Smith Nick: Estimates Debate — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSmith Nick: Estimates Debate — In Committee[Sitting date: 28 July 2015. Volume:707;Page:5370. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): In these estimates I want to emphasise that our National Party Government does not proclaim to be the greenest party in this Parliament. What we do proclaim is that we are the party that is able to marry together good economic stewardship with responsible management of New Zealand’s treasured environment.I firstly want to respond to the challenge from Eugenie Sage around biodiversity. My colleague Maggie Barry the new Minister of Conservation—against the advice of Treasury—secured $11.5 million in this vote for ensuring that the ongoing decline in the kiwi population does not continue and if there is a portion of our biodiversity that every member of this Committee should treasure it is the survival of our iconic kiwi bird.I want to respond to the contribution by New Zealand First in respect of New Zealand’s climate change target and the work that Tim Groser is doing internationally. I want to put on the record of the House as a member who has taken an interest in climate change for all of my 25 years here that I have not known a climate change Minister to be as influential in the international negotiations as Tim Groser and every member of this Parliament should be proud of the contribution that he is making. Mr Denis O’Rourke challenges us on the target of a 30 percent reduction of emissions by 2030. I have a simple challenge for New Zealand First: we could have been much more ambitious in those targets if it were not for the fact that emissions went up by 25 percent in the term of the previous Labour Government which New Zealand First was part of. So it is rich for New Zealand First to come to this Parliament and claim that the target is not ambitious enough when during its watch when its members were in the Cabinet room emissions went up by more than in any other term.Look back at the projection—the actual record of emissions between 1990 when we entered the framework convention on climate change and today—and the very worst period was in the period from 2005 to 2008. At the same time that the previous Labour Government was talking about carbon neutrality—the very period when New Zealand First had ministerial warrants—New Zealand’s emissions went through the roof. I ask those members to contrast the fact that the actual record of this Government in constraining the growth of emissions has been more successful than any Government in the records since 1990.What these estimates provide for is a real focus on the environmental issues that are important to New Zealand. The biggest increase in my vote is in terms of the work around fresh water. I think every member of this Committee would want that to be a priority for the Government. Let me give the numbers for a matter of record. These estimates enable us to lift the overall contribution during our period in Government—our commitment to freshwater clean-up projects—to $350 million over the 9 years that we have been in Government. Let me compare that with times when there was a lot more cash for the Government when the previous Labour Government spent just $50 million. That is one-seventh of the amount that we have committed and that is why I say to members of this Committee that this Government has a record of real commitments in fresh water.But it is not enough just to commit the money; we need to get the proper rules and management in place to manage fresh water. That is why in 2010 we introduced the first National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management and why in 2013 we introduced national standards known as the National Objectives Framework and why in this next year we will be taking the next steps around the invertebrates index around the issues of exceptions to the policy and around the very tricky challenging issue around Māori rights and interests. With these estimates we will be able to take those next key steps around fresh water.I also want to say that these estimates provide the resources for the Government to take the next steps in ocean management. An important step that we will be taking later this year is for the Environmental Protection Authority to take responsibility for the pollution regulations in that part of the exclusive economic zone that makes up more than 20 percent of the area that we are responsible for in terms of jurisdiction. That is why a very important part of our next steps for our Bluegreen team is around reform of New Zealand’s legislation in respect of marine-protected areas.This is a complex piece of work. It involves a large number of Government agencies—foreign affairs and defence have an interest and both my ministry the Ministry for the Environment and the Department of Conservation. There is a big interest of course from the Ministry for Primary Industries and Nathan Guy is taking an intense interest in it. This year we will be putting out a substantive discussion document on how we can improve the legislative framework and that is something we are going to do in the next year and we would welcome Labour’s support for a piece of work that has been promised for—Hon Ruth Dyson: Got a time frame yet?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I will just remind the Labour member that it was in Labour’s policy in 1999. You had 9 years in Government and made no progress. Look forward to the progress that we will be making in the next year around that important piece of work around marine-protected areas which was mentioned in the Speech from the Throne at the beginning of this year.The other specific area that I want to mention is the importance of resource management reform. In that area we are going in the direction of a greater degree of national consistency. If we are to get good environmental outcomes but bring the compliance costs down for sectors what we need to have is a greater use of the national instruments under the Resource Management Act. That is why right now with the support of these estimates which provide a substantive increase in funding we are looking at a national environment standard on telecommunications. Why? Because my colleague Amy Adams the Minister for Communications is going for broke to make sure that New Zealand is a world leader in the extension of ultra-fast broadband and cellphone technologies.But it is no good doing that if we cannot actually get those new networks consented. Having every single one of our councils across New Zealand having a different set of rules around where you can put Wi-Fi ultra-fast broadband and cellphones does not make sense. That is why these estimates provide for our concluding this year a national environment standard around those communications. I really do challenge the Green Party which has come out publicly and opposed that national environment standard and I say that it is holding back New Zealand’s connectedness and New Zealand’s competitive advantage in not wanting us to have a greater degree of consistency in that area.I will also mention one of New Zealand’s really important export industries the forestry sector. You know members give lip-service to the issue of regional development. What are the regions of New Zealand where forestry is a critical industry? It is Northland. It is the central North Island. It is areas like Nelson Marlborough and Southland. If you talk to the forestry industry one of the real concerns that that sector has is differentiation of rules under the Resource Management Act which drives up their costs and undermines their international competitiveness. That new national environment standard which we are consulting on right now is going to provide for good environmental outcomes. In some areas it will mean tougher environmental rules—that is true—but it will result in better environmental outcomes and a huge reduction in the amount of bureaucracy and consents that are required for New Zealand’s fourth-biggest export earner.Alongside that piece of work is important work around the Resource Management Act which is also critical in respect of the key challenge New Zealand has around housing. A key part of these estimates provides support for the development of the Auckland Unitary Plan. Why does that matter? Well Auckland is actually one-third of the country. This Government is providing support to Auckland to be able to finalise a plan for that city in the next year which is so critical to its economic growth and housing as well as ensuring that we have good environmental management in that year.So this programme in the conservation climate change and environmental areas shows a very active blue-green agenda by this Government. It does the things that will make sure we better manage our environment our water our marine space our biodiversity our air quality—those things—while also supporting a strong economy.Undermining all that work then is a revolutionary step in the way in which we actually measure how we are doing.Hon Ruth Dyson: Did you say “undermining” or “underlining”?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Underlining—absolutely underlining it. Let me tell the member who has interjected why. It is this: if you ask me what is one of the two most important pieces of legislation that a National Government has passed that has made New Zealand do better I would highlight the Fiscal Responsibility Act 1994 because we as a country should be ashamed of our record preceding that Act in the management of our public finances. And in the 20 years hence we have done so much better.