Simmonds out and about and talking trash in recess week
Environment Minister Penny Simmonds making a keynote speech to the Waste Minimisation conference, as she did this week, certainly offers a multitude of possibilities for mischief.
However, this was a serious speech by the Invercargill National MP, one which set out much of what she has been doing in a portfolio in which the opposition likes to claim Ms Simmonds' performance has been of diminishing proportions to the needs of the great outdoors.
"Over the past year and a-half, I've been focused on delivering the government's priorities for waste, contaminated sites and broader environmental challenges," Ms Simmonds began encouragingly.
"We know the waste sector has long-standing issues, but these challenges come with opportunities to improve outcomes for both the natural world and our communities."
So far, so green. As, potentially, are changes to replace the Waste Minimisation Act and the Litter Act which the government has recently consulted on: the former law dates from 2008 and the latter from 1979, and the attitudes to and science concerning those issues are much changed and greatly advanced.
"The aim is to introduce the new legislation before the next general election," she said.
The government was also working on improving recycling, reducing plastics use and was awaiting a report on how to recycle materials which at present cannot be accepted by kerbside collection schemes.
Now, some might say "what a load of old rubbish" to that, but consider this. The WasteMINZ conference is a four-day affair with an associated trade expo event — "the flagship event for New Zealand's waste, resource recovery and contaminated land sectors" may sound unnecessarily grandiose, but WasteMINZ has got some game.
Here are some numbers to consider, from a report released the previous week into building industry waste from the year 2023.
This single source of industrial waste sent 5.25 million tonnes of debris to dumps — over two-thirds of all the waste those tips and landfills received — and of that, 18.5% was recycled.
Also, consider that just in Dunedin alone right now are being built a new hospital, regional council headquarters, ACC hub and a radiology service building, and that in the city's hinterland, consent is being sought for mines and transport hubs.
Those will generate many thousand of those annual millions of tonnes of debris — much of the recent waste being courtesy of the hospital project and the associated demolition of the former Cadbury factory. That all has to go somewhere, and few would want to see it in rivers, oceans or dumped on wasteland.
That is the way we used to do things, as Ms Simmonds knows well given that the Contaminated Sites and Vulnerable Landfills Fund is $20 million of remediation money under her purview.
Locally, that fund has put cash into clearing up the Little Tahiti Landfill in Milford Sound, the Ocean Beach Landfill near Bluff and funded planning work ahead of a much-needed purge of the old Kettle Park Landfill in Dunedin.
Ms Simmonds told the conference that more help was at hand. Nearly 80% of waste was soil or rubble, and a lot of that was either clean or so slightly contaminated that it could be rinsed and reused rather than dumped.
"This contributes to landfill overuse, emissions and high project costs. For these reasons, I am pleased to confirm today that I support the WasteMINZ proposal to fund a national soils management framework," Ms Simmonds told a no-doubt pleased audience.
"Ministry for the Environment officials will be working with WasteMINZ to develop a phased approach for addressing these issues. Details are still to be finalised and the sector will be kept updated."
So far, so sensible, as was news that the government had established an emergency waste fund. When a disaster such as an earthquake, cyclone or flood strikes, an enormous amount of waste is generated which, by and large, councils have to clean up — often without extra funding.
Ms Simmonds touted a standing fund and a simple application process, hopefully avoiding the lengthy delays faced by Christchurch in clearing quake debris or Hawke's Bay in disposing of silt from the cyclonic floods.
However, it was not all clean and pristine in Ms Simmonds' wasteful world: she had to skip around the government removing the 2025 deadline to phase out all PVC and polystyrene food and drink packaging — a decision taken to give the industry more time to adopt alternatives.
Ms Simmonds also promised to continue to "reduce waste and support recycling innovation" — which sounds good, but which avoids highlighting that the government actually reduced the amount of funds allocated to be spent out of the Waste Management Levy in the May Budget.
If you are the opposition, this is trashing the environment to pay for tax cuts; if you are the government, the $30m left after the fund is reduced by 49% will "improve the value of that spending."
