The Great Freshwater Debate

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: My name is Seth Williams, I'm the Environmental Editor and Tiwapananu South Island Reporter for newsroom.co.nz. I will be a moderator, but first I'll hand over to Tamarita. [00:00:19] Speaker 2: It's a pleasure and thank you for asking me to start tonight. First of all our acknowledgments to Greenpeace for hosting this evening and to you yourself, David, for moderating tonight. I understand we have a number of political parties here to acknowledge and thank. I apologize for that. [00:00:53] Speaker 1: It's a sign for everyone. [00:00:55] Speaker 2: We have kei kongai to Party Vapor, Rachel Brookings from Otaku. Welcome Rachel and it's a pleasure to have you here as well as Lan Pham, who used to be at Anne Ecamp but is now in the Green Party as well. Kia ora na. Eden Skipper of Otunonia is the Opportunities Party here tonight. And we also have Dale Stephens from the National Party. Thank you for attending. Dale, we do not have New Zealand First Act into Pāti Māori. I'm not surprised that's a Pāti Māori. But I would have enjoyed listening to the economic theories of Ag to New Zealand First. Let's move on. We're also here to thank our panelists tonight. Dr Russell Norman from the Executive of Greenpeace. Thank you as well, Russell. Particularly coming down from Auckland for tonight. We've also got Marnie Prickett, Research Fellow, Public Health Department, University of Otago. And Angela Clifford, CEO of, it's an acronym. And it's called EAT New Zealand Food Growing Perspective. I should say my wife, Gabrielle, is a senior manager in Tarunua Ngāi Tahu with strategy and influence. But she was also the CEO, and she is the CEO, Takura Takapini, which took legal action last year on water. That's what I have to do. I think tonight is going to be an interesting discussion. These types of events are always about shedding light, not heat. So we're anxious to listen to everyone's views, their economic views on how we're going to resolve fresh water, and the environmental issues as well. Before I finish, we're here also to acknowledge Dr Kevin Brown, the geochemist who's an owner of property out in West Melton. I should say Kevin's wife is Jennifer Brown, who had a wonderful photograph of her father at the University of Canterbury. I don't think we've seen it, but it needs to be put on public display. Gabe, it might have been at the art exhibition for the tribe. But it's a fascinating photograph of her father, taken in the 1950s, who's drinking the water out of the rivers inland. You'd never do that now. But it's a beautiful photograph. So, Kevin, it's now your duty to outline the events for tonight. Kia ora. [00:03:46] Speaker ?: Nō mai. [00:03:46] Speaker 2: Haere mai. [00:03:47] Speaker 3: Tēnā koutou katoa. Good evening. I'm Kevin Brown. I'm a geochemist for my sins, and I live on a 10-acre lifestyle block about halfway between Rolleston and West Melton. I did serve on the Christchurch West Melton Zone Committee, which helped to implement the Canterbury Water Management Strategy. I was on that for four years and was the chair for the last of my two years. My wife, who you, thank you very much, has introduced is Jenny Webster Brown. She's a consultancy partner as well, and she's a water quality scientist, previously Professor of Water Resource Management at Canterbury and Lincoln Universities. And then, after that, she was director of our Land and Water Science Challenge. So, we both have a personal and professional interest in the issue of nitrate in the groundwater. On our... Ah! There she is. She really wanted to be here, but we actually do the environmental audits of Scott Base to make sure everything's fit to drink and all that sort of stuff. And she's stuck down there in a conditioned one huli storm at the moment, so she won't be home. She's hoping to be home tonight. So, we both have a personal and professional interest in the issue of nitrate. On our lifestyle block, we run coloured sheep and angora goats for their fibre, which we sell to spinners and weavers around the motu. There's no council water supply available, but we do have a 48-metre deep well as our sole water supply. As chemists, we've got gear for measuring nitrate concentrations, so we have constantly monitored the concentrations in our water supply. So, just to note, I'm the chemist part of it, and there are two ways of reporting nitrate. There's milligrams per litre, and that's the same as parts per million, of nitrate nitrogen. And then there's milligrams per litre, or parts per million, of nitrate. And the nitrate one is about four and a half times the other one normally. I'll just try and use the nitrate-nitrogen unit. The other one is a chemistry unit. The other one's for biologists who don't understand chemistry. So, at home we measure values between about six or seven and eleven, twelve milligrams per litre of nitrate-nitrogen. This varies with the season and with the general amount of rain. Typically, there's a maximum in spring due to flushing of surface nitrate into the aquifer during winter due to the increased rainfall. And there's a minimum nitrate, conversely, in autumn after a long hot summer where there's been very little wash of the nitrate from the ground into the aquifer. This, of course, is a general problem across the Canterbury plains. And the nitrate is of both recent, and you might be surprised to know, historical origin. Background levels of historical nitrate. And the historical nitrate is that bottom level, the six or seven parts per million. And at our place, it's probably round about 30 to 50 years old. And they've done that by some radiochemical dating. This water feeds our stock from the well, feeds our stock, troughs, as well as the house. So the stock drink the water. We do not drink the water. We have a still. This is not the right sort of still, unfortunately. It's for distilling water. And we only drink the distilled water. We use the water out of the tap for boiling vegetables, cooking and things like that. But definitely not for drinking. You'd think that we'd be well aware of the problem. But we were caught out a year ago or so with a bottle fed orphan lamb. The lamb was going downhill rapidly with the milk substitute that we had made up with our tap water. When we, of course, noticed that her lips and her tongue were very dark coloured. When we realised what was happening, of course, we swapped the tap milk for distilled water and she recovered and consequently thrived. This is the effect of methamoglobinemia, or blue baby syndrome, which is much easier to say. Where the nitrate is actually converted to nitrite. And the nitrite alters the state of the iron in hemoglobin. And that stops the hemoglobin accepting and giving oxygen. So you're kind of running without oxygen in the body. As adults, the body itself produces an enzyme to counteract this problem. Consequently, the World Health Organisation drinking water limit of 11.3 milligrams per litre of nitrate nitrogen is set to protect infants and certain elderly people against this problem. This is an acute limit. In other words, it's something that produces an immediate effect. And that's different to most of the WHO drinking water limits. Most of them are set as chronic limits. And the chronic effect is something that happens over a long period of time. The chronic, the way the WHO defines it, the limit is based on a 60 kilogram person drinking two litres of water per day for a 70 year period. There are currently no chronic drinking water limits set by the WHO, the nitrate. There's only the acute limit. There is also concern for us, based on the recent overseas studies, that nitrate in drinking water can be a contributing factor in colorectal cancers. One of the major studies is the so-called Danish study, and I'm sure many of you have heard of this. This was a longitudinal cohort study published in the IJC, the International Journal of Cancer in 2018. The IJC is the premier cancer journal in the world. This study started off with 2.3 million people, and they reduced that to 1.7 million adults that they thought the data was good. And they, between the ages of 20 and 35, and they took them together with their nitrate drinking water exposure. And they followed them again, up after 35 years. They found just under 6,000 cases of colorectal cancer among the cohort. And the analysis following this showed that there was a statistically significant increased risk of CRCs, colorectal cancers, above the drinking water nitrate nitrogen. Nitrate nitrogen, nitrate nitrogen of 0.87. Right? The WHO limit is 11.3. At levels above 2.05 nitrate nitrogen, the increased risk was about 16%. This is why we don't drink our water. These carcinogenic effects appear to be significant at concentrations much less than the current WHO drinking water limits. So if somebody quotes the drinking water limits too, they're designed only for babies. Right? Denmark, for the record, Denmark has just lowered its limit to 1.3 ppm of nitrate nitrogen. What about the environmental consequences? Groundwater nitrate also influences the chemistry of spring-fed streams in the eastern lowlands of the Canterbury Plains. The increased nitrate levels in these streams contributes to excessive growth of algae. It's a nutrient, of course, and they grow and clog the streams. The worst thing is they deplete the oxygen concentrations in the water. And the oxygen concentration severely impacts ecosystem function and the health of fish and macroinvertebrates. So what are the options? Clearly, reducing the load of nitrate entering the groundwater is a key method for securing drinkable groundwater in the future. However, even if we stop at this very instant, it would remain a problem for lowland streams and for Canterbury's drinking water for decades due to the load that still got to move through the groundwater system. So, treatment to remove nitrate from affected groundwater used as a drinking water supply is essential. Is this a personal responsibility and cost? Is it a district, regional or national responsibility? It is possible to remove nitrate from drinking water at all scales, but it can be expensive. Thank you. [00:12:42] Speaker 1: Thanks so much, Kevin. In normal Dave Williams' chaos theory, we'll do the back-to-front thing second. So, I should have started by saying where your exits are. So, everybody exits left and right of the stage. We came in with another exit in the upper area at the back. If you see the green light, the green man. Toilets are in the foyer using the door to the right of stage. Emergencies, drop, cover, hold for a quake. And whatever happens, wait for instructions from staff and volunteers. Just to give you a quick rundown. So, we're going to have our political panel that will take a break at 8:15. And then we'll come back soon after. And we'll have our expert panel who have all been introduced already. But let's warm up the crowd. I'm going to imagine that you're politically engaged. Hands up if you're enrolled to vote. Have a look around politicians and political candidates. Hands up if you're enrolled to vote outside of Christchurch. Okay, quite a few from outside of Christchurch, which is great. Welcome. Hands up if Freshwater is in your top ten issues this election. Keep it up if it's top five. Top five? Keep it up if it's the top issue. Okay, so top five. It's very big. Also, hands up if you've personally seen the deterioration of Freshwater in your lifetime. Politicians and hopefuls? This is your audience. All right. So, let's welcome to the stage our political party reps. If you can come up and then I'll introduce you. And let's have a round of applause. I don't know, whatever you like. This is the hardest part, knowing where everyone is. So, just so you know, those people who haven't seen these people before. Directly next to me is Rachel Brooking from the Labour Party. She's the Dunedin North MP. And then we have Lan Pham, a Green MP formerly of Christchurch, now of Wellington. Oh. There you go. And then we have Eden Skipper, the Opportunity Party's Christchurch Central candidate and his opposite number. Dale Stephens of the National Party. I would give the disappointed parent speech, but Tamati's already given that one about who's not here. So, we'll just kick off. So, why don't we start in alphabetical order of last