We're halfway through, so how is this Government doing?
Recording this episode was enraging to be honest.
Well, we’re officially halfway through the election cycle. The coalition government has been in place for about 18 months now. David Seymour is now our Deputy Prime Minister. So, how are things going?
One of our first ever episodes was a round-up on all the parties environmental policies and it ended up being one of the most popular episodes of the pod. Unsurprisingly, you lot seem to care about what's going on out there. So, I thought we’d do a check-in because it's been a year, right?
I’ll just put some guardrails in place: I’m very much talking about environmental and social issues. I'm not talking so much about the economy - although it will be mentioned - or the cost of living, or anything else. All big problems. All things I am absolutely not educated enough to speak on.
Now, much like the very first time I did this, I’m going to try to be unbiased. But I’ll probably fail, because I’m human, I’m violently sarcastic, and I’m obviously quite left-leaning (if we have to make it binary scale of left or right which is another topic). So bear that in mind.
Everything in here is fact. It’s fact-checked. But, as my mother would say, I might have a tone. Please forgive me.
Budget 2025 and Environmental Cuts
The logical place to start would be Budget 2025. I think it was called the “No BS Budget” or maybe the “No Frills Budget.” Either way, it marked quite a significant shift in priorities - so let’s go through them one by one.
The losers:
DOC - the Department of Conservation - suffered a lot. DOC is already chronically underfunded, and they have a massive amount of land to look after.
The Nature Heritage Fund, which helps protect ecologically significant private land -that was scrapped. It saved about $1.3 million annually.
They also discontinued the Crown Land Acquisition Fund, which basically supported the expansion of protected areas. There were quite a few other cuts as well - especially those aimed at community conservation and heritage protection.
DOC did not do well in this budget. But whilst they took away with one hand, they gave with the other. As in, they gave them more to do.
Predator Free 2050 (a Crown owned company) was just established, and DOC now has to absorb all its responsibilities. Of course, Predator Free 2050 is all about removing rats, ferrets, stoats - everything except one of the biggest pests, which is, of course, feral cats - from Aotearoa by 2050.
I actually wrote a Substack article about how we can even consider calling it Predator Free 2050 if we’re not including feral cats - they kill up to 100 million birds every year. But that’s sort of by-the-by now, because this doesn’t appear to be a priority anyway.
Our international climate finance commitment was knocked down from $250 million to $100 million. This funding was supposed to support adaptation and mitigation efforts in developing nations - particularly our neighbours and friends in the Pacific. It’s had a notable reputational impact and has weakened our international climate leadership.
The Waste Minimisation Fund is gone. It’s been reallocated to support core agency functions within the Ministry for the Environment. Super annoyingly, this fund was already financed by the waste levy, so we’ve just stripped money from projects that were already paid for. That means significantly less support for circular economy innovation, reuse programs and waste infrastructure in general.
All things I think we can probably agree we need more of.
There was, of course, absolutely no new funding for freshwater or biodiversity in general. In fact, WWF called this the “no biodiversity budget” playing off the whole “no BS budget” thing.
There was no new money allocated for implementing the Te Mana o te Wai freshwater framework, reestablishing wetlands, Te Mana o te Taiao - the Biodiversity strategy, or the upcoming national policy statement on Indigenous Biodiversity. I mean, I’m sure we didn’t expect there to be. Despite independent reports (even done by the likes of EY) showing how much our natural environment benefits the economy every year.
Shocker.
The winners:
There were some additions to the budget that do impact the environment, and the biggest would be oil and gas exploration.
This coalition campaigned on bringing back oil and gas extraction. And, hmmm, how to say this in an unbiased way… actually you know what? It’s absolutely scientific to say that continuing to extract oil and gas is monumentally moronic.
This government has allocated $200 million over the next four years to support exploration and development of petroleum and gas resources.
Let me give you some stats - because I did a lot of research and wrote an article on this.
So, this is the government that understands the economy, right? Let’s look at some numbers - because this makes no sense whatsoever.
It takes 7 to 10 years to start extracting anything from a gas field.
So anything found next year - say 2026 - won't deliver any gas, or money, until at least 2033.
Only 1 in 10 exploration permits ever returns any gas.
Even if we get a successful new field, we might earn royalties of about $40–60 million a year, which is a lot of money absolutely which is great.
But the carbon pollution cost alone? That’s about $120 million per year.