Time will tell if less really is more. The youth of today
The triennial Youth Parliament takes place on July 1 and 2, although the associated programme of supporting events is already in full swing.
Every three years, MPs pick a teenager from their electorate or region to be their Youth MP: that young person then gets two days in Wellington taking part in debates, committee hearings and being grilled by a youth press gallery.
Having worked in the actual press gallery during a previous Youth Parliament, it's a fun and inspiring event for all concerned.
The South's Youth MPs are: Angus Noone (Mark Patterson); Ankita Pilo (Joseph Mooney); Enya O'Donnell (Miles Anderson); Hunter McKay Fairfax Heath (Todd Stephenson); James Watson (Scott Willis); Jomana Mohartram (Francisco Hernandez); Nargis Girhotra (Penny Simmonds); Phoebe Ashdown (Rachel Brooking); Zenah Taha (Ingrid Leary).
mike.houlahan@odt.co.nz
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Otago Daily Times
2 days ago
- Otago Daily Times
Exploring diligently throughout Question Time
When I get back from leave, I am going to have to find out if the HR department is in cahoots with the government. The two occasions I took a break last year coincided with one of Prime Minister Christopher Luxon's two visits to Dunedin, and the other with Health Minister Simeon Brown's trip to town. So naturally as soon as I headed out the door last week Mr Brown was back in Dunedin again for another hospital announcement — one slightly more palatable than the last one. I still have some way to go to beat my much-respected former boss Audrey Young: her holidays had such a spooky habit of coinciding with party leaders being rolled that it came to be known as "the curse of Audrey" — but it's still a little frustrating. So having missed all the fun, let's go back in time to Parliament's last sitting week, and Wednesday's Question Time, which may have set a record. Of the 12 questions, a quarter were asked by southern MPs ... although maybe only a third of those elicited anything which might have been of any interest to their constituents. First up was Act New Zealand Southland list MP Todd Stephenson, who got to ask the acting Prime Minister — who, coincidentally, just happened to be his party leader David Seymour — the hardy perennial of whether he stood by all his government's statements and actions? Spoiler alert: yes, he did ... particularly the NZ Infrastructure Commission's freshly announced National Infrastructure Plan. Mr Stephenson followed up by asking about access to new medicines — which the man who is also an associate health minister with responsibility for drug-buying agency Pharmac was more than happy to talk about — and then GPs (ditto). It was going so well, but Mr Stephenson then incurred the Speaker's wrath by asking his leader to comment on comments made once upon a time by the little-remembered Labour MP Charles Chauvel about the Regulatory Standards Bill. "No, that's not something you [Mr Seymour] can make any comment on whatsoever. So sit down and have another go at the question," the Speaker harumphed. Fair play to Mr Stephenson; he found a cunning way around the Speaker's edict by asking if the acting PM agreed with any statements that he had recently seen in relation to the Regulatory Standards Bill. "Well, I do, as a matter of fact," Mr Seymour replied with glee, before embarking on the sort of answer which makes Gerry Brownlee turn puce. Q10, from National Waitaki MP Miles Anderson, was much more benign, as he asked Agriculture Minister Todd McClay about the government's plan to ban full farm-to-forestry conversions — as covered in last week's Southern Say. No alarms and no surprises here, as Mr McClay gave a suitably apocalyptic answer to Mr Anderson's question: "What is the impact on rural communities of whole farm-to-forest conversions?" Q11, from Labour Taieri MP Ingrid Leary to Associate Housing Minister Tama Potaka on proposed changes to the Retirement Villages Act, was when things got really interesting. She wanted to know if the draft legislation would include "provisions for repayments but not mandate them". This is a topic close to Ms Leary's heart (she has a member's