name. So, Rachel first, if you need to know. Good. Dale Stephens. Dale Stephens. It's actually pretty good. It's actually alphabetical now. So, we'll start off with Rachel, and it's three minutes to go. And then we get a little signal, and then I have to do that. Okay. So, three minutes each. [00:15:58] Speaker 4: Great to know. Kia ora. I am the Member of Parliament for Dunedin, not Dunedin North anymore, just Dunedin. And so, you will excuse me for not knowing my Canterbury geography as well as the other spokespeople candidates on the stage. Look, the Labour Party in 2017 campaigned hard out on swimmable rivers. When we got into power in 2017, we worked hard on resource management reform and making that dream a possibility. Because, as we just all said with our hands up, we all know that waterways have degraded, and that it's bad, and we need to fix it. So, we had, with David Parker, amendments, changes to resource management law, and also the essential fresh water package, and that included the National Policy Statement 2020, with Te Mana Ōtawai in it. We also repealed the Resource Management Act, and brought in a Natural and Built Environment Act, and a Spatial Planning Act. And a key issue with these was to try and move the RMA's focus on effects into outcomes in the new legislation, and to have clear environmental limits. Because we were trying to achieve two things. That is, to make the RMA more efficient, but also to do better for our environment. And when I talk about environment, I am very much including fresh water in that. So, if I say environment rather than fresh water, bear with me. Now, we did that, and the environmental limits were going to be the MPS FM 2020 in that legislation. Of course, then National came in and they repealed all of our legislation. But they have not repealed the MPS FM 2020. They have done a little bit of meddling with it, and I am sure we will talk about that later. So, they have also brought in legislation that they say is to be more efficient and to do better for the environment, because it has environmental limits in it. But there is a trick. The environmental limits are not limits. They are so-called limits. And they enable the minister to go around the limits, but also before the limits can come in place, they have to be tested against economics. And a whole lot of other things get around them as well. So, they are no limits. There is supposed to be a limit for fresh water. So, what we have done or what I have done in the Labor Party during the 30 hours of the committee stage of these bills, it has drafted up a whole lot of published amendments and also some tabled amendments to say, one, to try and make the environmental limits actual limits and to have good processes for how they are made, but also to say, well, the fresh water limit, we can go with that MPSF FM 2020. That is the starting point for the limits, we are saying. We would all have to go to the select committee. I think I am getting noises here. So, that is where we are going in the fresh water. But I do need to say, there has been a total assault on the environment, fresh water included in the past three years, and we have been up against it, fighting tooth and nail. Thanks, Rachel. [00:19:22] Speaker ?: Lan Farm. He mihi mahana ki a koutou. Oh, is my mic on? [00:19:25] Speaker 5: Oh, cool. Great. [00:19:27] Speaker 6: Um, ki ora koutou and wana mihi to nai tu ahuriri and thank you to mighty and Gabriel for being here today. Um, my name is Lan Farm. I am a fresh water ecologist who, I guess, cut my political teeth in the fresh water world of Te Waipo Namu, the South Island. And this whole fresh water space, when it comes to the incredible fresh water ecosystems that we have in this country and the incredible creatures and critters that call those places home, are why I have gotten involved in this crazy political space. And it means so much to me, and I know it means so much to you who are here tonight and so many others who are out there in this country, that we take the reins of power that are currently been essentially dictated by big agricultural lobby groups and those with wealth in this country and return it to the people. That is exactly what this is about. And I want to start there because, um, as David mentioned, my background was on Environment Canterbury as a regional councillor and I've never been more appreciative of the constraints of local government than I am now seeing three years of this government in power. And that's because the constraints of local government act actually dictate that you have to make decisions that are one, ideally based on evidence and information and matauranga. And two, you actually talk to community. From what I've seen over these last three years, it has been anything but that. It has been political moves based on so little information and evidence when we know that all the statistics with fresh water are going backwards, apart from tiny areas where good people are doing some good things. We need this to change because we need actual clear direction, not only for our communities, but particularly for our farmers and our industries that rely on our environment because as much as any one industry spouts that they're the backbone of our economy, the reality is the only true backbone of our nation's economy is our environment. It is nature. So that's why the Green Party have come out front and centre this election with strong environmental policy somewhere where we've always been and always remain. And I know that there's a lot of commentary out there about how the Greens have forgotten about the environment. I want you to know the only reason that is, is because the environment and these issues are not racist, sexist or misogynistic. And so they get very little coverage. We're out there fighting and we will continue to fight till we get this power back. Thank you. [00:22:54] Speaker ?: Thanks Lan. [00:22:55] Speaker 1: I'm in danger of doing the Trump walking around behind Hillary Clinton thing. And I'm very sorry about that. I don't mean to, but I'm just trying to make my presence known when the three minutes are up. Yeah. It's okay. All right. Handing over now to Eden Skipper. [00:23:16] Speaker 7: Can I just tap the microphone if I go over? No worries. Right. Emilia ni ke koutou. Ena mana whenua o nai tu ahuri. Tēnē tamahi ke koutou. Te Māori. Te ūpoko. Tēnā koe. Yeah. Ko Eden Skipper toko ngoa. Right. We're talking fresh water. I was born in a place called Burling Slat. You wouldn't be drinking the water from there. You wouldn't be swimming in the water from there. In fact, most people don't even eat the fish from there. But I still do. Because we've had the reports and we know that the flesh is fine. You don't want to be eating any of the organs or anything like that. Because then that's where the toxins are. So when we talk about fresh water. I'm from Waitaha. I whakapapa te kata irekehu in Waitahu. And I was born and raised on the doorstep of what is a travesty for this country. And that is the decline of fresh water and the wider environment. Right. So some of my experience. I focus a lot on community development. So as I mentioned, I was born and raised out there. And eventually you get pulled home. And sometimes that means pulled into runaka politics. And then so what that has looked like for me and some of my contributions in that space is supporting with things. When we talk about fresh water, it's not just the why Māori there. It's also kiutai. Why is the fresh water dirty? Well, it's partly because what's happening around it. And things like deforestation and many other things that then pollute into that. So we need to look at a whole of system approach. So some of that mahi that I've done is looking at how we can restore some of riparian planting and other mahi over southern bays. And mahi, some of my fenonga have been leading that up. But also mahi kakai. So before I'm a political candidate, I'm also naitahu. It's part of my DNA. It's part of my whakapapa. It's where I was born and raised. And so we talk about if we can't drink the water, then that is one of those issues. And we talk about environmental limits. Well, that's a really clear environmental limit. If you cannot drink the water, then that's a limit. It's as clear as that. But for us, kai tahu, and we are in kai tahu whenua, then it's actually if you can't gather the kai and eat the kai from there, then that's another limit, for example. Right. That's enough of me saying how much of a kai tahu person I am. On to the next things. Right. Politics is very polarising and divisive. And unfortunately, irregardless of what's happening in Wellington and Parliament and those that elected in, if they fail, the tile is still hurting. This decline has continued to go down. So irregardless of what they are doing in Wellington, and when they cannot reverse and change this decline, then it's still hurting. And this is where I really lean into what opportunity I believe can do and work towards this unity. Right. Okay. Here's some tools. Tautoko with the political donations and lobbying and ensuring that there's more transparency and trust in politics. Good. Got three more points and then I'm done anyway. Right. Tools that we're pushing as a party. Okay. Transition. There needs to be a transition to halt the decline and support some of these freshwater challenges that we have. Okay. There's some funding, other tools. Compliance. We need to have more monitoring and understanding of what's happening. Finally, environmental limits. And we need to understand what they are. We need to reinvest and support in some of that science sector so we can get a better understanding of what those limits are and have trust and confidence of the solutions going forward. Thank you so much. [00:26:43] Speaker ?: Kia ora. Thanks Eden. Over to Dale Stephens. [00:26:45] Speaker 5: Kei wāunga nui te akua tango te kaupo for tēnei aki aki pō tēnāra tātā katoa. Kei akei matua. Ngamihi kiwai kei akei me tō o kupu. Tautoko ki te kaipo for tēnei hui. Thank you so much for welcoming me here along tonight. Te mairi, it's always good to catch up. I love to hear what you guys are up to. It's awesome. And first I want to start with a couple of apologies. Minister Bishop was originally invited. He's elsewhere in the country as is Minister Grigg. As you know, it's election time and they've got a lot of commitments all over the country. So the rāko came over to me. Could I come along tonight? I'm the candidate for Christchurch Central. I have next to no background in this field. But I must say that I spent, when I first returned to Christchurch in early 2010s, I spent 10 years in New Zealand Trade and Enterprise where I was the Director of Māori Partnership. We looked at a lot of Māori businesses from one end of the motu to the other. The sort of work they're doing, the sort of protection in kaitiakitanga they're providing to our environment. And it seems to me that if you want to look at good models and good opportunities for protecting the taio, we look at our mana whenua. Because they know, and they've done it for thousands of years, it's part of the DNA. And so I fully respect that. When I look at what the National Party is proposing, or what they're working through at the moment, I know there's all kinds of opposition to it. I'm not an expert in this area, but I just want to speak my position on this and a bit of the party's position. And that is, we've been looking at legislation, obviously, to rewrite the Resource Management Act, which has just been passed through Parliament. Are there some changes to that? Yes, it's giving certain ministers power in decision making. But I'm reminded of a saying, or I guess an often used comment from former Labor Minister David Parker, when he said that fresh water protection and economic development need to work together, need to be in one. And how can we do that in an appropriate way? So I often have discussions with my friends from the Greens, or from other political groups. And there's this, we've got to do it now, we've got to do it in a hurry. I get that. But we've also got to bear in mind that we've got a country that we're trying to get back up on its feet. And so how can we do this together, is my question. And I want to see us be able to work through these issues going forward, so that we can work constructively around