Estimates Debate — Climate Change

I appreciate the early morning enthusiasm of the member, but we’ve just got to do a few other things before we can kick into it.

Members, the House is in committee for further consideration of the Appropriation (2025/26 Estimates) Bill. All Votes are available for debate, but only the Minister of Climate Change will be available today to speak to his portfolio.

The debate will be led by a call from the chairperson or member of the committee that considered the Estimates most closely related to the Minister’s portfolio. In leading off the debate, the chairperson should take care not to be overly political and should ensure that their call gives a fair reflection of the committee’s report on the Votes relevant to the portfolio.

At the end of the debate, questions will be put that the Votes stand part of the Schedules and on the provisions of the Appropriation (2025/26 Estimates) Bill. There is one hour and 41 minutes remaining in this debate. New Zealand National has 21 minutes remaining, New Zealand Labour has 32 minutes remaining, the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand has 15 minutes remaining, ACT New Zealand has 15 minutes remaining, New Zealand First has 35 minutes remaining, and Te Pāti Māori has 20 minutes remaining.

The Estimates debate should be relevant to the Government’s current spending plans as contained in the Estimates of Appropriations. The question again is that the Votes contained in the Estimates of Appropriations for 2025-26 stand part of the Schedules. Members, the Minister of Climate Change is available to speak to that portfolio until the time for the debate has expired.

Yes, always very excited to talk about our Environment Committee work in relation to climate change. On the select committee, we looked at the funding for climate change. The funding related to climate change totals $2.316 billion, and this includes $2.046 billion for the allocation of New Zealand emissions units to the economy; $153 million for administering the emissions trading scheme; $46 million for policy advice, reporting, operations, and stewardship relating to climate change; over $15 million of funding for the Climate Change Commission; over $10 million to support equitable transitions and community climate action for Māori; and over $3 million to fund the Climate Change Chief Executives Board.

Look, during the select committee process, we looked at the second emissions reduction plan. This was released in December 2024 and it spans the period 2026-2030, and it includes targeted actions in key sectors, including agriculture, transport, energy and waste, which were all discussed. We were told that work had begun on 30 of the 36 total actions, and we heard that New Zealand is currently tracking towards meeting its first and second emissions budgets.

We also discussed reducing methane emissions. We heard about some very good innovations and technologies being developed to reduce emissions from livestock—for example, the New Zealand company Ruminant BioTech, which has developed bolus that releases a substance which counteracts the formation of methane. This was a very interesting discussion. We also spoke about waste management, carbon capture, utilisation, and storage.

So my question to the Minister of Climate Change is: what is the Government’s overarching plans to reduce our emissions and meet our climate change targets?

Thank you very much, Mr Chair, and thank you to the chair of the Environment Committee for those opening remarks. I acknowledge all members of that committee. I’m going to provide an overview in the five minutes that I have, and then I’m happy to take questions.

First and foremost, it is important to acknowledge and recognise that this Government is committed to meeting our climate change targets while driving economic growth. We believe that growing our economy, reducing our emissions, and building our resilience all go hand in hand, and when we act for climate and growth, we strengthen New Zealand’s position as a resilient and competitive nation in a low-emissions global economy.

The Government, last year, released our climate change strategy, which is an important document—a plan that sets the direction for cutting emissions and preparing for the impacts of climate change. Our focus ahead is putting that strategy into action. We are working on developing an enduring national adaptation framework, world-leading innovation to boost the economy, clean energy that is abundant and affordable, and credible markets in order to support the broader transition. The framework that we are looking to implement more broadly in adaptation acknowledges that we need to manage and understand the risks from natural hazards, including those that might change because of climate change.

We’re focusing on four key areas. The first of these, and most pressing, is information about the risks; access to information helps people make more informed decisions about where they build, live, buy, or invest. New Zealand’s current system for knowing about risks and deciding about what to do about them has developed over time, but this means that information can be hard to find or understand, so it’s hard for people to know how to prepare. There is some information out there—for example, people can look up their home on the Natural Hazards Portal or look at their local council’s flood maps—but we’ve heard from councils, banks, insurers, researchers, and individual homeowners that better information is needed.

This work underpins the framework and other reforms under way across Government. Our Government is continuing work on regulations to clarify council requirements when sharing natural hazard information in a land information memorandum, introducing changes this year. We’re also looking to improve access to priority data sets, such as updating the system that estimates the magnitude and frequency of high-intensity rainfall in New Zealand. This is used for assessing the impacts on flooding and, also, landslips. There will never be perfect information, but continuing to improve is essential for good decision-making.

Other areas of the framework that are being considered over the long term are: providing more clarity on roles and responsibilities, including the role of local government; providing options to guide investments in resilience so that people know what investment will happen in their area—for example, whether the council plans to build new flood protection schemes, and, also, importantly, the issue of cost sharing. We want the framework to be enduring so that people can have confidence in New Zealand’s approach and invest in our country, and we’re also working to build on the cross-party work of last year’s Finance and Expenditure Committee inquiry into climate adaptation. We’re also considering the recommendations of the independent reference group on adaptation.

We intend to introduce legislation to get the first building blocks of this system in place as soon as possible. The framework will complement other work to build on resilience that my colleagues are leading—for example, changes to our resource management system that support more broader councils to manage risks and natural hazards in new development and reforms to the science, information, technology, and emergency management systems.

An example of other areas of supporting resilience is our Māori Climate Platform. The establishment of the platform was a key action in the emissions reduction plan and part of our national adaptation plan. I have announced five initial projects; these projects are enabling Māori communities to lead climate resilience initiatives. One solar farm in Te Karaka, in the Tairāwhiti area, will power up to 200 homes and essential services, including a school, police base, fire service, healthcare centre, petrol station, and general store. This will keep critical services running during extreme weather events and provide long-term economic benefits to that community. The second stage of the Māori Climate Platform funding will be rolled out in the coming months.

In addition, the ministry’s joint work programme Pou Take Āhuarangi will deliver a marae risk and readiness stocktake; we have already undertaken that stocktake of over 1,000 marae in New Zealand, and, of those 1,000 marae that have been part of that stocktake, 145 of those marae had undertaken climate risk assessments, and this is a positive aspect.

