Annual Review Debate — Environment, and Oceans and Fisheries

Tēnā koe, Madam Chair. I’m very pleased to introduce the annual review 2020-21 debate on the environment sector, with a very brief summary of the Environment Committee’s examination of performance of Predator Free New Zealand, the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA), the Climate Change Commission, the Ministry for the Environment, and the Department of Conservation.

The Environmental Protection Authority spent $33.2 million last year. And the committee noted that 2020-21 was the fourth year in which the EPA has operated a deficit budget model, and has been funding its work programme from reserves. And while the EPA received an additional $1 million to reassess the regulatory controls on chemicals, we heard that the authority was only able to reassess nine of the 43 substances on its priority chemicals list—all of them synthetic pyrethroids as well as hydrogen cyanamide.

Moving on to Manatū Mō Te Taiao—Ministry for the Environment. In contrast to the EPA, the Ministry for the Environment had 30 percent more revenue in 2020-21, up to $124 million, with spending of $119 million. And it had more than 150 additional full-time staff compared to the previous year. This increased funding recognises that the ministry is responsible for major reforms in climate change, resource management, waste, and fresh water. And the committee questioned and discussed with the Environment Secretary issues in each of these areas. One of the suggestions the Auditor-General made was that the ministry improve the links between how it measures the impacts of its work and the environmental outcomes that it seeks to achieve. On climate change, we heard that the ministry had heard more than 10,000 public submissions on policy proposals for the emissions reduction plan, and that, of course, is due to be released by the end of May this year.

The Primary Sector Climate Action Partnership—He Waka Eke Noa—is also due to provide its recommendations to the Government in May on the design of a farm-level emissions pricing system for implementation by 2025. The ministry told us that it was both working with the He Waka Eke Noa partnership while also preparing for the backstop option of agriculture coming into the emissions trading scheme (ETS) at a 95 percent free allocation if this is required. And committee members raised the concerns of rural communities about the effects of carbon farming and offsetting through planting permanent pine forests and changes to the ETS settings there. And we certainly heard that the ministry recognised the importance of having an equitable transition strategy as we shift to a low-emissions economy.

Moving to He Pou a Rangi—the Climate Change Commission. Like the Ministry for the Environment, the Climate Change Commission has engaged in substantial public consultation. It received and analysed more than 15,000 submissions on its draft advice to Government on how Aotearoa should reach our 2025 emissions targets. And that public feedback contributed to the commission’s 33 recommendations in Ināia tonu nei: a low emissions future for Aotearoa. So here the committee questioned and discussed the modelling and analysis, which supported the commission’s recommendations, the processes for offshore mitigation, given the current 100 million tonne deficit in emissions reduction from domestic action, which will need to be met through offshore mitigation. We looked at the performance of the ETS and the policy measures which complement the ETS, because it alone can’t achieve the level of emissions reduction that is required to meet our targets and budgets: measures such as the Clean Car Discount, possible biodiversity credits, and how we discourage deforestation of pre-1990 forests. And the commission noted that it is still developing the systems and processes that it needs to report on all the performance measures in its statement of expectations.

And with Te Papa Atawhai—Department of Conservation—they had a 14 percent increase in revenue last year, up to $590 million. And for the third year running, the Auditor-General noted that the department’s management control environment needs improvement, and we heard that the department was rolling out a $62 million corporate services work programme to improve performance here. And we had very wide-ranging discussions with the new director-general, Penny Nelson. And the committee also invited both the ministry and Te Papa Atawhai for a joint hearing and examination of Mahi mō te Taiao—Jobs for Nature.

I thank the select committee staff, the Office of the Auditor-General, and all of the staff working in the agencies in the environment sector for their work. Kia ora.

I call on the Minister for the Environment and for Oceans and Fisheries. And can I remind members that we have 45 minutes from the beginning of the session for answers and questions with the Minister.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Can I thank the chair of the Environment Committee, the Hon Eugenie Sage, for those introductory comments and the members of the committee for their examination of the Estimates.