fresh water strategies. And I've got to tell you, I sat here and listened to this kōrero at the start, and I was aghast. Because I didn't really know the depth of the issue. I didn't understand the figures, but I understand when you can't drink the water. So that's an issue. I don't understand the figures, but I understand the issue. I'm not a scientist, but I'm really keen to put forward whatever I can to help with this kōrero. Kia ora kato. [00:30:12] Speaker 1: Thanks, political candidates and MPs. I'm going to go off script here a little bit. And I'm just going to read from this book. It's called Canterbury at the Crossroads, and it's a book from 1983. There's a guy called John Adams who wrote a chapter called Groundwater Pollution in Canterbury. Remember this is in 1983. So what he says is there is no doubt that the 80s and beyond will see an intensification of land use in the Canterbury region. Irrigation development in particular will lead to increased stocking rates with consequent increases in dung and urine return in conjunction with greater leaching potential. Irrigation will also provide greater land use options with the possibility of more cropping and horticultural development and a consequent increase in applications of fertilizers and pesticides. These developments, excuse me, will combine to lead to an inevitable decline in groundwater quality. Nitrate levels in particular are likely to rise. 1983, everyone. So if I can go from there and ask this question, if I can start with Rachel and then move on one minute each in response. But the fact that we've known about this for years, how have we let things get this bad? So with Rachel. [00:31:32] Speaker 4: 1983 was before 1991. Good maths for you all. Which was of course the year that the RMA was passed. And I wasn't around in politics at that time, but I very much believe that it came from a good place of wanting to do better for our environment. It then got implemented in such a way that that hasn't always worked. But then the counterfactual is without the RMA, where would we have been? In 2019, I was part of the Randerson Review and we decided and recommended to the Labor Party that actually the RMA was not fit for purpose and it needed to be changed and we needed to do better for the environment and have very clear environmental limits. That is why we implemented the legislation that we did and got repealed. [00:32:25] Speaker 6: How have we got here since then? Why are things so bad is my question. [00:32:31] Speaker 1: Why are things so bad? [00:32:32] Speaker 6: Yeah. So, I mean firstly, the sheer numbers of it. The numbers that I'm aware of is that in the 1990s, early 1990s, there were 100,000 dairy cows on the Canterbury Plains. And the most recent numbers that I've seen were 2023, where there was 1.2 million. And I mentioned that in Parliament the other day to our Minister for the Environment, Nicola Grigg, and she said, no, no, no, no, no, no, your numbers are wrong. There's actually 1.3 million now. But there's slightly less in terms of like in the tens of thousands or something. The reason I think we've got there is because there's a complete disconnect between the values that we hold as New Zealanders, particularly in terms of passing things on to younger and future generations, and what our actual practices and the actual biophysical realities of our environment are. We're so disconnected from that, that we think that tinkering around with like a few cows changing here and there is what's going to get us somewhere, where we actually need to be investing in huge land use change, huge transition, to get us where we actually want to get change. [00:33:54] Speaker 7: It sounds like there was similar people talking about climate change. And then so I think about this frustration of people talking about it then very much now, is that are we reversing that decline? And so you can argue that back then that it was maybe acceptable. Now it is absolutely not acceptable. We know the consequences, we know the challenges that it has to our wider environment, to public health risk and various other things. So we cannot allow that to carry on. And I was actually reading one of your articles, David, because you've got to follow up on these things and do your research, around the extra, I believe, 18,500 cows that were then also being introduced. So when we talk about knowing this is an issue and the cows increasing and then hearing of more cows coming on, then there is an issue with the market and how dairy is working and profit of that. So this is where I sort of lean into more of that compliance and environmental limits and there is some amazing work that is being done from different people. There has been some good work in governments before, but ensuring that we have proper compliance and environmental limits because these challenges are not stopping. We have got the Al Nino coming up that is going to have significant consequences. We need more real time data and more compliance to understand and be reactive and prioritise the most important areas. [00:35:19] Speaker ?: Thank you. [00:35:25] Speaker 1: That's how you do it, people. You tell people, the moderator that you've been reading his stories. Just a bit more of that, please. [00:35:31] Speaker 5: Over to Dale. In 1983, we didn't even have a Waitangi Tribunal. You know, so we're going back a long way to see what the legislative and the environment was in those days. And it also plays into what Kevin was saying. In 1983, the nitrates in his land was already 10 or 20 years old. So that's been a problem for some time. I chair an organisation in Christchurch called the Ministry of Awesome. In the last four years, it's an organisation that incubates new start-ups. In the last four years, 27 of those start-ups have been in the environmental area and sustainability. And I can't help but think, in the 80s, we didn't have that kind of opportunity. But I think about the opportunities for technology and innovation now. We've got to deal with our practices, but we've also got to be open-minded to this new technology, new innovation that's coming in, because that can help to accelerate our move away from current problems. [00:36:29] Speaker 1: Thanks, Dale. All right. So that was the easy, broad question. Let's go to something more specific. It was Labour's David Parker, who was Environment Minister in 2018, said that we'd see noticeable improvements in lakes and rivers within five years, based on the policy programme that he had. Under your party's policies, we'll start at the far end. We'll go back to you, Dale, because I'm sick of going this way. So, under your party's policies, how long will it be before fresh water improves? Please give a number. [00:37:02] Speaker 5: Wow. You can start with me, that's fine. Look, I can't answer that question with my lack of knowledge. What I can say is that I'd understand the 2026 budget put money aside for data research in this area. Am I wrong? And so, I look at all these opportunities and think to myself, what is the information, the advice, the evidence that can support where we go next? And if the problem is data, let's get the jolly data sorted. All right. [00:37:34] Speaker 1: Over to Eden. Goodbye. [00:37:37] Speaker 7: Can't give a specific timeframe as you talk about nitrates in the land for how long it is. What you can see from us, though, is more push and pull incentives, right? So, what's the push? Right, that would be heavier fines for polluters, more strict compliance and enforcement. Right, okay, what's the incentive? So, we'd introduce something called a biodiversity credit scheme, which would help encourage people, give confidence to the wider market that, actually, we also do want to work in support with farmers, because if you're just isolating them, then best of luck trying to change their minds. We'd need to offer the olive branch and introduce something like that, which we believe will support that. There's also a $500 million fund that would support, which would be kind of similar to jobs for nature, which would be focused on resilience. So, think about things like wetlands. That also plays a role with disaster resilience and many other things as well, biodiversity protection. So, that's our two things. So, that's what they can expect from us, not a fake promise of clean water by three, five years. [00:38:37] Speaker 1: All right, Lan? [00:38:39] Speaker 6: From the evidence I've seen, even if you completely turned off the mic, even if you completely turned off the pollution tap, it would really be two to five years at best to see improvements. But likely, especially in places like Canterbury, it can be decades depending on the ecosystem. So, the challenge that is in front of us is really about damage control in the first instance. The changes that this current government have made in terms of legislation need immediate attention. The reason why it needs immediate attention is because that is where the actual consenting decisions that happen on the ground on a case-by-case basis happen. So, we need to address that immediately, but then we need to turn our sights to where we're going. So, this is all about putting in the controls, and there's so many, around dairy conversions, around use of synthetic nitrogen fertilizer, and actually controlling that and bringing it all down over time. There's no magic solution, sadly. [00:39:57] Speaker 8: Thank you. [00:39:58] Speaker 4: Not a fake promise, Eden. Everything that the Labour government did with the Greens has been totally undone by this government, piece by piece. And it has been heartbreaking. And you have thought, surely they're not going to do this thing, and then they've gone and done it. And it was very systematic. So, it is the changing of Section 70 and 107 through various different processes. It is the stopping of the Otago plan, the land and water plan, the day before it was due to be notified. It is just most recently stopping the Waikato plan change one from being implemented. So, nothing has been able to be implemented, and that is the purposeful approach of this government, and it needs to change. And that is why, when we talk about freshwater limits, we need to be swift with new legislation about what they will be. And hence, going back to the NPS 2020, still going through a select committee process, that is also very important. But also, bringing back things like manawhakahona orauhi, having a general treaty clause in the legislation. All of this is very important too, because we know how important mahingakai is. [00:41:11] Speaker 1: So, do you have an idea of how long it would take? [00:41:19] Speaker 4: Oh, that was a question, sorry, I was too riled up. I agree with what Larton was saying, in terms of, you are trying your best to stop more destruction, and then it will take longer to do more cleaning up. [00:41:37] Speaker 1: All right. Can I get a show of hands? Is agricultural intensification, particularly dairying, largely responsible in Canterbury for freshwater pollution? Okay. Oh, look at all you guys. [00:41:55] Speaker ?: That's brilliant. [00:41:56] Speaker 1: What great audience participation. I love it. [00:41:59] Speaker 6: Cheat-cheat, cheat-cheat. Right. [00:42:01] Speaker 1: So, based on that, what's the best policy that your party has got to reduce pollution from dairying, and why? We'll start with you Rachel. [00:42:10] Speaker ?: Okay. [00:42:11] Speaker 4: So, noting the question was largely, and again it goes back to what I was saying before, sorry to be on repeat here, but it is to enable those plans that were implementing the NPS 2020 to be able to do their thing. What do you think? [00:42:29] Speaker 1: One. [00:42:30] Speaker 4: Can we only say one? Yes. [00:42:32] Speaker 6: Um, lowering the existing nitrogen fertilizer cap, because that is about the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff, but we need that to put a line in the sand and then improve from there. So, that would be like the backstop, but we need the good stuff as well, which we're also there. [00:42:58] Speaker 7: Okay. Aidan? It is simplifying a very complex issue, but I will comply, because my answer is, as I've talked about a number of times, setting heavier fines for polluters to ensure stricter enforcement, but also by funding improved compliance monitoring. There is a number of things that