In regard to the second emissions reduction plan, ERP2, I will now turn to emissions reductions. Our second emissions reduction plan is a blueprint for reducing emissions in the second half of this decade. The plan includes a market-led approach, harnessing the New Zealand emissions trading scheme to lower emissions, supported by targeted actions to key sectors to take efficient and effective action. We’ve begun working on a majority of actions within this plan, and, through these actions, we’ll increase New Zealand’s clean energy, also encourage world-leading innovation, and ensure that we have an efficient and competitive agricultural sector to boost sustainable investment.

One of the policies that is harnessing nature to remove emissions is through the afforestation of Crown land. The Government is actively exploring partnerships with the private sector to plant trees on Crown-owned land that is of low conservation value and low farming value. A request for information process has been run, and I hope to make decisions by the end of this year. We’ve also continued to progress the carbon removals framework; this will help ensure that we prioritise investment in effective, scientifically robust removal activities. We are currently tracking towards meeting our first and second emissions budgets and will continue to monitor progress closely. We will adapt, if needed, to ensure that we remain on track.

The New Zealand emissions trading scheme is our key tool for reducing emissions. Stable policy and adequate incentives will encourage businesses to invest in decarbonisation. Over the last month, we released the Government’s annual update to the New Zealand emissions trading scheme settings to ensure that the scheme can continue to play its role to help meet our targets. The feedback during the public consultation was very clear that these settings would better support the scheme to meet emissions reduction targets, providing confidence and certainty to that market.

Earlier this year, we also announced that we were strengthening the market governance of the emissions trading scheme. Again, in June, the Government introduced changes to limit whole-farm conversions to forestry, and these changes come into effect on 31 October. Both these new policy measures will support confidence in the credibility of the emissions trading scheme in the market. This Government will continue to work to meet our climate change targets, remove barriers, and also, importantly, open up new opportunities for our people, environment, and economy to thrive. With that, I will welcome questions.

E te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. With that amount of talking from the Minister of Climate Change just now, I really hope that he is open to answering questions fulsomely. It was really interesting to hear him run through the number of initiatives that the Government has undertaken, because this debate obviously is about the Estimates, but this has a deep interrelationship with the emissions reduction plan (ERP) No. 2, in particular. So I think it is really worthwhile unpacking the component parts of that ERP and how, while I wish we could believe the comments that the Minister has made, unfortunately, they do not match with reality and the actions that the Government has decided to take.

If you look at the emissions reduction plan outlined by the Minister and that pamphlet that he was just waving around, it’s not worth the paper that it is written on. That is why the Government is currently being sued over it. Fully a third of that emissions reduction plan relies on carbon capture technology, which the Minister has said the Government will not be investing in and which the private owners, Todd Energy, have said is not economically feasible for them to invest in that technology, especially with the emissions trading scheme (ETS) settings as they are at the moment.

Notably, we’re coming today off the back of yet another failure of an ETS auction under this Minister and under this Government, to which I cheekily asked him in scrutiny week, I believe last year, about whether the most effective climate policy that we are seeing from this Government is their inability to provide that certainty for the market so that those units ultimately end up getting cancelled and those permissions to pollute end up being cancelled. That is to say that fully a third of that emissions reduction plan from this Government is economically unfeasible and not going to happen without investment, which the Minister has said the Government is not going to do. So that’s a third of the emissions reduction plan from this Government, which is simply not going to happen.

Then another third, the Waste Minimisation Fund, and another almost third is the reduction required from organics. Well, if we just take a second to dig below the surface on that, we know, based on all of the official estimates, that we need approximately $30 million allocated just as a baseline to organics to meet that 0.8 megatonne reduction. How on earth are we simultaneously, out of that same pot of money, going to get those reductions in waste minimisation? The Government seems to be double counting here. This is a question that I’d really like an answer to from the Minister, because at this point, 2.8 megatonnes of the 3.3 megatonnes in the second emissions budget (EB2) are economically unfeasible and the Government is refusing to invest in them, saying that they want market-led solutions. Not only does it not add up but it is a slap in the face to New Zealanders.

On top of that, the other 0.5 percent of megatonnes that are required through the EB2 that the Minister has been waving around, through ETS changes—and, again, I’d allude to the fact that we’re seeing the failure of those auctions time and again as a result of the lack of certainty in the stockpiling that we’ve seen from the commercial sector through agricultural emissions reduction.

Just on agricultural emissions reduction, I found it quite galling for the Minister to get up and talk about the investment that this Government is making in agricultural emissions reduction. Well, it turns out that the Minister announced a fund of approximately $400 million to “accelerate commercialisation of tools and technology to reduce on-farm emissions.” Well, guess what, guys! He reannounced the fund that already existed under the last Government and simultaneously managed to cut $48 million from it while reannouncing it.

What on earth is going on? You think you’re pulling the wool over New Zealanders’ eyes, because you’re also creating this cost of living crisis and simultaneously pouring oil, coal, and gas on the climate crisis, which will only compound that cost of living crisis.

My question for the Minister fundamentally is: will the Minister of Climate Change please stand up? Because out of the one side of your mouth, Minister, with your climate change hat on, you are going offshore and you are telling people that we are still holding to the same international negotiating positions that we did under the former Government; that is, the phase out of fossil fuels and fossil fuel subsidies. Yet out the other side of your mouth, here at home with your energy hat on, you are signing out $200 million in fossil fuel subsidies. How do you reconcile these things? You, for one, Minister, are frequently saying, as are many other Ministers of this Government and Cabinet—and, in fact, many members of this Parliament always talk about how we don’t want siloed thinking.

Minister, given all that I have outlined about how your emissions budget does not stack up, given what has been said about its economic feasibility by those private actors that you’ve said that you want to partner with, how are you going to make this happen?

Minister, thank you for your very broad-ranging opening speech, which I think gives a lot of scope to discuss climate change. In the Estimates debate earlier this year, your words were: “It is important to acknowledge that New Zealand is part of a Paris Agreement.”, and you acknowledged several times that, in actual fact, we were committed to the Paris Agreement, but, in recent days, both New Zealand First and ACT have expressed scepticism about the Paris Agreement. Minister, can you confirm that this Government is committed to meeting the Paris Agreement? I’m going to repeat your words from your opening speech: “The Government is committed to climate change targets.” In very simple language, please, Minister: is the Government committed to meeting the Paris Agreement?

