Estimates Debate — Environment

I plan to not ask too many questions in each call, but have more calls. I’d like to start with environmental funds that are reported on page 4 of the report back from the Environment Committee, and that is about the cuts to the Environmental Legal Assistance Fund, to the indigenous biodiversity fund, and the Community Environment Fund. My questions relate to both the Environmental Legal Assistance Fund and the Community Environment Fund.

Going to the Environmental Legal Assistance Fund first, we heard in scrutiny week that the Minister was concerned that councils were being taken to court by this legal assistance fund. This legal assistance fund is $600,000, it’s available when there’s some environmental public interest, and it’s a contestable fund that people contest when they think that something is important and needs clarification from the court. The Minister said, “Oh, well, it’s been used to take legal action against ratepayer-funded entities.”, but, of course, councils are the regulators, so they are always involved with these cases, and their names are on it. I’m asking the Minister if she has any evidence that these cases are actually about the councils rather than the applicants that might be doing some damage to the environment, hence the importance of this fund.

My second question is about the Community Environment Fund. This fund has been used to develop community hubs that are all around the country and that do great environmental work and manage the time of many volunteers as well, and the Minister said that “It was more appropriate for such groups to find their own sources of funding.” I’m wondering, again, if the Minister has now reflected on this, if she has spoken to any of the environmental hubs and thought about the consequences of these cuts and what they would do for our environment.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to pick up on the bigger picture of the impact of the cuts across the environment Vote, and I’m noting that—and it was made clear in the report back from the Environment Committee—the total cut has been $617 million over the next four years. I’m noting that this is worn by agencies both inside and outside the scope of the delegation of the environment Minister, but these cuts impact the core of our Public Service and our science agencies that all have, ultimately, an impact on the environment.

I just want to outline these, before I get to my question, so that the Minister knows the scope of this. I’m talking about the cuts to the Ministry for the Environment, the $65 million decrease there; cuts to the Environmental Protection Authority; Department of Conservation, $48 million decrease; Climate Change Commission cuts; National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research; GNS Science; National Science Challenges; and the list goes on.

Is the Minister concerned about the full picture of the damage to environmental outcomes as a result of her Government’s decisions and especially the impact of the delay or cancellation of time-critical environmental work that will result from these decisions? I especially want to hear this because we know—and the evidence from her own ministry makes it really clear—that this is a time when we need environmental protection the most. I’m really keen to hear the Minister’s response to that. Thank you.

Hari o Te Wiki o te Reo Māori, Mr Chair. I’ll go through the questions as they were answered. With regard to the Environmental Legal Assistance Fund and the Community Environment Fund, this Government considered prioritisation of funding and they did not meet the priorities that we considered we wanted to fund at this time.

In terms of the bigger-picture cuts that were asked by the member of the Green Party, can I just note that since 2017, the environmental Vote appropriation tripled over that time, from 2017 until 2023. During that time, there were quite specific programmes that the Government at that time were undertaking in terms of their Resource Management Act programme and also some time-limited freshwater programmes and also a number of time-limited Jobs for Nature programmes.

The peak funding for the ministry was always going to be in that 2023-2024 period, and, from that, it was always scheduled to reduce. In fact, the ministry had started that process of reviewing their structure in advance of knowing that those reductions were going to occur in many instances. That bigger picture is that there was a tripling over that time. A lot of it was specific to the work that the previous Government prioritised and that is not work that we are continuing with.

I will just add: you asked about the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) cuts. There is not a cut to the EPA. The EPA have been exceeding their budget by over $4 million. They are being asked to meet or have a break-even position. Thank you.

Thank you. In response to what the Minister just said, a couple of questions arise from that. One was that there was discussion around priorities and that the issues I mentioned—the Community Environment Fund, the Legal Assistance Fund, and the indigenous biodiversity fund—did not meet those priorities. I ask the Minister if there are any environmental priorities of this Government, and an example might be something that has an environmental benefit or stops the biodiversity decline. That’s one question.

