be helpful for the Minister to explain to us: is it the same to-ing and fro-ing with the Minister of Fisheries and the fishing interests with certain parties in her governing arrangements that are pushing back against having cameras on fishing boats to protect our seabirds?

The member should be aware of the revision of the National Plan of Action—Seabirds 2020. There is a new vision statement in that document about working to reduce to zero the bycatch of seabirds, because too many seabirds are dying in fishing nets. This Government has also, through Budget 2018 and the significant increase in funding for biodiversity, enabled Te Papa Atawhai to employ fisheries liaison officers, who work with the masters of individual fishing vessels to ensure that they have got in place the tori lines and the other measures to reduce seabird bycatch—so that is individualised working with fisheries vessels.

So the work on the national plan of action on seabirds was done with the Minister of Fisheries. We worked together on issues of mutual interest, and we have significantly strengthened that plan and have a goal of working towards the zero bycatch of seabirds.

Vote Conservation, Vote Environment, and Vote Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment agreed to.

External Sector