Just before we take more calls, please make the comments through the Chair; so not directly to the Minister. I appreciate the passion in the Chamber.

I will repeat the question, Mr Chair. It’s a very straightforward question that shouldn’t take any thinking on the part of the Minister of Climate Change. The Minister said, in his opening speech, that the Government is committed to its climate change targets, yet in recent days, both New Zealand First and the ACT Party have expressed scepticism about the Paris Agreement and talked about withdrawing from it. Can the Minister, please, confirm that this Government is committed to meeting the Paris Agreement?

Unfortunately, it appears as though exactly what our concern was, which was that the Minister of Climate Change would open by reading off two sheets of paper, soaking up about 10 minutes of time, so that he could then sit himself down and not engage meaningfully whatsoever with the detail that we are asking him to share for the New Zealand public—because he has a responsibility to, because we have started to unpack the very nature of the document that he is saying is going to solve all of our problems. We can show the data, the facts, and the reality are so far-removed from the things that he is saying; yet he’s not willing to get up or defend or engage meaningfully whatsoever. I don’t get it.

Minister, your job is to be accountable to this House. Minister, your job is to be accountable to New Zealanders. Your job is to be accountable to the emissions budget, which you have put out there, which all of the data and the facts and the evidence shows is not worth the paper that it is written on.

Perhaps, Minister, if you would be so willing to maybe, charitably, engage in answering some questions, which, I might note, you’re actually required to per the tenancy—

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Can you make the comments through the Chair, please. I have said that earlier.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: Mr Chair, then—

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Thank you.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: —some questions for the Minister, which we hope that he deigns to engage with. New Zealand’s second emissions reduction plan is expecting emissions reductions in the waste sector across both the Waste Minimisation Fund and from organic waste management as separate initiatives. However, we know that the only new money that is allocated each year in the Waste Minimisation Fund is the $30 million per annum. This, coincidentally, is the absolute bare minimum needed to get emissions reductions from waste. How is the Government expecting to get emissions reductions from both of those initiatives when one of them requires the full quantum of the money that he has allocated to both? Is the Minister, and is the Government, double counting?

Thank you very much, Mr Chair, for the opportunity to answer some of those questions. For those who are watching at home, the limitations on the ability and the time that we have to speak is constrained. I have about 10 minutes of total time to respond to questions during this 90-minute period, so it is not for the sake of not answering; it is simply to acknowledge that.

In the context of the questions asked, on the opening statement of the climate change strategy that was produced, it notes very clearly that the coalition Government is committed to meeting its climate change targets. This is our climate strategy. That is the coalition Government’s strategy, and in order to respond to the question asked, again that remains the Government’s position. In the context of the questions asked, one of the members noted carbon capture, utilisation, and storage (CCUS), which is in regard to carbon capture related to, primarily, the gas sector. The Government is, and remains, committed to ensuring we have the regulatory framework in place to enable CCUS to occur in New Zealand. That has not changed, and work is currently under way in regard to that.

As the member should, hopefully, know, as a result of prior Government decision-making, we have a significant lack of supply of gas in this country. On the one hand, emissions reductions from gas, which was modelled in the emissions reduction plan, is one of the key pathways, but the reality is that New Zealand has significantly less gas than what we thought we had a number of years ago. By simple mathematics, if you’re going to have less gas, you’re going to have less emissions in that context. We’re still committed to the regulatory framework, and we’re working our way through that at the moment.

Another member also noted, and made comments in regard to, emissions trading scheme (ETS) option “failure”. With respect to those who understand how the ETS option operates, it is not accurate to describe it as a failure. When the market does not clear, it simply states that the amount of demand in the market is less than the amount of supply and that that demand can be satisfied through what is referred to as the secondary market. There are two ETS markets where you can buy units: one off the Government, and one off other people who hold those units. The reality is that where people want those units, they can purchase those through the secondary market, and that is what happened. The fact that the option does not clear and the Government doesn’t issue units is not a failure of the option; it’s just simply basic demand and supply.

In regard to the conversations and questions in regard to waste management in the emissions reduction plan, it remains one of the key pathways we have outlined in the strategy, and there remains active work under way in regard to delivering that. There are a lot of opportunities in regard to particularly methane capture, in terms of waste management, and also opportunity to use that methane for energy production as well. This is a Government that is committed to review all those options.

Tēnā koe e te Tiamana. I’ve got a couple of questions and comments about the Minister’s opening remarks and, also, around the independent report on climate adaptation with particular reference to whenua Māori.

First of all, the Minister of Climate Change spoke about the stocktake on marae. I find it interesting that the Government makes statements about engaging with Māori really quite easily, when, in fact, they seem to forget some of the actions that they’ve taken that actually isolate Māori and think that that’s not going to impact on the results of things like doing a stocktake on marae. Getting rid of the Māori Health Authority has impacted on all marae in the country. Downgrading the value of te reo Māori has done the same. My question to the Minister is: if he wants to engage with Māori, how is he going to do that given that Māori don’t trust this Government at all and the Government is going to be on the back foot in being able to do that work?

The other issue that I want to talk about is whenua Māori local adaptation decisions. In the independent report, it spoke about this issue. My question is: how is he going to empower Māori, iwi, hapū, and wānanga to actually do this work, again, given that this Government has made an absolute hash of a relationship with Māori? Kia ora.

Yeah, I do want to respond to those comments because I think they are without substance in the context of the allegations that were made. To make a comment and a gross generalisation that Māori do not trust this Government is simply not one which is based in any evidential fact or substance. The reality is, actually, in the area of climate change, and the relationship with iwi Māori, we have made significant positive steps forward in regard to the work in which we’re doing. There is a very close and active relationship between the Iwi Chairs Forum and myself, as the lead Minister of Climate Change, along with Marama Royal, who leads that on behalf of that, and we have an active programme in order to do that. That partnership has undertaken a stocktake of virtually all marae in this country in terms of the risk. Why? Because, actually, those communities are on the front line of climate change. They are feeling the impacts of climate change, and, as a Government, we have recognised that and are actually not just talking about it but taking action to deal with that.