Another question then: briefly, the Minister touched on Jobs for Nature and the stopping of that funding. The Minister is, of course, right. It was a five-year programme and it’s not going to go forward. Of course, we’ve heard from many people involved in the projects that they are worried that the work, particularly in pest reduction, that has happened to date will be undone if there’s no further funding. Has the Minister been asking questions about that issue and stopping good work that was good for both jobs and for the environment? Has she asked for any funding for that? “Has she asked for any funding for anything to do with the environment?” was also a good question.

Then a third type of questioning is on the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA), and the Minister’s just said that “Oh, they have to use the $4 million worth of savings.” The EPA told us that to be able to afford to carry out its core functions, without an additional $96 million over four years, then—I’m paraphrasing somewhat—it will be in trouble. Not only is the Minister saying, “Well, it has to find the $4 million worth of savings.”, it also has been given a whole lot of new roles by this Government and potentially will be given more new roles by this Government. What analysis is going into how much more money will be required for the EPA if they have additional compliance and monitoring work, in particular?

I’m also interested with the EPA. Of course, they run the emissions trading scheme computers and they need a significant upgrade as well. Will the Minister be asking for more money for that?

Thank you, Mr Chair. I also want to pick up on the priorities of the Minister and her Government. There has been a number of times when the Minister has asserted that the rationale for the decisions that have come through in this Vote has been that the balance has swung too far towards the environment.

Now, I asked the Minister about the evidence from her own ministry which she believes, basically, helps her to come to that view, and the post-hearing response from officials outlined—and they advised this—“the balance to strike between environmental protection and the other goals is a value judgment decided by elected representatives”, and that the ministry’s role is to gather and publish data and evidence which can inform such judgments.

I’m really interested to hear from the Minister: if not the many reports documenting a sustained and ongoing decline in her environmental reporting domains across air, water, soil, biodiversity, etc., what exactly is the Minister drawing on to inform her value judgment and, therefore, her Budget decision for these comprehensive cuts across Vote Environment?

Why has the Government expanded the use of the waste levy?

Thank you. On te mana o te wai, the funding has been cut by $2 million, with no funding allocated past June 2025, and we heard the Minister say that the intention is to review the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management, requiring less tangata whenua participation in freshwater planning during the review period. I ask—talking of te reo—if she intends for there to be any tangata whenua participation.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to specifically speak to freshwater cuts, and perhaps it’s a question appropriate for the associate Minister responsible for freshwater.

In the Vote Environment Budget cuts, there’s clearly cuts to the funding for freshwater investment programmes as well as Jobs for Nature. The implementation of freshwater policy has been cut. There are cuts to Te Tuatara o Pukekohe—Integrated Catchment Management Plan, the tangata whenua capability building, and the freshwater farm plans. We see a swathe of cuts to investment in water protection, but accompanied by the cuts to collection of data and environmental monitoring of drinking-water and groundwater nitrate monitoring.

My question is: in the context also of legislative change to get rid of te mana o te wai and low-slope rules, and so forth, what freshwater improvement targets does the Government have and how are they going to be achieved, given all that has been done is that funding and monitoring and protections have been removed?

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ll go through a number of these questions. Then I will defer to my associates on a number of the freshwater questions.

With regard to the Jobs for Nature projects, that won’t be continuing. I will note that the previous Government had made no provision for the extension of those projects. They were always going to be time limited, and so they will come to the end of their time. Can I just note, though, that with regard particularly to pest reduction, that’s certainly an area that we are very mindful of, particularly around the wilding conifers, and I can assure the member that’s a point that I’m taking particular interest in, and we are seeing what we might be able to do there. There is still $10 million a year that has been allocated to that wilding conifer containment, and so we do need to have a look at whether that’s going to be sufficient or not.