Bill in the ballot on just this subject), not to mention thousands of retirement village residents and their families affected by the issue. Most villages operate under an occupation rights (ORA) agreement system, whereby residents buy the right to live in what might well be their final home, but not ownership of it. That sum is then held until the ORA ends. An ORA does not come cheap — in the realm of hundreds of thousands of dollars. Which is high, true, but which may also be fair enough in some circumstances: villages are expensive to build and costly to run. But an ORA comes with associated bonds and fees, and gruesome tales abound of residents, or their families, being obliged to pay fees after moving to a higher-care unit or dying. Also problematic is the process of getting out of an ORA. The village will usually claim a portion of the ORA as an "exit fee" and then resell the ORA. However, that right may well have accumulated a considerable capital gain in the intervening period — something that the former ORA owner cannot benefit from. Many, and Ms Leary is one, think this effectively means villages are enjoying an interest-free loan from their residents — albeit that they receive a secure and comfortable lifestyle and residence for their golden years. Consumer has been running a campaign for years on the issue of what it sees as unfair retirement village contracts; Mosgiel's Brian Peat, president of the Retirement Village Residents' Association, has also been hot on the topic for a number of years. Mr Potaka has bad news for Ms Leary, saying that the Northern Advocate article on which she has based her question had been incorrect Undeterred, she then asked if Mr Potaka would commit now to mandating fair repayment times and terms. "There are a number of matters that we are considering as part of a broader reform of this matter, including dispute resolution protections, and a wide range of consumer protections and various matters, including those that the member referred to, will be considered and are still under active consideration," Mr Potaka replied reassuringly ... but not reassuringly enough for Ms Leary, who pointedly followed up with: "What other sectors are there where people have no control over when someone pays them back their own money?" That was quite a broad and open question, Mr Potaka replied, but he could say that the government was "responsibly reviewing" a wide variety of matters, including consumer protections for elderly folks living in retirement villages. Would that include, perhaps supporting a law change which would require operators to give residents their money back within three months, Ms Leary wondered, knowing full well that such a Bill existed. "If the member is asking me to jump in front of Cabinet and make decisions by way of a question and answer session, I will not be doing that," Mr Potaka said. "What I will be doing is diligently and professionally undertaking my responsibility as associate minister of housing to explore these issues and bring these matters through the policy decisions and, ultimately, to this fine chamber." But whether that exploration makes anyone happy is a question for another day.
RNZ News
7 days ago
- RNZ News
Where to now for Polytechs?
money education 9:10 am today Some polytech students are grappling with courses being cut or changed. This as Te Pukenga is in the process of being wound up, with individual polytechs around the country working to show whether or not they can stand on their own. Some students are finding their courses significantly changed, or are struggling to confirm they can transfer studies to a similar course, under restructuring proposals. Legislation to disestablish Te Pukenga had its first reading in May. Vocational Education Minister Penny Simmonds earlier this month criticised the polytechs for having too high staff-per-student ratios, saying that any institute with fewer than 18 students per staff member was in financial trouble. Third-year Whitireia performing arts student Aroha Morrison says one of the proposals is to cut the final year of her programme. She will finish hers, but current students in years behind hers would miss the final year.