Of those 1,000 marae, we have done 145 detailed risk assessments, and we are in the process of rolling out interventions. Meremere, up in the North, where I went across and helped as part of Government funding in terms of a new water supply for that rural and isolated community and other interventions—these are positive actions on the ground that do help communities. To make such statements, that Māori don’t trust this Government, I think, is simply—

Hon Member: Māori hate this Government.

Hon SIMON WATTS: Well, you know, you have to own the words which you say in this House. I’m very proud of the work that we’re doing, we have an active programme in regard to that, and the reality is that actions speak louder than words.

I find it very interesting that the Minister of Climate Change has not answered the question put by my colleague the Hon Deborah Russell with respect to committing to the Paris Agreement and affirming for this House and the general public that this Government continues to be committed to the Paris Agreement. I want to know from the Minister: what would be the international implications for us withdrawing our support for the Paris Agreement? I want to know from the Minister whether or not there would be any trade implications for us with respect to withdrawing our support for the Paris Agreement.

I also want to know whether or not the Minister has provided advice to the Prime Minister, given that he is at the Pacific Islands Forum Leaders Meeting now, or perhaps en route back, and whether or not that advice included anything with respect to climate change and the Paris Agreement. Has the Prime Minister gone there to reaffirm a commitment from Aotearoa New Zealand to the Paris Agreement, or has the Prime Minister gone there withdrawing support for the Paris Agreement?

Now, this is incredibly important, given that the number one challenge and issue cited by our Pacific regional neighbours is always climate change, so I’d like to know what advice that Minister has been providing to his Prime Minister. What messages is the Prime Minister giving on the international stage on the Paris Agreement? Again, I want to ask the same question that the Hon Deborah Russell has asked on a number of occasions, whether or not that Minister and this Government are committed to the Paris Agreement.

I want to be very clear and categoric that this Government is committed to its climate change targets and New Zealand’s climate change targets—that is, both our domestic targets and our international targets. Our international targets are in the context of the Paris Agreement, and they are clearly, as I’ve noted, coalition commitments in regard to this Government.

The member asked, “Why is this important?” Well, first and foremost, in the context of the multilateral system, the climate change agreement in the Paris Agreement is one of the few remaining multilateral agreements that is holding at this point. There is significant geopolitical tension and pressure out there, and New Zealand is committed in the context of that agreement.

I was in China last week. China remains strongly committed to that and will be coming out with their Nationally Determined Contribution targets in the next two months. Australia are strongly committed to that and will be coming out with their targets, as well, in the next six to eight weeks, and so it is important for New Zealand to play its part.

Yes—and particularly as a member has highlighted—the Pacific are at the front lines of climate change impact in our region. New Zealand does and should and continues to maintain a role to support our Pacific countries to ensure that they are able to have their voice heard at that international level. That’s why we supported Australia’s bid to host the United Nations Climate Change Conference next year.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, I want to ask a few questions around adaptation and resilience. The first thing, in terms of how we respond to that, is we don’t build the wrong things in the wrong places. I note—through you, Mr Chair—to the Minister of Climate Change that we’ve moved very recently to try and address some of the problems that occurred in Auckland, so that the Auckland Council was not compelled, effectively, to consent buildings in places which we know to be flood-prone.

My question, really, is: what is the Minister aware of in terms of how we can help councils around the country who also have situations where people may well want to develop new buildings, new housing, in areas which are hazard-prone, particularly flood-prone; and the Resource Management Act, we know, is not the most nimble beast in the world—how we are helping those councils to be able to respond to those issues so we are not building the wrong thing in the wrong place. If I might illustrate that, we know, going back in time, that the Christchurch council did not want a lot of houses built in the area which subsequently, after the Canterbury earthquakes, was devastated—what is now the red zone. The council tried to say no to that; they were overruled. So my question—through you, Mr Chair—to the Minister is: what are we doing to assist those councils to be more nimble, to make sure that we’re not building the wrong things in the wrong place?

On the flip side of that, I would also be very interested to know if the Minister is aware of councils which are maybe taking it too far. I mean, there’s a council not far from here which has, essentially, said that the entire district is potentially prone to inundation from climate change, up to a distance of a good couple of kilometres from the coast—I’m talking about the Kāpiti Coast District; that has got its citizens very concerned. It’s about getting the right balance there. I’m also aware of another situation where there are people who wish to deliberately flood areas by raising lake levels in the Canterbury region. So I’m very interested—through you, Mr Chair, to the Minister—in his observations around how we get the balance right.

I thank the member Andy Foster for those questions. There’s a reason that the first pillar of the Government’s climate change strategy, which we released last year, is ensuring that infrastructure is resilient and that our communities are well prepared to face the impacts of climate change. As I noted in my opening comments, the country is facing growing risks from natural hazards, such as floods and storms, and severe weather events, like we’ve seen in the Tasman area this year. Those impacts are not only devastating, they also come at a significant fiscal cost. The country has, in effect, incurred costs in the region of $50 billion over the last decade alone in order to fix infrastructure impacted by the impacts of these weather events. It is a significant fiscal cost, and we know that this is more than just a simple fiscal cost; it has societal, cultural, and other significant complications on those communities.

I hear the points that you’ve noted around councils and the way in which we absolutely believe that they should be using evidence-based data to make those decisions. We know there are inconsistencies there, and we want to work through that. That’s why the climate adaptation framework—the major part of it—is making sure that the data that’s being used is appropriate, evidence based, accurate, and consistent. Therefore, we should ensure we get that balance right around managing the risk.

The other issue with adaptation is that we’re seeing insurance premiums increase across New Zealand, and we know that that has an implication on the cost of living pressures that Kiwi households face. Making sure we have the appropriate information also deals, in effect, with one of the key drivers that cost of living is implicating in New Zealand households. That is another area of focus.

I don’t know if the Minister of Climate Change actually believes some of the things that he is saying right now. I mean, saying something does not make it true; saying something does not make it real. You need to put substance and actions behind your words, Minister.

I asked the Minister before, particularly, about the carbon capture technology by which the Government relies on for approximately a full third of its emissions reductions in the emission reduction plan. What he said, after I asked him what the Government was intending to do off the back of comments from the private sector, which the Minister has said he wants to partner with to make this happen—well, the private sector has said that it’s fully economically unfeasible to do this. The Minister’s response: “We’ll just deal with the regulatory environment.” No specification about what that actually means. He did not say that the Government will be investing in making this a reality. If we are to create the regulatory environment, well, the Minister must know that that means the price of emissions must go so, so much higher.