With regard to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA), yes, they are being asked to be involved in further work, although, obviously, the fast-track consenting bill is still at the select committee stage. Nothing is finalised with that, although I note that there is, I think, $2.4 million or $2.5 million over the four years that has been allocated for that additional work that may be required by the EPA for that work. Can I just also note that the EPA, I think, are constrained in the work that they do because the models that they are using are outdated. I note that they, under the previous Government, had a bid in for updating that modelling, and they note that because they’re having to use the old modelling, it does make it more expensive and less accurate and they have to make more conservative decisions. I agree that, had the previous Government agreed to the upgrades of those models, it would have made the process for the EPA much easier.

With regard to the waste levy and why we considered the expansion of use of the waste levy, this is quite a common use with other jurisdictions. I think it is New South Wales and South Australia that use a waste levy in a much broader sense in terms of being able to address broader environmental issues. I recall at the time we had quite a lot of discussion around that. Environmental issues are often caused right through the life span of resources, and, therefore, at that end where the resources are turning into waste, it’s quite appropriate to invest some of that money in some of the earlier parts of the process.

In terms of fresh water, this Government is taking a very pragmatic and balanced approach to freshwater management and ensuring that the interests of all water users are taken into account, but I will defer to my associate who has delegations in these spaces to say a few words.

Just in terms of the Jobs for Nature funding, one of my delegations is for the secretariat function for that, and one of the things we have been doing is looking at how these projects can be transitioned, in some cases, to private funding and banking the gains. That work is ongoing as to how we don’t lose what’s been invested.

Someone mentioned the pest control element of it. In a number of cases, in these projects that the Minister mentioned—wilding pines, wallabies—that work is carrying on in different ministries. Both of those are under my responsibilities in biosecurity. That work is definitely carrying on. We are looking for ways to boost that funding or come together with a better plan to actually enable us to get on top of wilding pines.

There was a question around the freshwater farm plan funding. Quite simply, because we are delaying the implementation of the freshwater farm plans until we have a system that is far more workable for farmers and doesn’t replicate and duplicate a whole lot of information and work that farmers are already doing, that money that was meant for implementation obviously doesn’t need to be there, because there won’t be any implementation until we get it right. Then, in saying that, I don’t expect we’ll need anywhere near as much money to implement it, because we will be recognising a lot of the existing farm plans that are already out there that farmers are using to do a lot of great work on their farms. Thank you.

Thank you. Related to the Minister’s answers just then—thank you for the answers—we heard that the Environmental Protection Authority has outdated models and they need to be updated and that that will have some cost, and that for Jobs for Nature, the previous Government didn’t plan for future funding in Budgets for when it was in the Government. My question is: does she accept that she is now the Minister and it is now her job to find that money and make the Budget bids?

Now, on the waste levy, we heard that the waste levy is being used for broader environmental issues, and the Minister is correct. We traversed this in the committee stage during Budget urgency, and she again reiterated her point that resources turn into waste, but things like cows and associated run-off going into a river and causing an algae bloom, which might be an environmental impact that funding might go to, are not related to waste, so this is an extension away from waste. I agree with the Minister about old landfills—that that’s clearly related to waste and that there is a nexus—but there is not with, say, fertiliser run-off or cows in rivers, and that means that the levy is turning into a tax, and we raised this at the committee stage.

My question to the Minister is whether she has sought any advice from ministry officials about how to confine that environmental expenditure so that it is clearly a levy and not a tax. Related to that is my second question on that: is that extension required because the Minister was so unsuccessful in Budget bids for the environment?

Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to pick up and ask the Minister about whether she can confirm that the only new money in the Budget under Vote Environment is the multimillions that is going towards resource management reform when the Government has just scrapped the previous reforms.

I want to pick up on the reform that the Government is progressing so far. Under that, they’ve got the Fast-track Approvals Bill, which involves the comprehensive override of environmental legislation and protections; we’ve got the Resource Management Act (RMA) marine farm permits bill, and that involves a blanket extension with no consideration of iwi, hapū, community, or council voice; and then we’ve got the freshwater RMA amendment bill, which weakens freshwater standards and allows a pathway for coalmines to plough through wetlands. Is it accurate that the only new money is actually for weakening our already meagre environmental protections and enabling further environmental destruction?