I don’t know if you're good at maths (I am not), but over 20 years, that means we’re around $1.4 billion in the red.
For a government good at ‘the money stuff’, that seems the wrong way round to me?
Now, if we spent that same $200 million on renewables? We’d save about $26 billion over those 20 years.
Interesting choice.
The government also introduced funding for gene technology regulation (genetic engineering). About $7 million was allocated to establish a new EPA-based regulator for gene tech.
Now, Aotearoa is famously anti-GE (genetically engineered crops and organisms) and this budget line is specifically tied to upcoming legislation that will loosen our current GE and GM regulations.
One of my lecturers at university - probably one of Aotearoa’s foremost experts in GMOs - thinks this is a terrible idea. That it would in fact make us the least regulated country in the WORLD for GE organisms. Now I am pro-GE as long as it’s done carefully, respectfully and has genuinely proven benefits and within strict guardrails. Apparently this ain’t it.
The University of Canterbury actually put together a submission detailing the problems.
This budget also removed about $56 million from EECA (the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority) and they killed the electric bus fund.
This is a government that has made its priorities very clear. They describe the budget as “rebalancing so that we can enable growth and productivity”. And they say they’re focused on making Aotearoa “more productive”.
And that idea of the country being more product is something I absolutely agree with. We are not productive due to decades of policies from successive governments.
But you can’t have growth for growth’s sake, and we must consider the impact of that growth in the long term. Because you can absolutely have a healthy economy and a healthy environment. But you have to think long term. Something governments are notoriously pretty shit at.
Lot’s of Legislation
Let’s move away from the budget and talk about some of the legislation. This government has introduced and passed some of the most significant (and rather contentious) constitutional and environmental changes in decades.
Treaty Principles Bill
Most famously, the Treaty Principles Bill, introduced by ACT as part of the coalition agreement.
This bill aimed to redefine the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi in legislation - essentially replacing protection and partnership with a narrower interpretation of the text.
It would have significantly reduced the Crown’s obligation to engage with Māori.
This was the most-submitted-on bill in our history - over 300,000 submissions, and 90% were against it. Amazing. And if that doesn’t show you the power of people, I don’t know what does.
The Hīkoi in March 2025 saw tens of thousands of New Zealanders marching across the motu. It was inspiring to see so many people standing up for what’s right.
I mean, it’s obviously awful they had to, but that, ladies and gentlemen, was democracy in action.
And in April, the bill was voted down in Parliament - with only ACT supporting it. All other parties voted against, and it failed, as it absolutely should have.
It was introduced in an underhand manner, with little to no consultation, and even legal experts pointed out that ACT had no authority to redefine Treaty principles. The Treaty is between the Crown (currently King Charles) and Māori - not the New Zealand Government.
There’s loads of great analysis out there if you want to go deeper - but that’s the gist of it.
Fast-track Approvals Act
While the Treaty Principles Bill failed, another one passed. You will almost certainly have heard of the Fast-track Approvals Act.
This came into force last year - on Christmas Eve, actually. What a lovely present for us all.
The coalition government largely operates under the belief that regulations are slowing growth and stopping business from operating. So this bill allows ministers to directly approve infrastructure and resource projects, bypassing the normal Resource Management Act (RMA) process.
So projects are assessed by an independent advisory panel, but then the final decision rests with just three ministers; Chris Bishop, Shane Jones and Simeon Brown.
They’re not bound by the panel’s advice at all and can approve or reject projects as they see fit.
I have no doubt that some regulations are not fit for purpose. This is not the way to resolve it at all. These three largely all sing from the same hymm sheet. A panel should contain people who evaluate something from varying points of view, with different expertise. Just to give you insight into a quote from Shane Jones:
“You and I have a very different view about the climate. I happen to think that it’s largely moral hysteria, and I have said this for many years. That’s why I am a proud supporter of the extractive fossil fuels industry.”
What in the climate confusion is that.
He also doesn’t think the Māui dolphin is a separate species. (They are.)
He is one of just three ministers who now gets to make final decision, with no public consultation, no requirement to consider environmental impact, nothing.
The Act is explicitly worded to allow development on conservation land, and fast-tracked projects can override existing environmental protections.
And there is no appeals process. These decisions are final. FML.
As of now, there are about 149 projects in the pipeline under this regime. They include mines, roads, aqua culture, ports, renewable energy (that’s a win) and housing developments.
So, I guess not every project on the list has absolutely no consideration for the planet. Just most of them.