My question for the Minister off the back of that is: is the Minister intending to, if we are to take his words at face value, create the regulatory environment—to use his own terms—to create far higher pricing for emissions? That is my first question for the Minister, which we need his response to.

Then, in response to my questions about waste, by which it appears that the Government is completely double counting the money that it has set aside, $30 million for waste minimisation, also for organics emission reduction—that $30 million being the baseline required just for organics, which it is also simultaneously allocating to waste minimisation in general. Well, the Minister just said, “Oh, you know, it remains part of our strategy.” Absolutely no detail and completely ignoring the question and the reality and the facts and the evidence that he is double counting the money that is allocated here. Make it make sense.

Perhaps the most astounding of all of that—post the gaslighting—is that we have a Minister of Climate Change in this country recycling fossil fuel talking points. The Minister was talking about how, apparently, the reason that we have a gas shortage in this country is because of the offshore oil and gas ban, which came into effect in 2018. The Minister knows these facts. He knows that gas production peaked in this country 20 years ago. He must know that it started steadily declining year on year from 10 years ago. That is multiple years before the oil and gas ban came into effect.

Even if we were to have found a new gas well in 2018 when the ban came into effect, the average time it takes to go from exploration to production is 16 years. What that means is if the ban did not come into effect and we found it as early as 2018 when the ban did come into effect, then we would still be waiting 10 years from this point right now for that new gas to come online.

So will the Minister please be honest with New Zealanders. Will he please be honest about the opportunity cost that comes from this Government subsidising new fossil fuel production to the tune—

Ryan Hamilton: Not a subsidy.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: —of $200 million of New Zealanders money and will he provide the facts and the information that offer the contrary view that it’s not a subsidy—as members from over on his side continue to heckle out—because all of the information that we have in the public is to the contrary. All of the information that we have in the public, from an independent King’s Counsel, shows that it is, in fact, a subsidy per the definition of the Agreement on Climate Change, Trade and Sustainability.

My baseline question for the Minister, basically, is, through the Chair: do you even believe what you’re saying? Will the Minister of Climate Change please stand up, because I cannot point to one thing that the Minister has done in his position of power as the Minister of Climate Change that has put us on a positive trajectory with regard to climate action.

My second question is, given that the Government has been dancing around and refusing to answer questions about its no additional warming work programme—and just for those who are uninitiated, no additional warming is a pseudo-scientific method that’s been shopped around by big agriculture internationally; has found nowhere to land in Governments across the rest of the world until they met these guys. Well, when is the Government going to make clear that it will reject that pseudo-science, which would see a far higher burden placed on households and other businesses across this country, if we are to meet our emissions targets, as the Minister says he’s committed to?

Thirdly: is the Minister committing to keeping the Climate Change Commission with all of the powers that it currently has into the future?

Hopefully the member will include my comments in the TikTok grabs that she’s recording at the moment for her social media, knowing that I only have two minutes to respond to all the questions left on this. I don’t want to waste the opportunity, I’ll use my two minutes on your response, because I know you’ll cut this part of my speech in your videos when you post them later on.

Minister Simmonds will be administering the waste management programme; she has prioritised organic waste solutions and will be continuing to make decisions around specific projects in this area. This Government—and please put this on your TikTok—is 100 percent committed to the Climate Change Commission, and the work this Government has done around appointing Dame Pasty Reddy to the leadership of that function conveys the important role that that entity plays and the independent advice that it provides to all Governments. That is an important part of the mix.

In regard to the other questions regarding landfill, we do have and we are progressing a wide range of policies and tools to achieve the abatement objectives in the emissions reduction plan.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I have a couple of questions for the Minister of Climate Change with regard to the impact of climate change and the adaptation work he’s mentioned and how that relates to the protection and improvement of biodiversity particularly. I have specific questions for the Minister, but I thought I’d start with just the fact that there are measurable impacts of climate change on the fishing industry—for example, two of the greatest threats to New Zealand’s marine environment are warming sea temperatures and the acidification of oceans. That threatens what is a $2.2 billion industry for New Zealand, which is fishing, and I know this Government has a goal to triple the revenue from this industry as well.

Given those two particular threats, which are of course leading to things like the decline of specific fish stocks, the availability of food—their migration patterns are being disrupted as a result as well, there are flow-on effects around the changes to ocean circulation patterns, and we know that climate change has intensified the strength of storms, of rainfall, and all of that leads to sediment erosion and therefore the reduction of water quality as well. Given all of those, my question to the Minister is: what within his adaptation plan deals with the protection and the improvement of ecosystems and biodiversity, in this case with a particular focus on the marine environment? I do have another question around wetlands as well.

I want to ask about methane. Back in the hearing on this, I asked a question about when the Minister was going to set a methane target. I said: “When do we think that we’ll have some clarity on which way the Government intends to go on this?”. The Minister replied: “I would expect that that decision would be made this year, in terms of timing. It goes back to the point around certainty in terms of where things are at, and it is important for us.”

Minister, in recent months, I’ve been talking with representatives from the agricultural sector—I’ve been talking with Federated Farmers, with Beef + Lamb New Zealand, with other producers—and the one thing they say they want now around methane is certainty. “Give us a target. Give us a goal, and we can work towards it”. Those are the words I’ve heard from people in the agricultural sector. “Targets can be tough”, they said, “But at least if we’ve got one, then we can work to it”. They’ve also asked for a target which provides some certainty over time; some certainty that it will not change from Government to Government. They want a target that will have broad agreement across this House.

I have a series of questions around the methane target. First of all, when will we have a decision on methane? A decision that, the Minister said, would be made this year.

The Government remains committed to making decisions in regard to setting the methane target this year. Cabinet has not made a decision on that at this point. However, while the member and I disagree on many things in this context, I would agree that the importance of having certainty in this conversation is an area that is an imperative, and we’ll be doing everything we can to ensure we get that outcome.