I would say for other policies, but that's the one that I'll choose. [00:43:19] Speaker 1: Dale? [00:43:20] Speaker 5: In the last year, the government saw a consultation on requiring source water mapping. Interesting to see how that piece of work is finished and what comes out of that. [00:43:31] Speaker ?: All right. [00:43:32] Speaker 1: Thank you. Um, can I have another show of hands? In your party's view, I mean, um, it's kind of a strange question in some ways. Um, actually, no, it's not a show of hands question. I take that back. Let's start again. In your party's view, and we'll start at the other end again with Dale, um, who should pay to upgrade drinking water systems because of nitrate pollution? [00:43:56] Speaker ?: Dun dun. [00:43:57] Speaker 5: I'd hate to say user pays, um, but certainly there's a combination off the whole. [00:44:07] Speaker 1: So the user is the, the drinking, the person who drinks the water or the user is the person who's pollution? [00:44:12] Speaker 5: Well, I'm thinking about city council, um, local agency, stuff like that, where the responsibility sits in that regard. Okay. [00:44:19] Speaker 1: So it falls to authorities. Eden, do you have a view on that? I mean, does the opportunity have a view on that? [00:44:23] Speaker 7: Yeah, I'd say there's, um, a mixture of, uh, central government support to enable it and roll that out at scale, but from a local perspective, having, I think, being in a better position, planning and various other things. So it'd be a mixture of central government funding to help enable that and then more local government, uh, local government. So what's the point of view? [00:44:43] Speaker 1: I think that's the point of view. [00:44:44] Speaker 6: I think that's the point of view. I think that's the point of view. I think that's the point of view. I think that's the point of view. [00:44:48] Speaker ?: I think that's the point of view. I think that's the point of view. I think that's the point of view. I think that's the point of view. I think that's the point of view. [00:44:53] Speaker 6: I think that's the point of view. I think that's the point of view. I think that's the point of view. I think that's the point of view. I think that's the point of view. I think that's the point of view. I think that's the point of view. I think that's the point of view. I think that's the point of view. I think that's the point of view. I think that's the point of view. I think that's the point of view. I think that's the point of view. I think that's the point of view. I think that's the point of view. I think that's the point of view. I think that's the point of view. I think that's the point of view. I think that's the point of view. I think that's the point of view. I think that's the point of view. I think that's the point of view. I think that's the point of view. I think that's the point of view. I think that's the point of view. I think that's the point of view. I think that's the point of view. I think that's the point of view. I think that's the point of view. [00:45:32] Speaker 4: With the amendments that I'll be talking about a bit tonight to the nationals RMA replacements laws, I do have one that is a polluter pays amendment that the polluter should pay. How exactly you go about that in terms of mechanisms for dealing with this exact issue would be more complicated, but absolutely the polluter should be paying. [00:46:00] Speaker 1: All right, this is the time of the evening where we pick on Dale, sorry. Now, you are the representative of the National Party. They are in the government. So, for accountability's sake, we're going to go into the record. Let's give Dale a bit of a break in terms of his expertise, but I'll be interested in what he has to say in response. So, there's been a series of moves this term. There's been law changes, plan stops, the expiry of regulations allowing more dairy farming. We've picked up on that already. Those are some examples. Name the one thing your party or the government has done that would make the biggest difference to fresh water in the last three years. [00:46:39] Speaker 4: Is that going to be a negative or a positive difference? [00:46:44] Speaker 1: That's the quip of the night so far. Back to Dale. Thanks for that. [00:46:49] Speaker 5: Hey, I think it's probably the introduction of the new RMA of the requiring the Minister to set limits for fresh water to protect people's health. The previous RMA didn't have that. All right. [00:47:01] Speaker 1: Thank you. The government, we're talking about the RMA, the government overhauled the RMA. Can you please explain how the Planning Act and the Natural Environment Act will improve fresh water? That might be a bit hard. [00:47:15] Speaker 5: Well, to be fair, it's only just been signed. I don't think it's even been passed through the Governor-General. It has? It has? Yeah. I'm of that view. Wait and see how it progresses, to be fair. [00:47:27] Speaker 1: All right. I'm sure that we'll get some feedback on that. But I wanted to follow up and just say, the government has pushed for amalgamation in local and regional government. How is that going to be better for fresh water, especially without a dedicated Environment Ministry? [00:47:45] Speaker 5: Yeah. So, my understanding of the potential for the amalgamation of local councils is to remove layers of bureaucracy, but it shouldn't remove the key outputs that are required at regional and local level. So, I don't think that the focus would move away from fresh water, but the actual management of the, I guess, the various entities amalgamated into one, that will change. [00:48:08] Speaker 1: All right. Let's get some rebuttal or some response from the others. You don't get to start, Lan. Okay, you can start, Lan. [00:48:17] Speaker 6: I mean, I just want to say, look, credit to you, Dale, for being here, honestly, because government members are not showing up. They're not showing up to front their own stuff. And I think that should, that, like, tells a story in itself. But really, I mean, the reality with the how will the RM bills, you know, actually improve fresh water is that they virtually can't. They virtually can't unless there is some incredible groundswell that takes over, I shouldn't use that, why did I use that term? That actually, like, gives power to local government to actually make some incredible changes that they actually can't make from the legislation itself. Because even the environmental limits have to be based on economic and social needs of the community. So they're not even just environmental limits. But I do want to say, like, great people like Dale, and I've got several national candidates in Wellington, they're the same. They actually care about the environment. They have no concept, and the government have, the government members themselves often have no concept how this idea of balance of the economy and the environment is here, and the actual system is way out extremist novelty here. Like, that is what we're talking about, so we need to align that, because this is extreme stuff. [00:49:48] Speaker 1: Over to Eden. I think, Lan, you were leading the counter in terms of the minutes said on the stage so far. Sorry. So Eden, over you. [00:49:56] Speaker 7: Yeah, look, it's not a rebuttal. It's a focus on, I think, some wider issues that really need to be addressed, and these are two examples of it. The amalgamation and the RMA. Use of urgency in Parliament is as high as 61%. What does that mean? People by expertise, like in Waitahan, from this region, or other parts in the country, didn't get to have their say. Also, the other parliamentarians were put through that horrible process of going through urgency, and sometimes debating very late. And I think the last time I saw you, Rachel, you were in urgency, very late at night, debating some of these issues. There needs to be proper clarity and transparency and time for debate to say, if this is a good idea or not. Urgency helps shortcut that. The other thing, as well, is this focus on clean-up politics and ensuring that we have, well, one, limiting political donations, but also having a lobby register in terms of who is giving external advice to the government. Just a brief follow-up, that's one of our bottom lines, so if we get in, then that's what we're advocating for. [00:51:04] Speaker 1: Rachel? [00:51:05] Speaker 4: In terms of this urgency point briefly, slight deviation, but when we're in the committee stage of a bill, amendments can be made. So I've been referring to amendments, Lan and I write lots of very sensible amendments. But the government can come in with amendments, and they have this habit of coming in with the full bill revised and a giant amendment paper that has very significant policy changes. So with the RMA replacement legislation, they had a whole lot of stuff on fisheries and farm plans and some other things that we had never seen before, before we were debating it in urgency. And as soon as you repeat a question, or a bit slow off your feet, the government members would and did shut us down. So those two issues were not debated in the sturdy hours that we had in the chamber, and that is a shameful and terrible way to make laws. So that is one point. The second one quickly is on the amalgamation issue, and this idea of who is going to look after the water. If you just think regional councils should all become unitary authorities, then what does that do to our catchment management? And that is so important. I acknowledge Nae Tahu has done some work on saying, well, where would those regions and where would those councils go to fit with takiwa, but also with catchments? And I think that is the important, we're talking about reforming of councils, and water, and how we manage water. We need to be thinking in terms of catchment. [00:52:32] Speaker 1: Can I ask if any parties here are committed to reinstating the environment ministry? Anyone? Yeah, unfortunately that was just a show of hands. Okay, so if we're going to have accountability, let's go to the parties on stage other than national. Labor, if this government has got the legislation, the planning and the regulations for fresh water wrong, what will you chuck out? Can you name one thing at least that you would roll back? [00:53:09] Speaker 4: Well, yes, all of the... Or ten things. [00:53:18] Speaker 1: Ten things. [00:53:19] Speaker 4: Ten things. All of the caveats that they've got around limits that are then not limits, and the timeframes for fresh water. [00:53:29] Speaker 1: Okay. So, setting bottom lines that are effective. Yes. Okay. Alright. Te mana o te wai? [00:53:36] Speaker ?: Is that coming back? [00:53:37] Speaker 4: So that's still there. So, te mana o te wai... But not for individual consents, right? [00:53:42] Speaker 1: Not for individual consents. [00:53:43] Speaker 4: We don't have a specific policy on individual consents, but it's still there in the NPS FM 2020. And, if you are moving your system, as both our legislation and nationals say that they are, it's trying to move from consent by consent disputes into plans and national direction. So, there shouldn't be as much argument at the consenting stage, because any of those decisions about trade-offs, or about where your limits are, should have already happened in one of those higher order documents. [00:54:14] Speaker 1: Alright. To the Greens. How are you going to make your policies practical for farmers? Isn't it fair for some activities, particularly those already happening, to be permitted? Yeah. [00:54:26] Speaker 6: Thank you for the question, because I think there is this misconception that these absolute abolishment of our environmental protections is somehow good for farmers. I want to make it really clear, and we've been inundated with farmers across the country contacting us, particularly since we went public with the reality that federated farmers primarily, but big industry lobby groups were essentially riding the rules when it came to resource management reform. Now, all these removals of, or weakening of environmental protections, mean that all the really good investment and work that has been going on on-farm, in specific catchments, is essentially meaningless. Because the permitted activity framework is so much more permissive of pollution, more pollution coming on board, that any improvements that have