I won’t cover all of the issues that have been raised, but the member the Hon Eugenie Sage is correct that, in terms of additional funding there is quite a lot that’s come into the Ministry in respect of Resource Management Act (RMA) issues, where we’re proposing to repeal the RMA and put in its place the Strategic Planning Act and the Natural and Built Environments Act—the NBA. That’s a big piece of work necessary because the RMA really hasn’t met its purpose, which was to protect the environment—but also to enable development. Neither of those outcomes have been properly achieved, because the processes under it take too long and they cost too much, and they actually haven’t protected the environment across a number of domains, including water and climate-changing emissions.

In respect of waste, the member herself led a lot of this work in the last Government, of which she was in part, as the Associate Minister for the Environment, responsible for waste issues. The big changes coming through there are a container deposit scheme that we’re currently consulting upon; a standardisation of kerbside collection so that we’ve got standardisation around the country, because at the moment far too much waste ends up in recycling bins, contaminating the good stuff, degrading it, and making it more expensive to recycle, and, conversely, too much good stuff that is recyclable is ending up in the waste bins, so that’s the second main part of that strategy; and the third part is that we’ve had advice from the Climate Commission that in order to meet the methane reduction targets necessary to meet the targets that we’ve set as a Government, we do need to separate food waste and have that collected separately, because, if you just put it into a landfill, by the time a landfill is capped and methane is collected in a landfill, it’s already produced a lot of methane.

Final point I’ll make just briefly is in respect of fresh water. We’re continuing on with the implementation of the reforms that we legislated for during the last term of the election. I’m happy to answer questions on that or some of the other issues that have been raised by the member.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and I want to thank the Minister for the Environment for his introductory comments. I’ve got some questions in relation to the cornerstone legislation relating to the Natural and Built Environments Bill. Will a bill be introduced to Parliament this year, so that a full select committee process can occur?

Yes.

Is the Minister committed to a full select committee process—simultaneously or independently—for the Natural and Built Environments Bill and the Strategic Planning Bill?

Full select committee processes will be run for both; we’re not proposing to truncate them. They’re big and complex pieces of legislation, but we do expect that they will be run in parallel.

What are the reasons for the delay in the time frame for the introduction of the Natural and Built Environments Bill?

There is actually not much delay. There was an article that was in the media recently that suggests that there was substantial delay; there isn’t. We’re expecting it to be introduced for a first reading in the last quarter of this year.

Has he or his ministry shared a draft Natural and Built Environments Bill with any external stakeholders? For clarity, I’m asking about a full draft of the bill, as opposed to the exposure draft that was released last year.

You may wish to ask more questions. I call on the Hon Scott Simpson.

If he has released a full draft of the proposed new legislation, who are the stakeholders that he’s shared it with, and what has been their response, and, if they have had a full copy, when will he release a full copy to this Parliament and the New Zealand public?

Thank you, Madam Chair. There’s a long background to these reforms. There has been considerable civil society disquiet with the ineffectiveness of the Resource Management Act (RMA), both as a tool to manage and encourage appropriate development and to protect environmental bottom-lines. That civil society endeavour has included reports by the Productivity Commission, with recent reports showing that infrastructure consenting costs are 250 percent of where they were about 10 years ago, so it’s been a very costly system.

In addition to the Productivity Commission’s work, there have been independent reports by the Environmental Defence Society, in concert with the infrastructure NGO, the Property Council; and the northern Employers and Manufacturers Association, as it was then. And that led us to doing the Randerson report. The Randerson report is, essentially, the template that we’re implementing, which was our promise to the electorate, and we’re going through that process. The first half, if you like, of the core equivalence to Part 2 of the existing RMA, went to an inquiry at the Environment Committee last year. The results of the inquiry, in addition to working through all of the other issues that have arisen from a reform of it, are currently being worked through. We’ve got a cross-agency board running in respect of the Strategic Planning Bill, and it’s bringing all of the different agencies of Government, because, of course, the interests of different Government departments include transport, education, and health, as well as the Ministry for the Environment and the Department of Conservation. All that work is proceeding at pace, and it is quite complex work—it’s one of the more complex pieces of legislation on the statute book, and it’s very important that we get it right.

All of that consultation by those prior organisations—then through the Randerson panel which consulted up and down the land, including with Māoridom, but also with local authorities, NGOs, and civil society—has led us to actually getting down to doing the hard work now of putting it together and drafting it. Whilst we have had some limited consultation during this phase, including meeting our obligations at law to the Treaty partner, and working with local Government because they’re the implementation grouping, we’re actually not broadly consulting with anyone; neither are we proposing to take a finished version of the bill to anyone before we introduce it to the House and put it to the select committee, at which stage there will be a full select committee process and everyone can have another crack at submitting.