Earlier this week, I was at the Environmental Defence Society and the Climate Change & Business Conference, and there was a very telling and interesting comment made by Izzy Fenwick on a panel. Ms Fenwick was asked, “What was the risk to New Zealand if we didn’t meet our climate targets?” Interestingly, she said, “Climatically, the risk doesn’t really change.” The fact is: no matter what, we are going to be affected by climate change, and what New Zealand can do, itself, will change the results of climate change very little. New Zealand’s own efforts won’t make much difference to the actual impact of climate change. “But,” she said—and it was a very important “but”—“the risks to New Zealand, if we do not meet our climate goals, if we do not set realistic methane targets, if we do not get our emissions under control, if we do not meet the Paris Agreement, are economic and political.”

Our trade partners will walk away from us. It was in evidence presented from leading businesses figures that our trade will suffer, because, increasingly, customers in our markets are demanding that the food we produce is low emissions, low carbon, and low methane, that the food we produce can be certified to not be increasing climate change. Setting a realistic methane target is very, very important to us, for economic and for political reasons.

Is the Minister committed to maintaining New Zealand’s international competitive edge as world leaders in low-emissions food and fibre production? Does he see any risks if his Government weakens the methane target and moves it away from the target range that was agreed to by virtually all of this House—bar one party—in the Climate Change Response Act? Is the Minister committed to that 24 percent to 47 percent methane reduction range in the Climate Change Response Act?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I will just reiterate the question that I asked the Minister of Climate Change earlier, with regard to the impact of climate change on biodiversity more broadly, but specifically on the impacts to our oceans and, therefore, our fish stock. I mentioned, previously, that our seafood industry brings in $2.2 billion worth of revenue for New Zealand. One of the top fish species that we export is hoki, and that is also one of the most threatened fish species when it comes to climate change and the impact that it has on both warming and acidification of oceans.

I refer to a report that was commissioned by Fisheries New Zealand which is about climate change, titled Climate Change and New Zealand’s Seafood Sector. It lays out quite clearly what the impacts of climate change are on our oceans and on our fish and it specifically speaks about the impact to hoki and says that increasing ocean temperatures is likely to cause a decline in the population of this particular fish species, and also speaks to the shifts in oceanic winds and the impact that currents might have on food availability and, therefore, the sustainability of the population.

My question to the Minister was: what, in his climate adaptation plan, has any regard to the improvement and the protection of biodiversity, given the impacts and the flow-on effects it then has in terms of our economy, because of the impact it has on the number and the take of the fish that we are able to grow here in New Zealand?

I also want to ask the Minister a similar question to do with salmon species. I know that New Zealand Fish & Game has been raising this for quite some time now, particularly with sea-run salmon that may be within rivers that lead to the ocean, but these are particular salmon that need to go to the ocean for cooler temperatures, and then that’s part of the migratory pattern, basically. But that’s been disrupted because when the ocean’s warm, and these fish need to stay cool, that then means that there’s an impact on them; the juvenile of the species struggle to grow, and what we’re seeing now is both a reduction in salmon populations more broadly and also the fact that the young salmon aren’t growing to the extent or the size that they should be growing to, and that impacts export of salmon, as well. One might ask why, given it’s an introduced species, we need to be worried about it.

But very quickly, if the Chair would indulge me, there’s a lovely story around salmon in New Zealand—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’m happy to indulge you because the Minister has very little time left, so the more questions you can get in your speech, the quicker he can condense them and answer them; so yeah.

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: Sure, sure. The Minister can give me a very quick answer on the impacts of climate change on our ocean temperatures and what he’s doing about it.

One of the reasons that we need to protect salmon is that, back in the late 1800s and early 1900s, we actually received salmon eggs from a river in California. They had a dam put in place. Their salmon couldn’t survive. We got it here in New Zealand in the Rākaia River. There’s now been a link established with the Native Americans from that part of California, who are now wanting to take back salmon species from New Zealand to reintroduce to their habitat. That’s why we’ve got a number of reasons for protecting fish in New Zealand. It’s not just the economic argument; there’s also the cultural aspects of specific fish species.

I’ll leave it at that and hope the Minister responds to that. I’ll come back with a question on wetlands.

Without doubt there are significant impacts on aquaculture as a result of the impacts of climate change. In the Pacific particularly, you see the migration of fish species because of the warming temperatures moving from some countries to others, which has an implication in regard to food security. This is a real issue that is in play within our region.

In regard to our strategy, we have biodiversity as one of our five key pillars. That includes blue carbon and other initiatives that we can do to look to maximise the opportunity to use sequestration within the oceans.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, there’s a quite broad question to be asked here, which is quite simple in context, it is: where does the Minister see he is going to achieve gross cuts in greenhouse gas emissions?

We know the Government has a strategy of substantial offsetting to pine forestry; many have asked already and canvassed what the strategy is around the methane, but when you simply look across our emissions profile as a country, you can start doing the maths on where we are going to achieve the direct cuts in emissions. Is it in the transport sector, Minister? Clearly, if you’re expanding roads, if you’ve tanked the electric vehicle market, if you’re doing nothing about our $10 billion oil deficit, then how are we going to achieve gross cuts in the transport sector? What is your strategy?

Is it in the energy sector? Clearly, if you’ve intended to spend $200 million on subsidising gas—whatever you want to call it—and expanding coalmining in Rotowaro, clearly there’s not a clear pathway to those gross cuts in emissions from the energy sector.

In the agricultural space, we’ve now got 15,000 more dairy cows on the Canterbury Plains. That does mean more methane emissions. It is axiomatic that if there are more methane-emitting ruminant animals, there will be more methane emissions. Clearly, your plan is not to achieve gross cuts through farming and agriculture. Where is your plan, Minister? Give us the numbers. How will we achieve gross emissions cuts?

Two key areas: Electrify NZ, which will double the amount of renewable energy in this country, is a key area of focus. The second is co-investment with the private sector on solutions to reduce biogenic methane, such as animal genetics, which will reduce methane from cows by 10 to 20 percent and is already pretty much ready to roll out in the Waikato in the coming years.

This is my last question on methane, and I want to put together two things. We asked the Minister, repeatedly, whether or not his Government stood by its commitment to the Paris Agreement despite the scepticism expressed by the Deputy Prime Minister and the leader of the ACT Party—they’re the same person—and the scepticism expressed by the Foreign Affairs Minister, who is also the leader of the New Zealand First Party.