This legislation has angered a lot of people and organisations. Forest & Bird, the Environmental Defence Society, and several iwi have all taken legal action.
There’s a Waitangi Tribunal urgent inquiry underway - focusing on breaches of the Treaty and the complete lack of consultation.
Regulatory Standards Bill
Then there’s the Regulatory Standards Bill, which is still before select committee accepting submissions. I hope you got yours in.
It ties back into the whole ‘regulations slowing growth’ thing (which is hilarious considering the ‘woke banking bill coming through, but more on that soon).
Experts say this bill creates a legal test that prioritises economic outcomes over things like ecological protection, public health, cultural values and treaty-based rights.
It undermines the precautionary principle which is underpins most of our environmental laws (basically, let’s tread carefully till we know more in case it totally fucks something up), and it empowers courts to strike down regulations using very narrow financial cost-benefit analysis, ignoring anything beyond that. Sigh.
It also treats Te Tiriti o Waitangi as just one of many ‘interests’ rather than as the founding document of this country.
And this should matter to you because it has far reaching consequences. It will effect how future laws will be made and measured according to legal experts. It’ll make it much harder to introduce strong regulations on environment, health, and equity. And much easier to challenge or weaken them.
Ultimately, the theme here is systemic change, right? These laws are all about centralising power, sidelining independent experts, scienceand community voices and raising the bar for protections, but lowering it for industry.
Quite the redesign.
Climate Policy Shifts
I thought we’d discuss climate policy separately, because of course the government’s approach to climate has shifted massively in the last 18 months.
We’ve moved away from emissions pricing and regulation. Now, I’m not saying it was perfect before - there was a lot more we should’ve done, and we definitely made mistakes. But now we’ve said ‘fuck it’ and are running headlong into fossil fuel expansion and voluntary technology adoption.
I know it’s the nice answer because we don’t actually have to do anything, but we cannot technologicalise our way out of the climate crisis. (Yes, that’s a word now. I’m going with it.)
And anyone who thinks voluntary action will work when it comes to industry has never read a book. Unfortunately, you have to regulate big companies, or they just don’t act.
The Repeal of the Offshore Oil & Gas Ban
So let’s go back to Shane Jones, the climate confused lover of extractive industries.
In April 2024, he confirmed the official repeal of the offshore oil and gas exploration ban that Labour introduced in 2018. All in order to increase energy security and unlocking economic potential. Both fair pursuits. Shame about the execution.
They’ve now added that $200 million in the budget to support new extraction.
Again - I wrote an article about this. If you want the specific stats and analysis on what this will do for the economy and environment, check it out on Substack.
Agriculture - The Elephant in the, er, Paddock?
Before I get called it, I am not anti-farmer by any stretch. They do a largely thankless job, are undervalued and are the biggest chunk of our economy. But agriculture is the single biggest contributor to Aotearoa’s emissions, and I would say the most complicated to tackle.
Last year, the government cancelled a collaborative emissions pricing scheme for the sector.
The initiative was called He Waka Eke Noa, a partnership between government, industry, and iwi. It was designed to implement farm-level methane pricing by 2025.
Instead, we now have the Centre for Climate Action on Agricultural Emissions, with a $400 million voluntary fund over four years. There’s that ‘v’ word again.
The fund is meant to support things like, methane-reducing technology, and feed additives (like that miracle seaweed).
But there’s a few issues.
Participation is voluntary. Self-explanatory.
There are no emissions caps
No penalties
No price signals
No mechanism to ensure emissions actually do fall
New Zealand First and ACT have been vocal supporters of this voluntary technical approach, claiming that regulations are punitive.
They’ve also argued (quite rightly) that New Zealand farmers are already among the most emissions-efficient in the world.
And that’s true compared to other countries, our farmers are doing well. But that doesn’t negate the fact that intensive farming activities, by their very nature, harm the environment. That’s not an attack on farmers - it’s just reality. So we need to work collaboratively on this. I’m not saying regulation and taxes is the way (again not an expert) but this isn’t either.
We all rely on farmers, and they deserve support - but climate change isn’t going to wait till we stop arguing.
Removing Agriculture from the ETS
Further supporting agriculture, Parliament passed the Climate Change Response Amendment Act which removes all agricultural activities from the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), ends surrender obligations for fertiliser companies and cancels on-farm methane reporting, which was meant to begin in 2026.
Apparently, a new farm-level pricing system will be devised by 2030.