Has he received advice from officials at the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development, or Treasury, outlining their concerns that the proposed bill will not improve the efficiency of the planning system, as stated in the objectives of his cornerpiece legislative reform? Is the reason for the delay disgruntlement with some of the stakeholders, notably—or potentially—iwi, and, if so, what is the cause of their disgruntlement? Has he finally agreed definitional meanings to portions of te reo that were part of the exposure draft legislation, and, if not, when will that occur and how does he envisage that taking place?

In respect of the first question, no, there’s no disgruntlement or disagreement holding up the progression of this bill. We are working through complex issues—there are people who have different opinions on them—but that’s the task of Government: to work through those issues and come up with sound proposals. In respect of the assertion in there that there’s substantial delay—there’s not.

Thank you, Madam Chair. If I may, Minister, I’d like to ask a few questions around aquaculture. What consideration—and I’ll put them together rather than—has he given to urgently using powers under the COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Act to roll over the various salmon-farming consents, particularly at the top of the South Island, that are up for renewal in the next year, to ensure they don’t get bogged down like the wider consent application for new water space? And, aligned to that, Minister, do you accept the need for bespoke legislation, perhaps similar to how the Parliament reflected on facilitating Rocket Lab as a new industry, to enable proven aquaculture concepts, like salmon-farming, in New Zealand to proceed?

Thank you. If I don’t address all of these questions, please put them to me again because I might not have picked up all of the questions. In respect of whether we’re considering using fast track for applications, I have, as Minister for Oceans and Fisheries, excluded myself from the consideration of the fast-track application, which is in process, because I thought that it would be a bad appearance if, as Minister for Oceans and Fisheries, I made that decision as Minister for the Environment to put something through fast tracking. Instead, I delegated that decision to Minister Nash to act as Acting Minister for the Environment for the purpose of that decision, who has to act in concert with the Minister of Conservation—so we’re not closed to the idea of using fast track in respect of consenting of aquaculture space.

There is a very sad history on consenting for aquaculture; it’s been a lurch from one policy response to another—none of which have worked for 20 years. There was a gold rush under the “first in, first served” rules prior to 2008, when Labour was last in Government—we called for a moratorium. The moratorium was to allow councils to do some planning work, which they then didn’t do. The moratorium didn’t work, neither did handing it back to councils, again, because that just got bogged down under the last National Government, and that didn’t work either.

There’s been some progress on the re-consenting of existing sites in the Marlborough Sounds through a national environmental standard, which sets out some re-consenting pathways, but even that hasn’t been as successful as one had hoped for. And, this year, we’ve had this terrible instance of the effects of climate change killing lots of salmon in some of the king salmon farms in the Marlborough Sounds area, where they’ve suffered very high rates of mortality—so large that they had to make a notification to the stock exchange that this is going to have an effect on their profitability. They’re in the middle of plan hearings with the relevant councils to get new space. I did seek advice as to whether we should have some intervention—I was advised that that would actually slow things down and make things worse, rather than improve things.

So we haven’t done that but we are looking at what should be the process going forward so that we can develop an aquaculture industry, because although there are environmental concerns with aquaculture, that doesn’t mean to say that you can’t have aquaculture; it’s just got to be in the right place with the appropriate biosecurity separation and the appropriate rules surrounding it so as to minimise environmental harm, and, at the moment, the system doesn’t seem to deliver that.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just building on that, then, and relating to the second question that I’d raised, the work that the Minister has signalled is going on; is that, in his mind, likely to lead to specific bespoke legislation for aquaculture to enable future commercial opportunities to be able to proceed at far greater pace than, clearly, the challenges—I actually agree with him—that he’s outlined, over the last 10 to 15 years?

There are, essentially, three choices: more national direction under the Resource Management Act; fixing it through the national planning framework, which is the equivalent under the new legislation, which, of course, takes a while; or a combination of both, involving bespoke legislation—and a final decision hasn’t been taken on that.