Thank you, Mr Chair. Can I do a point of clarification just in case my answer before may have confused when I talked about the $10 million that is still there for wilding conifers. That is not from environment appropriations, and I don’t want to mislead anyone on that, so I’m just clarifying that.

With regard to the contaminated and vulnerable landfills, and the legacies that a number of councils are dealing with there, I think that it’s an entirely appropriate thing for a waste levy to be expanded out to be able to help address some of those very vulnerable landfill sites that could well be impacted by erosion or weather events. I see that as an entirely appropriate use of it.

With regard to the additional money that is in the appropriation this year for Resource Management Act (RMA) replacement and amendments, I can confirm $92.4 million has been appropriated for our programme of work around RMA, and I can also confirm that it is a three-stage process. The first process was, of course, repealing the previous Government’s legislation before Christmas; the second phase was the fast-track consenting, as well as RMA one and two; also in that second phase is the national direction instruments—the cluster of those that we are redeveloping—and then the final stage is for the replacement RMA.

I just have two very short questions for the Minister. One is a follow-up question from my colleague the Hon Rachel Brooking’s question around the cuts to the funding for the Environmental Legal Assistance Fund and the Community Environment Fund. The Minister had said that it wasn’t a priority. I’d like her to elaborate on why these were not a priority for the Government and why cutting the funding, essentially, for communities to be able to have their moment to seek legal redress over activities happening in their local areas—their help with legal assistance for that. It’d be good to hear some elaboration from the Minister on why that is not a priority for this Government and why that funding was cut.

The Minister’s going through where some of the resource within the ministry is now sitting. She’s talked about the cuts that were there in terms of the team that were working on the resource management, but one of the things that I’m interested to know is what will the role of the Ministry for the Environment (MfE) be in the upcoming review into genetic modification? Are there additional resources being allocated within the ministry for contributing to this work? And if the Minister could give an update on what the role of MfE will be in this work.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I just want to follow up on the water question. Very specifically, keen to know what is the actual ambition of the Government in regard to freshwater quality and protection? What are the goals and the targets and how are those going to be achieved and improved? It seems the only ambition is for removing protections for water and looking the other way in terms of things like a worsening nitrate contamination problem as a consequence of the dairy industry. How are we going to see improvements? Is there even any ambition for improvements? And what advice has the Minister received on how cutting freshwater programmes will impact the quality of our waterways and the quality of our drinking water?

Thank you, Mr Chair. This Government is incredibly ambitious in terms of our aspirations around fresh water, but we want to do it in a way that is achievable and that is not so burdensome and confusing that nobody can comply with the regulations. It’s incredibly important that we have aspirations out over several decades, because this is an issue that has occurred over several decades, and it is going to take several decades to fix. But we are ambitious, as are most landowners and most farmers.

I think it is really unfortunate that this has turned into something of a beat-up by the Greens on farmers, when we know that some of the most polluted fresh waterways are those in urban areas. I think it does no good to our nation to be trying to beat up on rural or urban. It’s about us working together to get improvement, and I see evidence of that in many places with our catchment groups and with our farmers and our landowners, who are absolutely committed, as we are, to have workable regulations that can genuinely bring about achievement; not greenwashing, not woke aspirations that are never going to get there, but, in fact, being able to do meaningful, pragmatic things that will get the improvements that are needed.

With regard to GMO—the question there—the Ministry for the Environment has no policy with GM. No new funding has been allocated to that yet because, of course—and, I’m sorry, I’m referring to the wrong area here—no legislation has been passed on that yet.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I have to say, I’m surprised that the Minister is calling regulations made under the Labour Government “greenwashing” and “woke”, and, I have to say, disappointed that is how the Minister for the Environment sees environmental protections. It is shameful.

Now, the Minister did say that she was ambitious for the environment, and that was a good thing to hear. I’m interested, then, in the fast-track legislation, because, of course, the fast-track legislation overrides all of our environmental protections and all of our environmental laws because the purpose statement of that bill is to facilitate projects—infrastructure and projects of regional or national significance, and that purpose and the structure of the bill, as it was introduced, requires decision makers to put at the top of all of their decision making the purpose, which is very different from other legislation and other fast tracks.