actually been made over the last few years, are essentially wasted. So, they know that their capital values increased, they know that they have more productivity from these rules and limits that have come in, and now it's basically a race to the bottom again, and all that good work is undone. So, it's terrible for farmers, and it's terrible for all of us. Actually, no one is winning here. And that's what's so sad about this, and why we need to get this government out. [00:55:51] Speaker ?: Thank you. [00:55:58] Speaker 1: Opportunity. [00:55:59] Speaker 7: Right. [00:56:00] Speaker 1: So, your parties, my question to you is, your parties about working together, about finding common ground. So, where is the common ground on fresh water? And as a science-based party, what is the policy that will work the best? Or, you know, how are you going to turn this around and find the common ground? [00:56:17] Speaker ?: Yeah. [00:56:18] Speaker 7: I think one of the biggest frustrations when we think about the RMA is, it can't be something that keeps changing. We thought we were almost there with the previous RMA changes. That got changed all of a sudden, very fast, and just, as I said, put through urgency. So, there needs to be something as significant and as impactful for everyone across the country, but also that recognises some of the greatest challenges that we face as a nation. That document has to endure. Those rules and those principles that everyone works with needs to endure. So, something that the Opportunity Party, I think, and we've seen some of it in, you know, openness from Luxembourg Fisheries and a few other areas of being that tool to being able to say, you know, by being open to working with national, by saying, long-term, this needs to happen and maybe move away from your mates a wee bit on that side. One of the areas that we will support, so recognising, in terms of QE2 trusts, we do support increasing the funding for that. Banks Peninsula Conservation Trust has done some amazing work that is often led by farmers. And then, I guess, one of the reverses, thinking about some of the cuts to conservation would actually increase funding for that, specifically looking at species and ecosystems, which is a bit more on this side. [00:57:36] Speaker 4: All right. Can we just note, though, Labour and the Greens, we offered to work with national over and over again. And Lan and I have been at many forums like this, where we've said to Chris Bishop, come towards us, not towards act. But they totally went the other way. Yeah. [00:57:55] Speaker 1: I knew I should have split you guys up. Now it's time. This is running perfectly, by the way. Very good moderation, I'm going to say. Because it's eight o'clock, and this is the time when I wanted to introduce the audience questions. Thank you very much for submitting your questions in advance. There is no roving mic today. This is the questions that have been submitted last week. So the first audience question is, Denmark has just adopted, and this will be a show of hands, please put your hand up to say if you want to answer this. Denmark has just adopted a new nitrate limit in drinking water, as we heard, ten times lower than New Zealand's. Will your party lower the limit for nitrate in drinking water, as recommended by experts? Absolutely. Yeah, we will. [00:58:36] Speaker 6: Because we think that it should be the government's role to put the health of our communities and the health of our environment at the centre of government decisions. Like, it's really basic stuff. Not only that, but we need to be precautionary, especially when we're talking about health. And precaution was one of the first things that this government scrapped from their new Resource Management Act. Sorry, laws. [00:59:04] Speaker 4: Yeah. The Ministry for Health is undertaking a review of that at the moment. So we think that is a good, sensible thing to do, and we'll engage with that review. [00:59:18] Speaker 1: Just noting, that's not a commitment. Either of you guys? Yeah. Okay. Question number... Well, actually, I'll go to three. How can we restore Canterbury's rivers in the face of issues such as low water flows due to irrigation and over-allocation, and pollution from nitrates? How do we do it? [00:59:41] Speaker 6: So, firstly, we need a strong, clear direction of where we're going. We used to have that with Te Manaute Wai and its ability to be at the highest level and apply to consenting. That's what we need to actually set in place. The cogs where innovation and investment actually come to the table, and we actually fund our farmers to change land use and transition. Now, this is all Green Party policy. There's so many legs of this, but it is one package. And it's all about not fiddling at the margins where we think that a 5 to 10% reduction in, say, nitrate fertiliser over the next 10 to 20 years is somehow going to get us somewhere. It's not. So we need to support our farmers, and there's so much in our policies in terms of food and farming transition, in terms of innovation funds, to actually do that. But we need to clamp down and control things as well. Eden? [01:00:44] Speaker 7: Yeah, we need to promote more farm water storage, specifically if you think about some of the challenges this summer coming up. And then the other side of that, so more farm water storage projects, but also biodiversity credit scheme as well in terms of trying to actually put some nahere on top of some of these plains and where the water's coming from. So it won't be one specific thing, and I agree with the wider direction of that tamana ote wae, having that clear focus of those improvements, and then have a variety of different tools that people across different sectors can work towards, and agree with the other point of transitioning and providing other options for farmers to lean into. Rachel? [01:01:25] Speaker 4: Yes, so we do absolutely need the plans to be allowed to be implemented, which do implement tamana ote wae. We also need what Eden's talked about a number of times as good compliance monitoring enforcement, that's always important. We have a policy around planning for water storage, and thinking of that as networks and infrastructure, and to be considered about where you do have your water storage. It will be, you know, it is needed though as well. Also in spatial plans, there's a role in spatial planning to have conservation corridors as well, which would help with the water quality. [01:02:04] Speaker 1: Thank you. Can we have a show of hands, will your party commit to keeping water conservation orders? Okay, there we go. I don't know. We all have a right, this is the next question, we all have a right to clean healthy drinking water, why should we have to pay extra to access safe low nitrate drinking water while polluters protect their profits? [01:02:28] Speaker 4: You shouldn't. [01:02:29] Speaker 1: Yeah. Okay, actually we've already kind of covered that haven't we, so let's move on from that one. So for Māori, Tangaroa is the God governing Aotearoa New Zealand's oceans, lakes and rivers. How do you intend on honouring the Treaty of Waitangi and protecting Tangaroa's place of residence? [01:02:45] Speaker 4: So we would, in the legislation, bring back a general treaty clause and it would be to give effect to the principles. So more than what the RMA is at the moment. As I was saying before, bringing back the manawhakahona orauhi, but also in the section 6E of the RMA equivalent into the goals. But also we've got to think about, when we're thinking about our moana, the sedimentation that goes there, and that's both with urban environments as well as rural environments. We haven't talked about urban environments really tonight. But that is an important source of pollution that causes lots of damage that we need to also address. [01:03:28] Speaker 1: Thank you. [01:03:29] Speaker 6: Lauren? We acknowledge, understand and uphold the rights of iwi Māori across the country. And, I mean, in the Green Party we believe that we have to acknowledge and work out iwi rights and interests in fresh water. That's not insurmountable. You know, there has been so much progress and so much leadership, particularly in these, in Waitaha Canterbury, but across the Ngai Tahu Takiwa and across the country, where iwi are ready and able and, you know, more than capable of actually coming to the table and sorting this out. So we think that's absolutely critical. But also the governance structures have to, and the legislation, has to recognise the very clear role of mana whenua in iwi Māori. [01:04:24] Speaker 7: It's fine. Yeah. Look, I'm always really cautious about questions when the government knows best about Māori, because often they haven't. So, for me it goes to that point around options. While, and I've talked a lot about accountability. All right, so there's been an Auditor General report that was done years ago and it showed that based on the treaty settlements, this is Western law that has put those laws through parliament, 44% of those settlements and obligations of those settlements have been complete. And we've got some people that worked on the Ngai Tahu one and many other ones. So I think that would be a good start in terms of having more accountability of the crown of those settlements there. The other tools that I acknowledged, and I mentioned at the start, around some of the native tree planting. So Tauturu Motai, 244,000 native trees that have been planted out there through the ETS. Right. We didn't want pines, we didn't want anything to do with them. But we're able to negotiate well with Orion. So we do think there does need to be more some settings and changes. And then biodiversity. And finally, a nature-based solutions fund that also would help iwi and hapu, because we know jobs for nature, had some good results. So we can tweak it a little bit and focus it, and that's our approach. [01:05:33] Speaker 1: Dale? [01:05:34] Speaker 5: Well, as you'd all appreciate, I'm not here because I'm a subject matter expert. But I'm here because I respect the kaupapa. I think it's important. It's important for our future, for our wanga uri amuri aki nei, for those who go after us. And I've worked extensively in the Māori space, and I believe in the rights of mana whenua. I believe in the principles of mana wate wai. But it would be foolhardy of me, as a mere candidate, to go and put forward a position for the National Party at this type of forum. Because there are people in positions that are best placed to do that. So I can't take it any further. Go on, Dale. Just covering myself. [01:06:17] Speaker 4: But then can we just add a little bit of context to that, because the National Party's RMA reforms have taken out a general treaty principle. They've stopped at the last minute from being relevant at all. They've diminished Section 6E. And then we have the conservation legislation as well that is trying to diminish the treaty clause in that piece of legislation. So it's everywhere and it's real. [01:06:44] Speaker 1: All right, next question. What measures would you take to support farmers to convert to organic or regenerative farming techniques to avoid overuse of synthetic nitrogen fertilizer use, which is a double of use, and limit impacts on groundwater? What, what, how would you support farmers to convert to organic or regenerative farming? Plant a farm. [01:07:18] Speaker 6: Education, like access to actually good education and what's going on out there, that is not run by vested interests. That's absolutely key. We, thank you. And funding it. So funding the transition, I mean, we still think farming should come in the ETS and pay its fair share. I mean, the money from that can be totally committed to helping farmers transition. There are profitable and great ways of being regenerative or organic. We know, for example, even in dairy, you know, organic dairy makes a third more when it comes to payouts than it does conventional dairy. Like there are ways that they can do this and we want to help them do it. [01:08:05] Speaker 4: So more regulatory support than financial support. So we have the organics legislation now and I know there's some need for regulations and that and agree with LAN around education and also our market access. So we know that we have these trade agreements where they do are interested in our environmental