Tēnā koe. The Minister will be aware that orange roughy is one of the species targeted by New Zealand bottom trawling vessels fishing in the South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management area. Like other deep-sea species, orange roughy are long-lived, living up to 120 or 130 years. They’re slow growing, they mature late, and that makes the species very vulnerable to over-fishing, and catches have certainly crashed since the 1980s because of over-fishing.

New Zealand’s annual report to the South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organisation in September last year showed that orange roughy catches in areas such as Lord Howe Rise, the Northwest Challenger bank, had dropped significantly compared to 2019 and earlier years, despite the overall number of tows increasing.

So is the Minister aware of any concerns from fisheries observers, Fisheries New Zealand, fisheries companies, or others involved in the orange roughy fishery or its management about catch rates for orange roughy, the health of orange roughy fish stocks, signs of stock decline either in New Zealand waters or the South Pacific, and, if he is aware of concerns, how are they being investigated and addressed, and will he ensure that any concerns or any other relevant information about the health of the orange roughy fishery in both New Zealand waters and the South Pacific are made public before the Deepwater Group or other fishing companies apply to the Marine Stewardship Council for recertification of orange roughy?

The member will be aware that in respect of stocks within the New Zealand exclusive economic zone (EEZ), there is a cycle of assessments of the health of those stocks. Orange roughy hasn’t been assessed under the most recent of those sustainability rounds, because we’ve just done one and it wasn’t in there. From memory, it wasn’t in the prior one. I can’t recall offhand for the House when it is scheduled to next come up, but the member is right that, in yesteryear, there were assumptions as to the abundance of that fish, and there were mistakes made, including probably the underestimation of the age of the stock and the age that they had to get to before they reproduced. Those lessons have been learnt and are now taken into account in respect of the EEZ stocks.

In respect of the offshore stocks beyond the EEZ, in the international waters that are handled through organisations like the South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organisation, that’s a slightly different process, because they don’t have our quota management system. But, again, we try to assist those bodies by providing the information that we know from the management of our own stocks in order to manage them sustainably.

Staying with oceans, in terms of the negotiations that were happening with the United Nations on a global oceans treaty and the target of some countries of protecting 30 percent of the high seas by 2030, what position on that issue, of 30 percent protection of the high seas, did Aotearoa New Zealand take to the negotiations at the United Nations? Has New Zealand been encouraged or lobbied by other countries to join that call for 30 percent protection? Has the Government consulted with our Pacific neighbours, such as Palau, which supports the call? And if the Government doesn’t support the 30 percent protection of the high seas, why not? And if the Government hasn’t made a decision yet, what are the reasons for the delay and when can we expect a decision?

Some of those issues lie within the responsibility of the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade, rather than me as Fisheries. I think that the answer, though, to assist the member, that the member got from a question to the Minister of Foreign Affairs recently was that those issues were being considered by Cabinet, and a decision is envisaged before the next meeting, when those positions have to be put by the New Zealand Government to that body.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d like turn to the Government’s Jobs for Nature programme and ask two or three questions in that regard.

First of all, Minister, there is a significant underspend in the funding that’s been allocated, and I’m keen to know what the Government’s plans are to address the underspend.

The second question relates to the way the metrics are recorded in terms of the outputs for the programme. A fairly blunt metric has been used that just seems to allocate number of people employed and number of jobs created. My question is: why is it not that the metric should be expressed in the number of paid hours worked and the duration of the employment of each person employed?

Then, finally, I’m keen to know whether there is a better measurement or why environmental outcomes other than just statistics such as X number of land under plant pest control in terms of hectares, land under animal pest control in terms of hectares, area under wilding conifer control under hectares. Why can’t there be a more sophisticated analysis of the environmental outcomes that the Government seeks to achieve and the programme has or has not achieved?

Look, I’m aware that the select committee has looked into this a little, and I’m also aware that there has been a review of this programme by a Government agency, the name of which I forget just as I stand on my feet. This project has actually been going very, very well and actually was well reviewed. It had some funding streams that were a combination of existing funding lines for the Department of Conservation and the Ministry for the Environment and the Ministry for Primary Industries and perhaps Land Information New Zealand, I think, as well. In addition to that, during the time when we thought COVID was going to have such a terribly bad economic outcome, we also had a vote of additional money from Parliament to augment those amounts to bulk it up.