But there’s no legal backstop if that timeline slips. Which, of course, it will. That’s just what happens.
Emissions Trading Scheme Restructured
Meanwhile, the ETS itself has been partially restructured.
There’s no binding cap on total industrial emissions. There’s no ceiling that says we can’t go beyond a certain threshold. We have no clearly articulated pathway to reach net zero by 2050.
All bad. But I find it much more concerning how the narrative around climate has changed.
References to net zero are almost non-existent in official statements.
Ministers now talk about the importance of being “economically balanced” and “not burdening business”.
Which sounds reasonable.
But if your business profits from something, you should also pay the true cost of the damage you cause. We never ever account for the environmental cost of things. And if we did, virgin plastic manufacturers wouldn’t be able to sell it cheaper than the recycled stuff. Again… another article for another day. I still don’t see why this is such a contentious issue.
Right now, no business pays the real cost of their materials or actions, and to be fair it’s incredibly hard to measure that.
Still, by not “burdening business” we’re just pushing these inevitable costs onto future generations. Good thing they’ll be super wealthy and productive eh? Oh… wait…
More Deregulation and Biodiversity Setbacks
Let’s look at the broader approach to natural resource management and biodiversity protection.
Waste Incineration Returns
Incineration has been reintroduced as a legitimate waste strategy - ACT and New Zealand First both get very excited about it.
People celebrate waste-to-energy incineration, but it’s largely a terrible idea. It’s expensive, energy intensive, produces high emissions and toxic outputs unless you have world-class filtration and intense heat (and that would probably mean regulations which I just don’t think they’d put in place…).
Beyond that, it’s inherently single-use. You take resources, make stuff, then burn it. You don’t recover anything meaningful. It’s a bit stupid on a finite planet running out of resources eh?
Two other major waste initiatives have also been paused or stalled too:
The Container Return Scheme was originally paused under Labour (disappointingly) - but was meant to function like systems in Australia or Germany where you return your can or bottle to a machine and get a few cents back. Despite widespread support, it’s been paused indefinitely.
So have Product Stewardship schemes which included plans for managing tyres, e-waste, refrigerants, etc.
Freshwater Reforms
Many of our rivers are unswimmable due to nitrates and pathogens. The government is currently rewriting the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management.
Ministers have stated they will remove or reduce ecosystem health bottom lines to give regional councils more flexibility and reduce complexity.
This has already caused confusion - which bodes well, doesn’t it?
Bottled Water - Still a Joke
Meanwhile, Te Pāti Māori’s call for a moratorium on bottled water consents, and requiring commercial users to pay for freshwater extraction has been completely ignored.
I talked about this in depth in the bottled water episode, but to recap, bottled water companies pay as little as $500 per year in fees, to extract as much water as they want and then sell it back to you – while you pay for infrastructure and water charges.
God my eye is starting to twitch.
Live Animal Export - Coming Back?
This one enrages me. It is despicable.
The government has said they will overturn the live animal export ban.
If you remember, a few years ago there was a horrific incident where a ship carrying live animals capsized and hundreds drowned. In response to this and multitudes of other hideous accidents, live export was finally banned in 2023.
It’s a vile, cruel practise and says so much about the people in charge.
Right now, exports are still suspended, and they won’t be allowed to restart until a “gold standard” welfare framework is in place.
I’d be shocked if “gold standard” means anything other than less than absolute misery.
The previous ban was supported across the board by vets, animal welfare groups, and backed by the vast majority of the public.
Live animal export is cruel. Full stop. Submissions on this start next year, so get your pen ready.
Our International Reputation Taking a Hit
All of these rollbacks and policy shifts have had an impact on our international credibility.
And it’s not just a matter of wanting other countries to think we’re nice, or eco, but our international brand ‘100% Pure NZ’ (yes, I know…) is worth billions to our exports every year. People keep scoffing at this statement which is weird… why do you think people around the world like our products so much? Because we can’t say ‘egg’ properly? Here’s one of several reports that point this out, done by the NZ institute of Economic Research.
The changes the government thus far have made make our climate targets effectively unattainable.
Ministers are even calling for us to withdraw from the Paris Agreement. If that happens, the reputational damage would be immense.
We’ve also deprioritised our reporting on the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and that’s further weakening our global reputation for social and environmental leadership.