RNZ News
19-06-2025
- RNZ News
Ministers quizzed over bottom trawling, freshwater, axing Predator Free 2050
Environment Minister Penny Simmonds has defended deep cuts to environment funding at a sometimes scrappy scrutiny hearing, which also saw opposition MPs challenging the government over weakening freshwater rules, bottom trawling near Auckland, and axing funding for Predator Free 2050. Green MP Lan Pham asked Simmonds what risks she saw from about $650 million in cuts to funding for the Ministry for the Environment across the previous two Budgets. "When you compare that to an annual budget of $528m in total, you san see that it's significant," Pham said. "Minister, you've been overseeing those cuts and some of the most damaging legislative changes we've seen in decades." Simmonds said budgets for the ministry were decreasing anyway under previous government. "We are doing things like using the much greater waste levy to go across a range of environmental issues," she said. "It's about getting value for money." "This country could not afford to keep spending the way it had been," Simmonds said. Labour MP Rachel Brooking said none of the government's strategic priorities for reforming environment laws talked about improving the environment and asked if a better environment was Simmonds' goal. "Your strategic priority document talks about improving the RMA (Resource Management Act) to be more efficient and effective but... there is nothing here about improving the environment." Brooking said waste management policies had been weakened. "You're consulting on removing the national bottom lines for freshwater," Brooking said. "These are all things that seem to go in the opposite direction from improving the environment." Simmonds said she did want a better environment but was focused on action. "The question highlights very clearly the difference between ideological statements and commentary and getting things done, and that's what this government is about, getting things done, getting product stewardship schemes in place, getting waste funding used to improve the environment," she said. The government reallocated much of the money from waste levies from purely funding waste-cutting schemes towards paying for broader environmental work in the Budget. "You're quite right, we haven't indulged in ideological rhetoric of the previous government but we are getting on with doing the things [that will help]." Simmonds was asked by Pham for the evidence behind her statements that the balance had swung too far in favour of the environment. "We are managing risk, risk if there is not economic growth, risk if there is not sufficient housing... there is risk of not having development and there is risk of any development that we do on the environment," Simmonds said. In a scrappy exchange over conservation, Minister Tama Potaka was asked about the decision to axe funding for Predator Free 2050 as well as changes to the protection of the Hauraki Gulf from bottom trawling. Green MP Celia Wade Brown said axing funding for Predator Free would only shift the work to an "overstretched" Department of Conservation and asked how volunteers were expected to keep investing their time in culling pests when the government was pulling funding out of conservation. Labour's Priyanca Radhakrishan asked Potaka how he squared the decision to disestablish funding for the Predator Free 2050 company with his statements a few months earlier about its crucial role in eradicating pests. Potaka said the Department of Conservation had had to go through a process of cost savings just as "nearly all portfolios have had to give up something". "One of those choices was to remove the funding for Predator Free 2050 Limited and disestablish that company." He said there had been some duplication between the company and the department, and "a lot of the mahi" could be undertaken by the department. "I think it is important to delineate between opinions and facts," Potaka said. "There is a strong opinion that we are not committed to Predator Free 2050 (the goal) and that is entirely inaccurate, we are consulting right now on a predator free strategy and... we have allocated a significant amount of money." He said 14 jobs would be lost from the closure of the company but some might be redeployed. Potaka accused Brooking of being "out of control" during a heated conversation about wildfire protection rules sparked by a herd of Wapiti deer, a type of elk, which the government recently decided to protect in Fiordland National park. Brooking asked Potaka if Wapiti ate the undergrowth of native forests in National Parks. "Yes, they do eat undergrowth but they also contribute significantly to tourism and getting the economy moving again and we're really thrilled to have partnered with the [Fiordland] Wapiti Foundation... and others," Potaka said. Potaka said he was carrying out conservation reforms because of some "archaic arrangements". Brooking asked, "Is the New Zealand Conservation Authority an archaic arrangement?" and noted it was included in the proposed reforms. "I've never said that, and you imputing that I did I think is out of control," Potaka said. Brooking could be heard saying "settle" during Potaka's answer. Potaka also defended changes to bottom trawling in the Hauraki Gulf under questioning from Green co-leader Marama Davidson, which became another heated discussion. Davidson asked if the minister had sought advice from officials "about the impact of continuing to allow for disruptive trawling and how that will impact on his purview of protection of ecosystems and indigenous species, and what further extra cost or work it might take to fix up that destruction?". "I'm not aware of any extensive advice that has been proffered to me on trawl corridors in the Hauraki Gulf but what I am aware of is extensive advice that's very celebratory of our tripling of the protection [area] in the Hauraki Gulf, which we are going to follow through," Potaka said. On freshwater, Associate Environment Minister Andrew Hoggard said he knew of a vegetable grower producing a quarter of the country's leafy greens who was operating illegally because the council couldn't give him a consent. He defended the proposal to get rid of national bottom lines for water quality. "I'm aware of catchments where water is coming out of nature at quality worse than bottom lines." "We can't just live with no jobs, no economy in an idyllic little paradise." Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