The Minister eventually made it quite clear that, yes, this Government is committed to the Paris Agreement. That’s a good thing. However, alongside this, we have had some disturbing work done on methane this year where the Government appointed an independent methane review panel. Of course, the reason one appoints an allegedly independent panel is to get the solution one wants. That particular panel came up with a concept of “no additional warming”. However, the Environmental Defence Society and other key environmental NGOs have said that the concept of “no additional warming” would undermine commitments under the Paris Agreement. How does the Minister make these two things stack up? When are we going to get a clear and explicit target around methane? Is the Minister going to reject this concept of “no additional warming”, given our commitments under the Paris Agreement?

Before we go on, can I just alert the committee to the fact that the Government, or National, has no time left.

Point of order. Kia ora, Madam Chair. What happened this morning was—what I saw—the Minister, in his first opening comments, took almost 10 minutes, which was half of the time left. It is within the rules; I understand that. [Interruption] I thought that points of order were heard in silence.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I did too.

GLEN BENNETT: They’re just heckling me and carrying on.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I remind members on my right that points of order are heard in silence. Thank you for your assistance.

GLEN BENNETT: This point of order needs a bit of context, because there are no Standing Orders around this. I understand it’s within the rules, but I’d say within the spirit of Estimates and within the spirit of transparency, it is frustrating, particularly as an Opposition wants to—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Sorry, the point of order is?

GLEN BENNETT: I am coming to that—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Can you come to it quickly?

GLEN BENNETT: —because I just want to give that context. I think we’d be willing to give up a little bit of time to the National Party. I know, for example, that the ACT Party has at least 15 minutes. I’m sure that New Zealand First has at least 30 minutes or more. Te Pāti Māori has a lot of time. I’m just wondering whether there’d be any leeway or consideration within the rules for us to offer some time so that the Minister can continue to be prosecuted on a really important issue of our time.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Point of order—new point of order.

Just a minute. I’m taking advice on this first point of order. Just for clarification, the whips can have this conversation, or the member could seek leave to allocate some of his party’s time to the Government to carry on this conversation if they so wish. For your information, Labour has 17 minutes remaining in this debate. It’s now 15 minutes

Point of order, Madam Chair. I seek leave for the Labour Party to give up five minutes of its time to the National Party—I don’t normally do a caveat—for the reason that answers be given to Labour Party MPs.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Sorry, I’m not sure I understand that.

GLEN BENNETT: We seek leave to give five minutes to the National Party, but we would assume, in kind, that they’ll answer our questions they haven’t been answered yet.

Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

The Minister spoke about electrification. Yes, electrification is clearly a huge opportunity for us. However, we have decades of under-investment in new renewable generation in this sector through a failure of the gentailers to invest new renewable generation. Without an intervention in the electricity market—which is currently paying a billion-dollar dividend while people shiver in their living rooms—how is the Government going to achieve this supposed electrification? Clearly, the current market system is not enabling the building of new generation, even though there are consents granted and even though there are plenty of places where we could be putting wind turbines.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I find it rather interesting that, when the Minister stood up to respond to my questions, he talked about what can be done but not what this Government is doing to address the issue of climate change and its impact on biodiversity, on ecosystems, and, specifically, on the issues I’ve raised to do with our marine environment. I would be really grateful if the Minister would tell us what is in his plan that will achieve the outcomes that I’m seeking through my questions; if, in fact, he thinks that there is something that this Government is doing to protect our marine environments?

The second point that I would like to raise along the same lines of marine environments, and the threats therein, is the fact that there are extensive knowledge gaps, and I would like the Minister to outline what work is under way through his climate adaptation programme or any other programme to fill some of those knowledge gaps—for example, while we know that the two greatest threats are ocean warming and ocean acidification, we don’t really know what specific impacts there are when it comes to heatwaves and our marine fish stocks. That’s a knowledge gap that needs to be plugged. We know that when pH levels shift and, therefore, the ocean acidification is worsened, that there are some impacts on marine life, but, again, we don’t know the extent to that or the specificity around it. I would like to know what steps this Government is taking—and the Minister, particularly—to plug those knowledge gaps, because without knowing what the details are, I would assume that it would be difficult for the Government to address them effectively.

The second point that I want to make is around wetland restoration, and I refer specifically to the Ministry for the Environment’s climate adaptation report that they have commissioned and published. It’s an independent climate adaptation report that points to New Zealand’s vulnerability in this space. It makes points around the fact that biodiversity is threatened as species’ habitats change or disappear, and it speaks to the need for greater integration of adaptation and mitigation if it’s across Government to protect the environment.

It makes a mention of wetland restoration, specifically. We know that there’s been a historical decline—for example, by 2008, only 10 percent of New Zealand’s original wetlands remained; 6 percent of the original swampland is all that we have left. Currently, only 0.9 percent of New Zealand’s land area is wetlands. Now, there are a number of NGOs that are undertaking work to restore our wetlands. There’s a distinct link between climate change and our wetlands, as well—for example, carbon emissions from wetlands that are drained is an issue.

Peatlands are especially vulnerable when they are drained. They release significant amounts of stored carbon into the atmosphere. In New Zealand, dried peatlands contribute to 6 percent of our carbon emissions. We also know that rewetting peatlands in peat areas could prevent the release of, I think it’s about 2 million tonnes of carbon that could be prevented from releasing. We also know, at the same time, that increasing flooding from sea-level rise also means that wetlands are at danger of being completely submerged and lost. There’s a huge risk there when it comes to the impact of climate change on wetlands. There’s a risk of drained wetlands, too, increasing our carbon emissions, and there’s a huge gain to be realised from restoration of wetlands and the rewetting of peatlands.

Particularly, given all of that and the fact that wetlands are a hotbed for biodiversity, and a number of different species—for example, whitebait, rare birds; all of those are at risk of decline and loss if we don’t act now. What is the Minister doing to ensure that we mitigate or we reduce the impact of climate change on wetlands, but, equally, what are the steps this Minister is taking to restore wetlands to contribute to our climate targets?

Firstly, thank you for the allocation of time. This Government is focused on nature-based solutions that address climate change. As the member has noted, restoring biodiversity is a key component of that, and we also need to investigate ways of harnessing nature to remove emissions from the atmosphere.