People Power and the Growing Resistance
Now, there is almost always a silver lining, right? And I’ve always said: when governments swing to the right, the people swing to the left (the reverse is of course why we currently have said swing).
Domestically, resistance is growing. And while I know I exist in a bit of an echo chamber, the defeat of the Treaty Principles Bill showed what happens when people get properly wound up. Just remember, 300,000 people took the time to make a submission, tens of thousands marched in protest, scientists are joining climate campaigns despite push back from funders and institutions, Iwi are taking claims to the Waitangi Tribunal and public submission numbers are surging across multiple consultations. People are finally starting to participate in democracy beyond just voting once every three years.
It might not feel like it - because they’re changing things en masse, and fast - but pressure is building.
These policies do not appear to reflect the majority of Aotearoa. And that gives me hope.
Culture Wars and Political Nonsense
And finally I want to end on something that is sweeping the globe and has made it’s way here.
It’s this rise of nonsense insulting political narrative and culture war stupidity. And almost all parties are doing it. On what planet is it professional, collaborative, constructive (or even correct) to use stupid phrases like ‘woke nonsense’, ‘radical left ideology’ or ‘more like a woman’s knitting group’ - that last one of course is not only childish but also misogynistic. Shane Jones again that one.
A couple of months ago, Winston Peters literally asked “what is a woman?” in a televised debate that had nothing to do with gender policy.
This is just culture war nonsense done directly to undermine progress and incite more division.
I mean… grow the fuck up?
The fact that climate action, conservation, and Treaty responsibilities are being positioned as ‘political overreach’ or ‘elite agendas’, instead of basic science and justice, is farcical. (Also guys, who are these elites benefiting from the climate change narrative. When I ask people they don’t respond. It’s almost like… they haven’t thought it through?)
It’s deliberate. It’s done so people fight and squabble with each other so that those benefiting from the current system can keep raking it in.
I do think it’s funny that people think calling someone ‘woke’ is an insult. Oh the horror.
But the result of this weaponisation of language is that issues like fresh water and a livable climate are now spoken about through a weird polarised lens.
If you want clean rivers or climate action, you’re suddenly a ‘woke leftist snowflake’.
It’s utterly baffling, and so disappointing to see that kind of narrative reach Aotearoa.
So, where does that leave us?
We’re halfway through the electoral term - which means we’re closer to the next election. And I’ll take that as another silver lining.
We’ve massively changed direction on protecting our people and planet, all in the name of short-term economic growth. And short-term is the key word there.
And just to reiterate, mining and gas exploration won’t lead to economic growth. Not short-term, not medium-term, and especially not long-term.
Now absolutely, there have been a few good things:
The government has set aside loans to help private companies build out a nationwide EV charging network. Although, if public money is used to build something, do tax payers also share in the profits?
The government has auctioned off fewer NZ Units (carbon credits) which has lifted the carbon price and which meant investment is shifting away from high-emitting industries.
There are some large onshore wind and solar projects on the fast-track list - so not everything there is a disaster for the planet.
All of this, of course, is in the name of the economy.
So, how is the economy doing? In fairness to them, they’ve only been in power for 18 months, so we shouldn’t expect miracles. Some things are moving in a better direction, but some are stagnating, or getting worse.
If one more person tells me that National is better for the economy than Labour, I will scream - because that’s not borne out in the data, long or short term. They perform about the same.
We’re only about 3% above pre-COVID peak (late 2019) per capita.
The International Monetary Fund expects unemployment to peak at 5.3% later this year. During Covid it got to 5.2%.
What about as these policies kick in? Well, forecasts say growth will be in broadly in-line with what you’d expect of economies in the OECD like ours. Nothing spectacular, not awful. So is all this worth it? Hmmm.
Let me end with this:
Sustainability and prosperity are not mutually exclusive.
But ignoring the former will destroy the latter.
So, pay attention to legislation. Stay engaged. Understand what’s happening. And keep showing up.
Because business-as-usual politics is not going to protect the future - but people will.
Show notes:
The University of Canterbury submission's on Gene Technology Regulation:
https://ir.canterbury.ac.nz/server/api/core/bitstreams/0e1aa118-5e68-4b43-b395-2a4487d90aa4/content
https://ir.canterbury.ac.nz/server/api/core/bitstreams/fb5002ba-2e21-4a45-be4e-56d6259b4571/content
https://ir.canterbury.ac.nz/server/api/core/bitstreams/05dd6485-82e0-4f54-844b-8860e8548b68/content