What is the Minister for the Environment doing to ensure changes to that bill as introduced—in fact, those environmental protections; the environment that she is ambitious about—are not overridden by cowboys who would not otherwise be able to get their projects approved?

Thank you. I would like to pick up on the Minister’s comments about her priorities. She mentioned particularly the changes that this Government will be making as part of their Budget decisions to the national direction documents, and I’m noting, you know, there was a press release yesterday from the Environmental Defence Society which talked about these changes to the national direction and they described them as the “engine room of our resource management system”, so these are absolutely critical core environmental frameworks for how we in this country relate to and can develop, or else, in the environmental sector.

Now, I want to pick up on this example from the Environmental Defence Society because they talk about the changes that this Government will be making as an unprecedented environmental challenge. They say that “There will be powerful and well-resourced vested interests seeking to lower environmental standards [and] causing more biodiversity loss and pollution.” Why I want to pick up on that is I do want to understand—and I have not yet heard from the Minister—the broader rationale for making such sweeping changes that are involved in all of these budget decisions and all of these budget cuts.

What is the rationale for these changes, and where is the evidence of where the environment actually is sitting in the immense magnitude of the scale of the challenge that is before us in terms of our climate and ecological crisis? Why is she not seeking appropriate evidence that will actually allow her to make informed decisions?

Thank you, Mr Chair. Related to that line of questioning, I’d like to know more about the revised approach to mapping natural hazard zones and the various tools that councils can have. This is important work that’s been going on throughout Governments, different Governments. The natural environments Act had stronger natural hazard provisions, and there’s always been a need for more work in this area and more national direction. So I’m interested if the Minister can comment on that work, please.

Thank you, Mr Chair. With regard to the question from the member from the Green Party about the national direction instruments, I quite agree that they are very much the engine room of our environmental framework, and we have a significant piece of work going on looking at a programme of changes to national direction. We’ve got clusters of them; we’ve clustered them into four packages: energy and infrastructure, housing, farming in the primary sector, and emergencies and natural hazards. So that work is very important to the work that it will feed into the Resource Management Act replacement work in 2025, and it is scheduled to feed into that.

Going back to the Fast-track Approvals Bill and, in general, all of these pieces of legislation and regulatory change that are coming, how does she and the Government intend to maintain transparency and public participation in those decision-making processes, particularly for contentious projects?

Just very briefly, Mr Chair. Of course, the member asking the question is on the select committee working through the process of the Fast-track Approvals Bill at the moment, and nothing has come back yet. It’s due back in mid-October, and, so, I have no doubt that she will make fulsome input into the report that comes back from the select committee.

Well, I’m pleased that the Minister has that faith in me, but the questions are to her as the Minister and are about what she is doing, and not just in that fast-track piece of legislation but there’s a whole lot of other regulations and bills. There’s one before the Primary Production Committee at the moment and there’s been press releases about all of the national instruments being changed, as well. Where does she see public participation in the resource management system? How important is it to her that community can have a say in the planning decisions that are made around them?

Looking forward into more resource management change, does the Minister agree with Minister Chris Bishop that property rights are equally as important as heritage protection, and, if so, how does that work and how will the Government address cases where economic development interests directly conflict with long-term environmental or heritage values?

We have committed to ensuring that there is transparency and there is a process which allows consultation and valuable input, and, particularly, consultation has started with a range of iwi in terms of specific parts of the changes to national direction—and the Associate Minister may be able to talk a little bit more there. It’s a commitment that we have made to Te Pou Taiao that we will certainly engage fulsomely in consultation there, specifically around those freshwater regulations. The processes that we are working through are the normal processes that you would expect to see in terms of a bill working through.