credentials. And so we do need to be able to demonstrate that. So encouraging all of our primary sector to be able to demonstrate how they are doing better for the environment and how they manage themselves in a positive way. That's something that government can help with. [01:08:42] Speaker 7: Yeah, just to talk on it and acknowledge that organics legislation. I mean, if you're importing some of the food in or the clay from New Zealand and you want organic but they've got no legislation, you think, how do I know this is actually organic? There's no laws to say that it is what it is. So I think that is a good legislation put through. There's also others than just organics and biodynamic. There's always going to be something new. So our party would support match fund levies towards research for farmers that they're working on so that they can help innovate as well. And that would be match fund. [01:09:16] Speaker 1: Dale? [01:09:17] Speaker 5: Yeah, I agree with the notion of the education piece. And I'm not trying to take the side of the farmer, but often you don't know what you don't know. And so I'm sure that there's a lot of good will with the farming sector as well to try and get it right. I also look at the grants available through MPI for research and innovation. And I use the example of robotic technology, which is now used to identify leached ground and look at ways to help the farmer to understand, identify and repair as best as possible. So there's grants available, there's innovation available. But you're quite right, Lana, it's the education piece. I'm sure farmers want to help out the best they can. That's the positive approach to it. [01:09:57] Speaker 4: Can I add just quickly, the science funding is really important as well for our institutions that do that work. [01:10:03] Speaker 6: And it's been cut, yeah. It's been cut. [01:10:09] Speaker 1: The next question, the new replacement legislation for the RMA, or two pieces, they've removed their requirement to improve recreational access to rivers and lakes and to protect the habitat of trout and salmon. Will you put it back? [01:10:23] Speaker 4: Not those exact words and not the habitat of trout and salmon, but some other changes that are largely in line with suggestions from the Parliamentary Commission for the Environment. [01:10:37] Speaker 6: Yeah, I mean, similar. The protections that we would put in place would protect the habitats of trout and salmon rather than there being an explicit line for them. In saying that, I do want to acknowledge that often it's been with the RMA that part of trout and salmon habitats has been one of the key protections that groups have been able to rely on. And because the Fish and Game have had an advocacy role which this government is trying to take away from them. Exactly. It's a bigger picture. So we need them protected, but not in that explicit way. [01:11:12] Speaker 1: I really should have split you two up. [01:11:15] Speaker 7: Do you guys have anything to add? Okay. No comment about trout or salmon. Thanks. [01:11:19] Speaker 1: All right. So, how would you set up our planning systems to protect ecosystems, very general, to protect ecosystems and the public goods that fresh water provides? How would the planning system be set up to protect those things, ecosystems and the public goods that fresh water provides? How would the planning system be set up to protect those things? How would the planning systems be set up to protect those things? How would the planning system be set up to protect those things? [01:11:38] Speaker 6: How would the planning system be set up to protect those things? How would the planning system be set up to protect those things? How would the planning system be set up to protect those things? How would the planning system be set up to protect those things? How would the planning system be set up to protect those things? How would the planning system be set up to protect those things? How would the planning system be set up to protect those things? How would the planning system be set up to protect those things? How would the planning system be set up to protect those things? How would the planning system be set up to protect those things? How would the planning system be set up to protect those things? How would the planning system be set up to protect those things? [01:11:50] Speaker ?: How would the planning system be set up to protect those things? [01:11:50] Speaker 6: How would the planning system be set up to protect those things? How would the planning system be set up to protect those things? How would the planning system be set up to protect those things? How would the planning system be set up to protect those things? How would the planning system be set up to protect those things? How would the planning system be set up to protect those things? How would the planning system be set up to protect those things? How would the planning system be set up to protect those things? How would the planning system be set up to protect those things? How would the planning system be set up to protect those things? How would the planning system be set up to protect those things? How would the planning system be set up to protect those things? How would the planning system be set up to protect those things? How would the planning system be set up to protect those things? How would the planning system be set up to protect those things? How would the planning system be set up to protect those things? How would the planning system be set up to protect those things? How would the planning system be set up to protect those things? How would the planning system be set up to protect those things? How would the planning system be set up to protect those things? How would the planning system be set up to protect those things? How would the planning system be set up to protect those things? How would the planning system be set up to protect those things? [01:12:13] Speaker 4: How would the planning system be set up to protect those things? How would the planning system be set up to protect those things? How would the planning system be set up to protect those things? How would the planning system be set up to protect those things? How would the planning system be set up to protect those things? How would the planning system be set up to protect those things? How would the planning system be set up to protect those things? How would the planning system be set up to protect those things? How would the planning system be set up to protect those things? How would the planning system be set up to protect those things? How would the planning system be set up to protect those things? How would the planning system be set up to protect those things? How would the planning system be set up to protect those things? How would the planning system be set up to protect those things? How would the planning system be set up to protect those things? How would the planning system be set up to protect those things? How would the planning system be set up to protect those things? How would the planning system be set up to protect those things? How would the planning system be set up to protect those things? How would the planning system be set up to protect those things? How would the planning system be set up to protect those things? How would the planning system be set up to protect those things? How would the planning system be set up to protect those things? How would the planning system be set up to protect those things? How would the planning system be set up to protect those things? How would the planning system be set up to protect those things? How would the planning system be set up to protect those things? How would the planning system be set up to protect those things? How would the planning system be set up to protect those things? How would the planning system be set up to protect those things? How would the planning system be set up to protect those things? How would the planning system be set up to protect those things? How would the planning system be set up to protect those things? How would the planning system be set up to protect those things? How would the planning system be set up to protect those things? How would the planning system be set up to protect those things? How would the planning system be set up to protect those things? How would the planning system be set up to protect those things? How would the planning system be set up to protect those things? How would the planning system be set up to protect those things? How would the planning system be set up to protect those things? How would the planning system be set up to protect those things? How would the planning system be set up to protect those things? How would the planning system be set up to protect those things? [01:13:00] Speaker 1: How would the planning system be set up to protect those things? [01:13:02] Speaker 5: How would the planning system be set up to protect those things? How would the planning system be set up to protect those things? How would the planning system be set up to protect those things? How would the planning system be set up to protect those things? How would the planning system be set up to protect those things? How would the planning system be set up to protect those things? How would the planning system be set up to protect those things? How would the planning system be set up to protect those things? How would the planning system be set up to protect those things? How would the planning system be set up to protect those things? [01:13:13] Speaker 6: How would the planning system be set up to protect those things? How would the planning system be set up to protect those things? How would the planning system be set up to protect those things? How would the planning system be set up to protect those things? [01:13:17] Speaker 1: How would the planning system be set up? How would the planning system be set up to protect those things? [01:13:19] Speaker ?: How would the planning system be set up to protect those things? [01:13:20] Speaker 1: How would the planning system be set up to protect those things? How would the planning system be set up to protect those things? How would the planning system be set up to protect those things? How would the planning system be set up to protect those things? How would the planning system be set up to protect those things? How would the planning system be set up to protect those things? How would the planning system be set up to protect those things? How would the planning system be set up to protect those things? [01:13:28] Speaker ?: How would the planning system be set up to protect those things? How would the planning system be set up to protect those things? How would the planning system be set up to protect those things? [01:13:32] Speaker 1: So hopefully they stick around and listen to the people dissect what they've just been saying. We'll take a break now. A warning that we will start without you if you're not promptly back. We're going to say 10 minutes, a little bit of flex in that one. We'll see you back here very soon. [01:13:52] Speaker 4: Great, thank you. Do we take these off? [01:14:02] Speaker ?: We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. [01:14:10] Speaker 9: We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. [01:14:19] Speaker ?: We're going to take these off. [01:14:20] Speaker 9: We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. [01:14:33] Speaker ?: We're going to take these off. [01:14:34] Speaker 9: We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. [01:14:43] Speaker ?: We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. [01:15:02] Speaker 9: We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. [01:15:07] Speaker ?: We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. [01:15:08] Speaker 9: We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. [01:15:32] Speaker ?: We're going to take these off. [01:15:33] Speaker 9: We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. [01:15:36] Speaker ?: We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. [01:15:48] Speaker 9: We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. [01:16:17] Speaker ?: We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. [01:16:32] Speaker 9: We're going to take these off. [01:16:33] Speaker ?: We're going to take these off. [01:16:34] Speaker 