The results have been outstanding in my opinion. There was an article in Stuff just within the last week from a town on the West Coast, which had its tourism industry decimated. And they made the point that they are able to make ends meet because of the Jobs for Nature employment opportunities that we created around Fox and Franz Josef. They were mainly, on that occasion, led by the Department of Conservation.

The member is right that there have been a wide range of projects funded. Some of them have been clearing wilding pines—an issue that we haven’t got under control in New Zealand, but are now making some progress on. There was money put into wallaby control; we’ve got a problem with wallabies spreading in parts of the South Island. In respect of some of the other work, there’s been a lot of work done around planting the margins of waterways. Initially, some of that was the Department of Conservation; more latterly, additional funding has been provided through the Ministry for the Environment.

As to the way in which there is a computation of jobs, you have to have something that’s robust that Opposition parties and others can critique. So there was a metric chosen of the number of hours worked, and that was computed into jobs by dividing the hours into a full-time job, and, you know, the outcomes have been very good. There have been millions and millions of plants planted around New Zealand. I was just last week at another one of these projects in respect of the Porirua Estuary. There are many tens of thousands of tonnes of sediment getting into that estuary every year, ruining the pipi beds, the mussels, and clogging the estuary up with sediment—a combination of sources, including Transmission Gully, actually, where there were quite a few breaches of their consents plus problems around some of the subdivisional activity not being done as well as it could be. And the answers to that are quite complex, including riparian margin planting plus better management of those events that create risks of sediment loss. That’s another good project.

In respect of the issue that the member asked as to whether some targets are not being met, the fencing target for the first year of the projects was 740 kilometres of fencing—sorry, the target was 942 kilometres; the actual fencing was 740 kilometres, and the recipients of funding who are contracted to do this work, and still have to do it but have been delayed in their work, said that there was a shortage in contractors, in part because the job outturn as a consequence of COVID was not as bad as was initially feared.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Minister, I’d like to ask you some questions about consenting under the Resource Management Act (RMA)—to start with, fast-track consenting. The Port of Tauranga has been trying for two years to get consent to extend its wharf, a $65 million project to expand a port facility which handles 42 percent of New Zealand’s shipping. It’s been rejected by the Environmental Protection Authority, and that consent application has been kicked back to the slow lane. That port believes that it’s only got three more years before it runs out of capacity. We’ve seen major supply chain issues, which are causing costs to flow through into the economy and inflation in every sector of the economy. Does the Minister think this is acceptable, and, if not, what will he do to get this project on track?

I want to come to Auckland housing development. Developers can’t even get consents for simple housing developments in a reasonable time frame. Auckland Council had over 800 consent applications for land use and subdivision, but no planners to allocate them to as of February 2022. That means that the RMA 20-day consent requirement to actually issue consents 20 days after they’re received hasn’t even started. Some of these applications were made in October, November; they hadn’t been allocated, Minister. That means thousands of homes won’t get built this year because a council doesn’t have the resources, the capability, to actually consent basic earthworks and subdivision for housing. Does the Minister think this is acceptable, and, if not, what urgent and immediate action will he take to unlock the consent backlog for both major projects like Tauranga port and housing in Auckland?

Finally, Minister, the freshwater regulations two years ago—they’ve been unworkable. We haven’t seen water get any fresher as a result, but what we have seen is that farmers identify correctly that it’s impractical for them to be sowing crops while there’s still snow on the ground. So the Minister and the department varied the freshwater regulations so that farmers could plant crops and they wouldn’t die in the cold.

Unfortunately, quarry operators pointed to other issues with the freshwater rules, particularly around prohibitions on disturbing wet areas that mean they can’t even start the earthworks needed to get to the blue rock for construction. Now, Minister, I know these quarry operators and land developers have raised this with you multiple times over the past two years and that you and your department have undertaken to do the work to unlock land for quarrying and inland development, but some quarries are now mothballing. They’re moving their gear to the Waikato, and what that means is every truck that travels 30 kilometres, every 30 kilometres doubles the cost to quarry rock. That’s adding cost into housing and construction and infrastructure. It’s causing inflation to flow through to all aspects of the economy. Minister, do you think it’s OK to stop quarrying, to stop local land development because of your freshwater rules, and, if not, what are you going to do about it and when are you going to do something about it, Minister? Thank you.