Just adding to what the Minister has said, two pieces of work are under way in my area. There is consultation under way now with a whole range of sectors across environmental NGOs, iwi, primary production groups—across the whole sector. Feedback is being sought across everyone, so I’m fairly comfortable that we are seeking a range of views.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Given those responses, do both the environment Ministers commit to continuing that approach with any legislation or regulations—that they provide for community input?

Thank you, Mr Chair. I raced down here from my office because I heard the Minister referencing the catchment group model. I know that she’s been heavily involved in the Thriving Southland initiative, prior to coming to Parliament. I just wanted to dig into that a little bit because we are seeing a bit of a theme come through here where there’s a genuine desire on the other side of the Chamber to talk about regulations and red tape and compliance, but we are seeing investment and appropriations to the catchment group communities.

I know you, Minister, and I both attended—as did Minister Hoggard, I believe—the Aotearoa New Zealand Catchment Communities, which is a collective of the catchment groups around New Zealand. I believe there’s about 290 of them now, or the Ministry for Primary Industries believe there are 290 of them. I heard you touched on it before, but I would like to have learnt more because I would like to hear what your vision for them is, going forward, because I think this is a really important development. I don’t think it can be overstated how actually having people on the ground, fencing waterways, doing native planning—yes, that’s the physical stuff, but they’re also talking amongst themselves, they’re analysing what they’re doing on their farm, how they can do things better and more efficiently. I would like to hear, perhaps a little bit through your appropriation, your vision for enabling these catchment groups further and how we can really lean into this model.

Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you to the member Mark Patterson for that very insightful question, because I love catchment groups. I think they are a wonderful example of grassroots absolutely grabbing hold of the issue and knowing best what needs to be done.

The notion of catchments, of course, means that it is covering both rural and urban. It enables that catchment to be looked at by everyone that’s involved in contributing to it, but also the beauty of sharing best practice. I think you referred to a little bit around that; that instead of regulations and red tape and bureaucracy and things being imposed upon those that are involved with catchments, it’s actually members of those catchment groups who are coming up with the solutions—defining what the problem is, coming up with solutions, and then sharing that best practice. We know that peer pressure is probably the best way of getting outcomes rather than it being forced from above. If that sharing and that pressure is being put on by your neighbour or your neighbour’s neighbour, then that’s how we get this collective action to be able to address some of these incredibly important issues around fresh water.

I am a huge fan of our catchment groups. I’m a huge fan, of course, of Thriving Southland, and now it’s great to see that they are getting together and working now nationwide as the Aotearoa New Zealand Catchment Collective (ANZCC), because, of course, some areas have been much more advanced in their catchment work than in other areas. Again, instead of that sharing of best practice just occurring within the catchments, it can now occur from one region to another. I thank the member for that question. The ANZCC are, I think, one of the shining lights in terms of grassroots grabbing hold of a problem, finding sensible solutions, and not being dictated to from above.

Thank you, Mr Chair. On the grassroots community catchment groups, does the Minister, first of all, accept that a lot of those groups had significant Jobs for Nature funding and did some very good work with that? Does she think, though, that regulations are not needed for water if there is a catchment group and that, as she said, peer pressure is enough—does she think that peer pressure, alone, is enough, or should there be some regulations as noted by the catchment community groups that were in Parliament just last week? That’s my first set of questions on catchment groups.

Going back to iwi and consultation with iwi, with Jobs for Nature going, there are a lot of strong relationships to balance with iwi and with catchment groups. What work has been done to continue those? Thirdly, for now, the environmental reporting legislation, where is that at?

Mr Chair, thank you. I just have a few questions for the Minister, please. One is around contaminated sites. Actually, I noticed the increase in appropriation there. I’m interested to hear from the Minister for the Environment on how the prioritisation for the remediation or management of contaminated sites is happening. The second question I would have relates to the emissions trading scheme (ETS)—

💬 Hon Rachel Brooking: Point of order. Thank you. Would the member be able to move her microphone so that we can hear her? I can see the Minister straining.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): That would be useful for the Minister as well, if you could speak closer to the microphone.