9: We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. [01:16:36] Speaker ?: We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. [01:16:40] Speaker 9: We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. [01:16:43] Speaker ?: We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. [01:16:46] Speaker 9: We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. [01:16:48] Speaker ?: We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. [01:16:50] Speaker 9: We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. [01:16:53] Speaker ?: We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. [01:18:10] Speaker 9: We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. [01:18:13] Speaker ?: We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. [01:20:32] Speaker 9: We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. [01:20:35] Speaker ?: We're going to take these off. [01:20:36] Speaker 9: We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. [01:20:43] Speaker ?: We're going to take these off. [01:20:44] Speaker 9: We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. [01:21:03] Speaker ?: We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. [01:21:40] Speaker 9: We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. [01:22:18] Speaker ?: We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. [01:22:37] Speaker 9: We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. [01:22:40] Speaker ?: We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. [01:23:02] Speaker 9: We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. [01:23:09] Speaker ?: We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. [01:24:32] Speaker 9: We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. [01:24:41] Speaker ?: We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. [01:25:02] Speaker 9: We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. [01:25:20] Speaker ?: We're going to take these off. [01:25:21] Speaker 9: We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. [01:25:44] Speaker ?: We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. [01:25:52] Speaker 9: We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. [01:26:05] Speaker ?: We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. [01:26:16] Speaker 9: We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. [01:26:20] Speaker ?: We're going to take these off. [01:26:21] Speaker 9: We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. [01:26:39] Speaker ?: We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. [01:26:44] Speaker 9: We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. [01:27:06] Speaker ?: We're going to take these off. [01:27:07] Speaker 1: We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. [01:27:09] Speaker ?: We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. [01:27:17] Speaker 1: We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. [01:28:28] Speaker ?: We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. [01:28:33] Speaker 1: We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. [01:28:48] Speaker 8: We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. [01:30:59] Speaker ?: We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. [01:31:02] Speaker 8: We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. [01:31:59] Speaker ?: We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. [01:32:05] Speaker 1: We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. [01:32:18] Speaker 10: We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. [01:33:22] Speaker ?: We're going to take these off. [01:33:23] Speaker 10: We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. [01:33:57] Speaker ?: We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. [01:33:59] Speaker 10: We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. [01:34:49] Speaker ?: We're going to take these off. [01:34:50] Speaker 1: We're going to take these off. [01:34:51] Speaker ?: We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. [01:34:54] Speaker 1: We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. [01:34:59] Speaker 11: We're going to take these off. [01:35:00] Speaker 1: We're going to take these off. [01:35:09] Speaker 11: We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. [01:35:51] Speaker ?: We're going to take these off. [01:36:00] Speaker 11: We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. [01:38:26] Speaker ?: We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. [01:38:28] Speaker 11: We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. [01:38:31] Speaker ?: We're going to take these off. [01:38:32] Speaker 1: We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. [01:38:42] Speaker 12: We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. [01:39:25] Speaker ?: We're going to take these off. [01:39:26] Speaker 12: We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. We're going to take these off. So we need to regulate the dairy sector. And it seems to me we should just talk about dairy corporations, not farmers. Fonterra is a $24 billion company. It's owned by very large companies. So the biggest, you know, the top 10% shareholders of Fonterra probably control about half of all the shares of Fonterra. And the bottom 10% control very little at all, right? So this is a company which is owned by other companies. Other big dairy corporations own the shares in this mega corporation called Fonterra, which is a truly epically large company. And we should simply regulate these corporations, which have only one purpose, right? A corporation has only one purpose, right? It's to make profit. It has no other purpose, right? All the stuff about clean streams, that's all nonsense, right? That isn't what anyone gets paid for, right? All of the leadership in Fonterra know that there is one purpose to that company, and that is to maximize profit. And we should regulate this industry like any other industry. It is a very large corporation owned by other corporations. It has one purpose, which is to maximize profit. It will never, left to its own devices, achieve what we want and the values that you heard expressed on this stage tonight. It will never do that in and of itself unless we as a society regulate it in order to achieve our values that we value as a community. And so I think that needs to be front and center of this debate. It's about regulating these giant corporations to achieve community values. [01:41:34] Speaker 1: I thought I was doing a half by decent job of moderating, but not all of you spoke about what happened with the politicians. So let's dig into a little bit of the political differences. Who wants to start just by saying where were some of the differences that you saw on the stage? And are these the differences that we've seen policy wise already? Or did we see some new differences between some of the parties on the stage here today? Anyone? [01:42:02] Speaker 11: I thought it was really difficult for both Labour and national to be at the same level as Lan and probably Eden. And the reason why is because Dale didn't, Dale was up against a biologist. And I thought Rachel, you know, the Labour Party had tried to implement a lot of things when they were in power. But then when they left everything, Rachel was right, everything got destroyed. And it's almost like it swung the other way, a bit like Obama and Trump. It's been a bit like that. And I think the plans that they wanted to implement didn't happen. So that's been very hard for them. I think Eden was really, the thing about the Opportunity Party is they're really refreshing. And they want to be transparent and hold politicians to account. And that's got to be good. I like their ideas of the tools they were wanting to implement. But one of the things is I would like to see if they're in, in 10 years, what they think. And then Lan, Lan, who knows this subject brilliantly, was superb in her answers. I wondered why she didn't talk in more detail about their drink, swim, fish policy. So I was thinking, and also for all of them, really, how Naitahu can actually help solve some of the problems. We've been researching this for so long. We've spent millions of dollars on it. We've traveled the world looking for the best experts to talk to us in the places where it's at its worst. Well, fresh water is at its worst. So we would be a valuable partner to any government. But the difficulty we have of getting in the door and getting listened to is very hard. So we would welcome being approached and being open because government doesn't have all the answers. Community does. Any we do. I had... Oh, something about the treaty. The treaty... This is going to happen a lot, isn't it? [01:44:02] Speaker 1: No, that's all right. Okay, anyone else on those differences? Anyone? [01:44:06] Speaker 10: Yeah, I was really interested in the fact that solutions were brought up and particularly talking about regenerative and organic farming systems. And I do think there are some differences there. Interestingly, National has just appointed an associate minister of organics. And I would have expected Dale to speak to that in that moment. It's a really interesting move. I'm not sure any of us truly understand why or what the purpose is. But it is... It's a move. And I think we should acknowledge it. I think that's super important. Also, Labour had some really strong strategies and policies around regenerative agriculture last time they were in power. And so I was interested to hear more of that and I didn't really. I don't think it's enough to say that the organics bill has been passed because it doesn't really speak to how we're going to transition more people into that system. I also expected, because this is a cost of living crisis election, I expected all of the politicians to speak more to access to good food to keep us well here in New Zealand, not just what our food systems can do in terms of export income. [01:45:26] Speaker ?: Thank you. [01:45:27] Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you. [01:45:29] Speaker ?: Yeah. [01:45:30] Speaker 8: So the differences that I noticed... Well, there's obviously a few differences in there, but one of the things I wanted to talk about was this idea of getting vested interests out of public decision making. And there was... So we heard from Eden from Opportunity that they have their sort of lobbying rules. I know that the Greens have got rules that they're looking at introducing rules around lobbying. I'd like to see more from Labour on that. Yeah. [01:46:02] Speaker ?: I've done a speech. Oh. [01:46:04] Speaker 8: Chris Hipkins has done a speech about... So if I can just... Yeah. [01:46:08] Speaker 1: Yeah. Chris Hipkins has done a speech about this, says Rachel Brooking. [01:46:11] Speaker 8: So this is really important for fresh water because we have vested interest making decisions about fresh water all the time. We have people with financial interests and polluting fresh water making decisions about your drinking water all the time. And so, you know, that shouldn't be something that is allowed to happen. So those vested interest rules are really important. I think we should be all thinking about them. And also how they apply at a regional level as well, not just at a... at a natural level. Can I add one more thing? Add one thing. [01:46:43] Speaker 1: Okay. [01:46:44] Speaker 8: Just one more thing. Because... This is my elegant segue into water storage. Water storage came up a few times in that, in tonight's kōrero. And one of the really interesting things for me is that we really need to distinguish what we're talking about when we talk about water storage. All water storage is not the same. What... The water storage that the current government and previous governments have pushed are large-scale water storage. And it's not for drinking water, although you're often told it is. It is to intensify land use. And if we have vested interests in control of our policy and in control of making decisions around water and financing for transitions, and, you know, because sometimes people say, "Oh, we're transitioning for a climate-impacted future, and so we need this big water storage." But we have to get real... I really urge the politicians that are still here to get really clear on what you mean about water storage, because all water storage isn't the