I really enjoy it when the ACT Party leads with their chin. In respect of the consenting issues in Auckland—and I see a few smiles on the face of the National Party here, though, because they know that the ACT Party made a terrible tactical mistake on this—the number of homes being consented for being built in Auckland since we came into power has doubled from 10,000 per annum to 20,000 per annum. On this side of the House, we call that success; on the other side of the House, they can’t get over the fact that they lost the election in 2017.

In respect of the fact, “Do we need to do even better? Do we need to create more building opportunities so that fewer people need a resource consent to build a house?”, we absolutely do, and we cooperated with the Green Party and the National Party in respect of upzoning legislation to change the plans in councils, including Auckland, to make it a permitted activity for which you do not need a resource consent to build up to three houses three stories high with the appropriate setbacks in the suburbs of Auckland. What did the ACT Party do? They voted against it. Why did they vote against it? Because their leader lives in Epsom, in the leafy suburbs of Epsom. They didn’t want to have any housing intensification in Epsom. And so an incredible blue means that the ACT Party for the whole of this Parliament has got no political credibility on any criticisms of the Resource Management Act (RMA) or its replacement legislation.

💬 Simon Court: Point of order, Madam Chair. The questions are quite specific. They’re about the Port of Tauranga. What is the Minister going to do to get the fast-track consenting application for the Port of Tauranga on track? It’s about: what is the Minister going to do to get Auckland Council to start processing 800 consents? The Minister knows that it is 15 percent down in January. And what is the Minister going to do to get the quarry operators working again by reforming the freshwater regulations that he has promised them they will do? Madam Chair—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Thank you. You will now take your seat. That was not a point of order. That was a debating point, and I will now go back to the Minister.

I was enjoying responding to the question as to why we haven’t done more than double consents in Auckland from 10,000 per annum to 20,000 per annum and pass legislation to mean that fewer resource consents will be needed in the future, because we’ve got this upzoning legislation that every party in this House voted for, except the ACT Party, which is ashamed to this day that they turned back on their deregulatory criticisms of why we haven’t got enough housing and backed their leader in Epsom because he was worried about the leafy suburbs and whether he would get their lifeboat seat in order to get elected again in their dirty deal that they do in Epsom with the National Party every time.

So, in respect of the question as to what are we doing, well, we’ve got that legislation already passed and those new plans have to be promulgated by Auckland by August this year, which will make a massive further increase in terms of building opportunities in Auckland. I thank the National Party and I thank the Green Party and, actually, I thank the ACT Party for the opportunity to highlight that on one more occasion. In addition to that, we are baking into the new Natural and Built Environments Act (NBA) system expansive housing markets, because although the planning system isn’t the only cause of excessive house prices, particularly excessive land prices in New Zealand, it is one of the issues. The National-ACT Government in nine years did nothing to fix it, and we are, because we are the party of deregulatory reform where necessary to have more expansive land markets, including in Auckland.

In respect of the two other questions that he raised: Tauranga, we have put that on to direct referral to—I forget whether it’s to the Environment Court or to the Environmental Protection Authority. But then the notification decision, in legislation that the ACT Party and the National Party changed when last in Government, said that where a non-notification decision is to be challenged, that goes to the High Court rather the Environment Court, which was a stupid decision of those Governments, which stopped notification disputes being resolved quickly in the Environment Court. That is stuck at the moment. Again, that will be fixed by the new NBA, which we will pass this term of Government in a way that the National Party and the ACT Party never achieved.

The third issue that he raised, which is a fair criticism, actually, of the freshwater reforms, was that we did not get it quite right in respect of wetland protection and it has had an impact quarries, for example. That has been consulted upon. The way in which you change national guidance under the RMA is very, very constipated and takes a long time—something else we’re going to fix in the national planning framework. But until then, we’ve actually got to comply with the law under the RMA, which we are. And those changes are in drafting and are expected in an exposure draft form to be provided to industry participants in May.

Fantastic. I thought we were going to prune juice for a moment. So, if I may, I think it’s far more enjoyable, Minister, when it’s calmer and back-and-forth like we had before. Can I return to that and ask you, please, when is it your intention to make public the Government’s decision around the 2016 Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary Bill and is it his intention to send it back to the select committee to reflect on the various changes that, no doubt, he has made?