I better not; I might snap it. I’ll lean down. Is that better? Thank you. Would you like me to repeat that?

💬 Hon Penny Simmonds: Please.

Right. The first question was in relation to contaminated sites. I noticed the increase in appropriations for that. I’m interested to understand how the prioritisation, if you will, for management, remediation, what have you, of those sites, is envisaged.

The second question I have relates to the emissions trading scheme and, specifically, the register. I may be wrong but, if my memory serves, there was talk that the register was nearing end-of-use date. I’m interested to see whether discussions have progressed in terms of replacing that particular system or whether it’s been wound up in something else within Government.

My last question relates to the Māori climate platform. I do see funding has continued across for that—and fantastic—but I am interested to hear what the Minister’s vision is, or expectations, with respect to the Māori climate platform, noting performance measures are not defined at this stage. I’m just interested to hear what the Minister’s vision is with respect to the Māori climate platform. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I will refer, first of all, to the questions from the Hon Rachel Brooking. Yes, I agree, regulations are needed. Like most things, though, making regulations and mandatory requirements are not the best way; education and buy-in I see, always, as the best way to get things done. That’s where I see the value of catchment groups. Yes, I agree regulations are needed.

With regard to the question from the back—thank you very much for moving closer to your mike—yes, there is an assessment tool that the local authorities have to assess their vulnerable and contaminated sites, and then the applications come from the local authorities. The prioritisation is, essentially, done by the local authorities and their applications coming in, and then there are criteria to assess those. I’m pleased to report that I will soon be opening the new Contaminated Sites and Vulnerable Landfills Fund to support councils dealing with those unwanted legacies of landfill.

With regard to the emissions trading scheme and Māori climate, they are outside my appropriation—so outside the scope of this Estimates debate.

I’ll just remind the Minister of some other questions I had. One was on the environmental reporting legislation—where that is at—and also, going back to why it is that environmental hubs are not a priority. Has she ever asked for any funding for anything for the environment?

With regard to the environmental reporting, absolutely this is an area of focus, and it is an area of work that is being undertaken in this Budget year. We are hoping to be able to have an amendment for the Environmental Reporting Act that focuses and ensures that we are monitoring and reporting the appropriate data. We’re hoping to have that in the first half of 2025.

Has the Minister met with the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment and had briefings on his recent reports?

Yes. Yes, we have met in person several times, and we have had phone discussions, and we have a meeting scheduled before the end of the year as well.

My knees!

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): A good work out!

That’s right. It’s sad when it is your entire exercise for the day, but there we go! Thank you, Mr Chair. Going back to the fast-track bill, I did ask before about the purpose of that bill and what the Minister is doing, as the Minister for the Environment and the Minister in charge of the Resource Management Act, to ensure that there are not environmental outcomes as a result of that piece of legislation.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I can assure the member that with the fast-track consenting, as with all the work being done in the package of resource management work, there is a ministerial group, of which I am part, and our discussions are robust and fulsome. I am confident that the opportunities are there for me to have input at that level.

Thank you for that response. Does the Minister accept, then, that the bill as introduced does override environmental protections with the drafting of the purpose clause?

We do have some time left in this debate, but if we are running out of interventions—

It is the timing, Mr Chair—how much time we all have. The issue here—

💬 Hon Member: Does any Opposition care about the environment?

💬 Camilla Belich: We’ve got limited time, as you know.

Yes, the whips are just all calling out. There’s some noise here about the limited time, which I am now using by referring to it, but the issue here is that—I’ll rephrase: does the Minister accept that there is existing fast-track legislation that was not repealed with the Natural and Built Environment Act and that that legislation enables for the speedy consenting of renewable energy, housing, and other infrastructure?

Another intervention? No? OK, members, that’s all the interventions that we’ve got for today. The Minister for the Environment’s time in the chair has come to an end. We now have the Minister for Social Development and Employment. The Minister, the Hon Louise Upston, is available to speak to that portfolio from 5 p.m. until the dinner break.

Social Development and Employment