same. [01:47:48] Speaker 1: All right. Thank you. [01:47:54] Speaker 12: So just to draw out, I think one of the interesting things that's going on with Labor and the Greens in particular, and to some extent, opportunity, is the idea that the RMA, 1991, it was, in some respects, a neoliberal piece of legislation, right? That's when it was passed, right? And so it was effects-based management, right? And so we're moving to a period now, under the last Labor government, where we were willing to introduce input controls. Remember the FERTCAP and input control, a whole new way of thinking about how to manage pollution, right? Compared to the RMA. And so I think there's an interesting thing going on now between Labor and the Greens about where do we go next? If we were in government, if we were in government, how willing are we to be to have input controls on fertiliser, stocking rates, those kinds of interventions, which we know is about at the top of the clip, as I think Lan was saying in her contribution. Where is Labor on that kind of conversation as well? Because it was Labor that did bring in the FERTCAP. And there was a conversation in the Cabinet paper which said, if this doesn't work, we're going to do more of it, basically, because effects-based management hasn't really worked in terms of fresh water. So I think there's an interesting policy kind of evolution underway, even at the same time as we're dealing with this massive regression that we've experienced in the last three years. [01:49:21] Speaker 1: We've talked about the differences, what about some of the similarities, the points in common? Anything that anyone wants to talk about there? [01:49:30] Speaker 8: Okay, moving on. It was pretty remarkable to hear some of the things that Dale was saying, which were so out of step with his government. And one of the things that really stood out to me was this idea that, you know, he was talking, and I believe him, he seemed genuine when he said this, that he wanted to see, he wanted to see space and empowerment of tangata whenua-led fresh water solution, you know, fresh water restoration solutions. And I feel like we were really heading in that direction quite strongly with Te Mano Te Wai. That comes from Māori academics and thinking about how you reframe our fresh water policy. And that was really starting to have an effect and it was being really effective. But Dale's government has basically undermined Te Mano Te Wai and it is still there. By some miracle, Te Mano Te Wai still is there and we need to save it for everybody but also for Dale. [01:50:33] Speaker 1: I think Dale's got a bright future, maybe more for the Opportunity Party. So, anyone else? [01:50:48] Speaker 10: Yeah, just agree with that, that so much about te ao Māori values or mātauranga and I would extend that to talk about how food can be an important lever in this space as well because obviously there's so little distinction in my understanding of that and I thought that was just a really beautiful across the board understanding of the importance of Māori in this space. [01:51:17] Speaker 11: Well, one thing they all agreed with and even Dale when he found out is that it's bad. So, that's one step up. We're moving forward because when we first started this, people didn't acknowledge that there was a water problem. Yeah. [01:51:34] Speaker 12: But just on the, you know, the kind of, you know, the treaty stuff, right? Like, everyone sat up here and said, you know, this is all good, right? But the whole, think about the taxpayer union stuff, right? Like, why was Te Mana Ate Wai targeted, right? It was targeted because it was in te ao Māori, right? So, that was the political sell. So, you could sell, you could attack the treaty and you could also attack the three waters thing because that was co-governance. But you could also attack this thing in the national policy statement of freshwater management because it was in te ao Māori, right? But this thing says, you know, you've got to put ecology first, human health next, and then you've got to put economic third, right? That's what Te Mana Ate Wai said, and yet it was attacked because it was Māori, and that's the whole taxpayer union, the whole Niki Haga book thing that just came out. It's all tied into that, which is amazing when you think that's what it's come to. [01:52:33] Speaker 8: And, but I would, I think we've got to get better at talking about Te Mana Ate Wai because, and that is what it says in the policy, absolutely, that's what it says. But I think that that's also been exploited by nefarious powers because what it sounds like when it's written, and it's just a function of having to be in policy. It sounds like there's winners and losers, you know, these people are first, these people are second, this is third. But actually what it's telling you is if you flip it on its head, what it's saying is, is first you look after our foundation. You make sure that that is functional and healthy so you can build healthy communities on it who are supported by that healthy foundation. And then those communities can have activities, including commercial activities, that support them and enrich their lives. And that's the way that I think we, because that winners and losers thing got really exploited. And people are like, oh, but that means that we're all third. And it's like, no, because you need that first bit too. [01:53:41] Speaker 1: Angela, can I just go to you and just say, what did you hear for food producers and what are the important things that stood out for you? [01:53:50] Speaker 10: Yeah, I was really looking for, listening for thoughts around regional and local government. And I really didn't hear that because obviously there's proposed some pretty significant changes. And I'm sure ECAN's in the room tonight. And I really wanted to understand more about that. I, because the Merrill Forum in Canterbury has, or is proposing and working on an energy and a water strategy, but no food strategy. So there is the opportunity for local government to step in here and to see food security as critical infrastructure. And I think globally we're at a time in the world where food security is going to become a lot more significant than it ever has. And I didn't hear that. So I think I was almost defined by what I didn't hear. I did talk to Rachel afterwards. And there are some really interesting policies particularly. And I think one that's really relevant for Canterbury sits around protection of productive land. And I think I would have liked to have heard more about that as well. I think, I think what I really want to get across here is that there is a genuine opportunity for water to hold hands with food. And when we do that, then we have the opportunity to change everything for the better. And you're talking about the impact that a corporation of corporations like Fonterra has. What is the opportunity for New Zealanders to reconnect with their food? And, and is that a way forward for our fresh water as well? So I think I was defined by what I didn't hear rather than what I did. [01:55:36] Speaker ?: Thank you. [01:55:37] Speaker 1: Does anyone want, does anyone want to respond to that? [01:55:41] Speaker 11: I've just got something to say about the treaty. Please. So it's really important for us to distinguish how Ngāi Tahu recognises the treaty in our takiwa. And in the terms of fresh water, there's some, you know, there's some general, we aren't Pan-Māori and we don't agree with the Pan-Māori approach. And that was one of our biggest arguments with Labour because we've got 70% of the fresh water down here. So we've got the resources here. We're the food basket of the nation in many ways. And one of the things that we didn't like about the Pan-Māori approach was they were after an allocation percentage in the fresh water allocation. Now, we would be absolutely against that because how can you allocate when rivers are over allocated in our takiwa? They don't have the same problems up in the North Island. They do on the East Coast in the Hawke's Bay, but generally they don't have the same terrible pollution that we have down our East Coast. Manawatu, yes, but it's not a complete takiwa like we have. The whole of the South Island from our boundary down on the East Coast is bad. And they don't have that large scale. And we would disagree with an allocation for Māori because it's not going to solve the problem. We want to solve the problem of pollution and water. And the solution to pollution is not dilution. So we just have to stick with that and keep saying it. [01:57:11] Speaker 1: Can I ask Russell, I mean, this has been a cost of living election. It's good to hear about fresh water tonight. What do you think, you know, more generally we've been hearing on the campaign and while we're talking about it today, is there a voice for the environment and fresh water in particular so far in this election campaign, do you think? [01:57:32] Speaker 12: Yeah, I mean, it obviously has been a cost of living election and that's for the reason that three years of economic mismanagement. But, putting that to one side. I mean, so I think it has, there has been a muted voice for the environment. So Greenpeace and many of other environment organisations have been pushing it hard. And of course the Greens have as well and Labor to some extent, but it's probably, it hasn't been at the top of Labor's list in the same way that it has been for others. But, so I do think that it has been there, but it hasn't had the same kind of presence as I would have hoped. And so obviously it's great that there's so many of us came out tonight and keep pushing hard on fresh water as well as other environment issues. The other thing, just reflecting on the debate in terms of some of the tensions or perhaps within it as well, is this idea of policy flip-flop or policy change. I think I just want to address that really directly because does anyone really want us to maintain the existing policy framework that we have now set over the last three years, right? It's like, no, we really must not. And so the idea that it is bad to change policy direction if there were a change of government, I think is very problematic. I mean, yes, it would be best in all possible worlds if the parliament, term after term, introduced really great environment policy and stuck to it. But that has not happened. And so we have a choice whereby we can live forever under terrible environment policy or we can have very significant change. [01:59:02] Speaker 1: And that is the last word. The show is over. Please give it up for our expert panel. And give yourselves a big clap for wanting to hear from our political parties and participating in democracy. Well done. Can I ask Tamari to close this out, please? [01:59:46] Speaker 2: Well, thank you Greenpeace for hosting us tonight and to our panelists this evening and to the members of the different parties that came because we did learn a lot and we listened. I'll finish up with Ngaito's got an old proverb, don't let an opportunity go by. So one of the things that I found really quite interesting is what we didn't hear and that was solutions to the problem of water. I do think we can resolve it. I think there's enough technology now today with digital data reads because if you can measure water, you can obviously manage it. That's one of the interesting things. But I think fundamentally, and I thought Russell, you had a very good point on corporations and the difference with the farming community because we keep on personalizing these things and people take it personally. But a corporation is, as that judge said once, it's a Frankenstein with one purpose in life. I think other points were made which was the tribe will look at a water act because I think the most fundamental thing is water needs status. If it doesn't have status, then it's just simply a common tool for everyone to abuse. But thank you everyone for coming tonight. Thank you for the moderation this evening and for everyone coming. No reira. But I will make one last point, and I think this is interesting. Our tribe went to court because the Labour Party would not listen. No reira, e hoangamano, mātua tama, waerewa tapi, menga anaera pono. Tā noa ki rongi a tātā katoi, te pōnei ko te māngai ai. Thank you. [02:02:07] Speaker ?: Tā noa ki rongi a tātā katoi, te pōnei ko te māngai ai.