In the fullness of time.

Returning to fresh water, the Minister will be aware that there was a significant Environment Canterbury report on nitrate levels in groundwater going back over 30 years and 10 years. That report concluded that, over the past decade, nitrate levels were likely or very likely increasing in 51 percent of the wells tested and showed a decrease in only 24 percent. The report concluded, if there had been widespread changes to land-use management happening around the region over the past five to 10 years that we would expect to be seeing some improvements in groundwater quality. Now, the Government has amended the national environmental standards (NES) for fresh water, has the Minister, in preparation for the review of the NES for fresh water in 2023, asked the ministry to do any work about the effectiveness of those regulations to date and whether further changes are likely to be needed—in particular, a reduction in the cap on the use of synthetic nitrogen fertiliser, which is currently at 190 kilograms per hectare per year?

Before I call the Minister, a reminder that we have around about five minutes left in this session. I call on the Minister the Hon David Parker.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I mean, I would say that two of the most pressing issues in Canterbury are nitrate levels in groundwater and problems which are partly nitrate-related in the Ashburton lakes area, which are at risk of tipping into a state which will see them severely degraded to the extent that they’re not already. The member’s quite right that the national policy statement (NPS) on freshwater management includes new attributes in respect of these issues, which have to be met by new water plans. I’m also aware that the NPS on drinking-water sources is of relevance, which is a matter which is under the control of the Hon Kiritapu Allan.

I call on honourable—not honourable, sorry, Todd Muller.

Well, we’ll see; maybe one day. Through you, Madam Chair, to the Minister: do you support the continued bottom trawling of deep-water seamounts? Do the proposed changes to the Fisheries Act announced today, in effect, act as a disincentive on inshore trawling, as the various compliance requirements will make it uneconomic for many of those vessels to continue operating?

We have a working group being established with the industry, and also NGOs, to look at what we do in respect of bottom trawling in the exclusive economic zone. It’s a difficult issue; we’re not proposing to ban it totally, but we are looking to make progress to minimise the environmental harm that it causes.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Is it the Minister’s Government’s intention to introduce reformed marine protected areas legislation, and, if so, when and in what form?

We haven’t made decisions as, to date, we still do intend to progress marine protected area reform. Whether that results in legislation this term is not yet clear.

To the Minister, can he outline his expectations on the next steps on revitalising the Hauraki Gulf?

Implementing the Sea Change report in the manner that was announced last year.

For the full nearly five years of this Government’s term, there has been a commitment to standardise kerbside recycling, and the Minister made a passing reference to it in his introductory comments. What time frame does he have for actually concluding that piece of work, and what guarantees can he provide ratepayers that there will not be added cost, in terms of a cost of living crisis, to a standardised kerbside recycling programme?

There’s a consultation document out amongst members of the community, including the waste industry, at the moment. I suspect that’s got about another month to run, and then we’ll take decisions following that. As to whether this will increase costs, actually, I think it’ll be the reverse. I think if we’ve got less waste getting into recycling bins, that will ease the cost of recycling and improve its viability. If we’ve got less good stuff getting into the waste, then that will actually improve the waste end of it as well.

Final question, the Hon Scott Simpson.

In regard to the Government’s plan to introduce a container recycling scheme, the further consultation document is in the public arena at this stage. What are his proposed time frames for concluding that piece of work? And, again, what does he see as protections for not adding to the cost of living for consumers by implementing a scheme that, on the face of it, adds cost at point of retail? I understand, obviously, the return scheme does that, but there are high administrative costs in a scheme that is, on the face of it, potentially largely administratively expensive and relatively cumbersome.

Well, there is no short-term effect on the cost of living, because the container deposit scheme takes quite a while to stand up, and, indeed, wouldn’t be stood up, I think, until about 2025, after the next election. So it’s not a present issue. In respect of net costs, after people get their deposits back, they’re quite a bit lower than was forecast in Queensland, pursuant to a report that’s been done of their recently introduced scheme by their Productivity Commission.

Thank you, Minister. Members, our time with the Minister for the Environment and for Oceans and Fisheries has ended. The Minister of Transport is now available for 30 minutes to respond to members’ questions.

Transport