As I noted in my opening comments, we are progressing work around a carbon removals framework, and this includes components of wetlands and other aspects, including the blue carbon components within forestry. Our intent is to have a framework that is scientifically robust and that removal activities, agnostic to what they are, have the mechanism, and if they are able to be measured and independently verified and validated from a scientific basis, then you should be able to look to get credit for that as part of the broader model. So there is work under way.

One specific example of Government policy in this area is the work that we’re doing around afforestation on Crown land, which, obviously, includes native afforestation on Crown land. It is our view that that is one mechanism that we can unlock that will have an enduring biodiversity benefit to New Zealand as a result of more native afforestation on the low-conservation, low-production farmland that we have available in New Zealand.

Now that the Minister of Climate Change has some more time available to him, I’d like to redirect his attention to the issue of international risks. I’m going to quote some words from the hearing earlier this year—the Minister’s own words. He said: “The implications on international trade, you know, New Zealand has a reputation, and we have one of the best reputations in the world, as a primary sector exporter of red meat, dairy product, and other products. Why would we put that at risk?”

I would like to invite the Minister to address the political and economic risks to us of not setting a realistic methane target—a target that we can agree on across the House—and I invite the Minister to express what he thinks of the concept of no additional warming and whether that is going to affect the methane target that is being set by the Government.

Within the coalition agreements that the National Party have with ACT, we have committed to undertaking a scientific review in regard to methane—which we have undertaken—and we will be considering that alongside the Climate Change Commission’s advice in regard to the methane targets that will be considered later this year.

In regard to our broader commitments and the statements that I made, I stand by those statements that I made in prior hearings, in the context of the implications of how important New Zealand’s primary sector export economy is to our economy and ensuring that the products that we do export meet the requirements of customers overseas, which has a growing desire to ensure that they are sustainable in that context. In that mix, we are of the view that this is critically important in terms of our broader trade agreements and arrangements, and hence why we remain committed to these targets.

Madam Chair, I want to move to adaptation again, quoting the Minister of Climate Change from the hearing earlier this year. He said, “We’re now working as quickly as possible to introduce legislation to support an enduring national adaptation framework. This will help people make more informed decisions about how we adapt, provide greater certainty, support our economy, and ensure that we grow investment.” In his speech earlier today, he talked of some of the range of activities that are being undertaken around adaptation, getting better information about risks, better information about cross-sharing, some cross-party work on climate adaptation, some guidance for local government. However, we have still not seen the legislation around adaptation. Could the Minister please give an indication of when we might see the legislative framework for adaptation? [Member resumes seat and then stands to seek another call]

Well, Madam Chair—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The Hon Dr Deborah Russell.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: Hi, I’m enjoying this so much! I do think this is very important around adaptation. The Minister referenced the select committee report on adaptation and said it was a way forward. To be honest, that select committee report pretty much just came up with exactly the same answers as the expert working group on adaptation. If we look at that select committee report, those are the solutions offered by the select committee. They are the very solutions offered by the expert working group on adaptation.

The Minister then commissioned a separate independent review on adaptation. What I want to understand from the Minister is how he intends to reconcile the findings from that independent review on adaptation—which is quite a short report, eventually, about 14 pages—with the findings of the select committee and, more importantly, with the findings of the expert working group on adaptation. It seems a shame to set up an independent group when there is already a perfectly good solution at hand with respect to work around adaptation.

The Government is progressing at pace in the context of designing the building blocks for a national adaptation framework. We remain committed to be able to say more about that later this year, and it remains our intent to continue to work with all political parties. I acknowledge the importance of certainty in regard to that topic area and—as and when we’re in a position to do so—we will continue to engage in that dialogue.

The Minister has made quite a large play around the use of carbon-capture technology. It underpins a large amount of the second emissions budget, and it is a key plank of the Government’s strategy around reducing carbon. However, earlier this year, Fletcher’s said that the proposal for a carbon capture technology unit at Kapuni was no longer going to work, and it couldn’t work because it was too expensive. Has the Government decided whether or not to put extra funding into that carbon capture technology that was supposed to take place at Kapuni?

The Government remains committed to put in place a regulatory regime in regard to carbon capture, utilisation, and storage (CCUS). It is an important aspect of New Zealand’s climate objective and energy security. Any CCUS-related risks—noting the comments that that member has noted that have been raised in the media—will be considered by Cabinet as part of the annual process that we undertake around adaptive management approaches, which is set out in the emissions reduction plan.

The Minister of Climate Change has said that New Zealand is on track to meet its first and its second emissions reduction plans, emissions reductions budgets, however, that’s not quite the case, actually. In fact, the Climate Change Commission has a monitoring report on emissions reductions. This monitoring report came out in July this year—after our hearings, of course, but nevertheless—and is something that has been referred to extensively by the Minister over the course of this debate.

What I want to understand, though, is how the Minister reconciles his claims that we are going to meet our emissions reductions plans, our emissions reductions budgets, given that the Climate Change Commission, in its monitoring report, has said that the first emissions budget is likely to be met due a combination of emissions reductions and changes to accounting methods. The second emissions budget can be met, but there are some areas of significant risk. Those areas of significant risk are around relying on reductions from carbon capture and storage, which may not be realised, and that the third emissions budget covering 2031 to 2035 requires further action urgently to be met.

The Minister has said that we want to achieve our climate targets, that we are committed to the Paris Agreement, but it does seem that our progress towards actually meeting those targets is at significant risk.

In the context of any target, there is the amount of emissions that the economy produces. Projections and an update of those projections in regard to how much emissions the New Zealand economy is producing will be released later this year. That is an important consideration in the context of what the interrelationship is with the pathways for emissions reduction, and that will provide us with an updated position in terms of what the gap is across those targets. But we do remain on track in regard to both emissions budget one and emissions budget two at this point.

Members, the Labour Party’s time has expired. The Minister’s time has 50 seconds left. It looks like we have exhausted the debate. The time for this debate has now expired.

The question now is, That clauses 1 to 10 and Schedules 1 to 5 be agreed to.

Clauses 1 to 10 and Schedules 1 to 5 agreed to.

Bill to be reported without amendment.

House resumed.

The committee has considered the Appropriation (2025/26 Estimates) Bill and reports it without amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.