Penny Simmonds has been keeping a low profile so far this year, but she came roaring out of the shadows this week with both a first reading speech - albeit on behalf of Judith Collins - and a general debate speech.
This has led to claims by the opposition that the environment, and by extension the minister for the environment, is being sidelined. Given that Simmonds did her share at the committee stages of the RMA reform Acts passed last year that is a touch unfair, but she has not exactly been storming the barricades either.
Hence it was a touch surprising to see her seek the call during Wednesday’s general debate, and for it to transpire that Simmonds was going to speak on environmental issues - many are still waiting to hear from her as minister of vocational education what her plans are for the revamp of Te Pūkenga, but that will have to wait for another day.
"We have farmers and growers who have dedicated themselves for generations as stewards of our land. They know that farming success goes hand in hand with protecting the environment."
Still to come was another four minutes and 30 seconds which could have come straight from a speech by the minister of agriculture, as Simmonds hailed farmers and growers as "the backbone of our country" and "the most carbon-efficient in the world".
"Farmers understand that a thriving environment is essential for thriving agriculture. They are not virtue-signalling greenies; they are realistic environmentalists," she continued.
Much of which is a fair observation: many, if not most, farmers regard themselves as stewards of the land and do indeed do all they can to protect the environmental value of their property.
But environment ministers of the recent past have spent a considerable amount of time and legislative effort to try to rein in those farmers not as diligent in dealing with discharges, deforestation and other dirty practices.
And therein lies the nub of why the rural vote - which, to be fair, is hardly left-leaning at the best of times - went so wholeheartedly to the parties of the right in 2023. Broad-brush environmental measures were held by the very farmers Simmonds was talking about as being an unwarranted attack on them, and few people like the feeling of being targeted.
The kind of targeting she was in favour of was the heart of her speech, which extolled the virtue of proposed regulations aimed at better managing farm plastics - think bale wraps and chemical containers. The agriculture sector is driving it, and Simmonds hailed it as the kind of initiative the government was happy to back.
As declarations of environmental intent go it was hardly earth shattering, but it definitely echoes the adage of thinking globally but acting locally.
Simmonds’ other Wednesday speech afforded her a great deal more fun. Her offerings to the House are normally solid rather than sensationalist, so she seldom gets to let rip in the manner of Judith Collins.
While it would be too much to expect Simmonds to match Collins’ flair for dripping sarcasm, she made a fair fist of introducing a Bill to repeal an Act which National was scathing about when it was passed.
The Plain Language Act was a classic example of a Bill looking for a problem to fix. Ignoring existing legislative requirements for plain language drafting, it made it unnecessarily compulsory and required public service agencies to appoint "plain language officers" to oversee their efforts.
At second reading then National Dunedin list MP Michael Woodhouse summed up his party’s view: "it’s a waste of this House’s time, it was a waste of the select committee’s time, it was a waste of the submitters’ time, it was a waste of the officials’ time".
Two years on Simmonds/Collins was equally as emphatic in announcing its imminent repeal.
"This Bill is not about abandoning high standards in clear communication, it is about freeing up our public service from an ineffective law," she said.
"I could speak for another five minutes, but I believe that I have put the government’s position clearly and concisely, and - dare I say it - in plain language."
So, what’s not to like? Well, plenty Dunedin Green list MP Francisco Hernandez argued, noting that disability and migrant communities had submitted in support of the Act.
"Even the Free Speech Union, which is not really an ideological bedfellow of members on this side of the House, supported it to select committee," he said.
"We know that the benefit of plain language benefits all New Zealanders. Accessible language benefits New Zealanders with disabilities and plain language benefits new New Zealanders."
But the writing - simple, easy to understand writing - was clearly on the wall for the Plain Language Act, which took its first step towards repeal shortly afterwards.
A helping hand
The unlikely figure of Waitaki National MP Miles Anderson assisted Dunedin Labour MP Rachel Brooking during a tricky moment in the House this week.
Brooking was speaking during the second reading of the Regulatory Systems (Primary Industries) Amendment Bill when she brought up the subject of the Walking Access Commission, its one-time chairman John Acland and his "daughter-in-law Kate".
"Kate’s not his daughter-in-law," Anderson interjected, going on to helpfully clarify that she was actually his niece-in-law.
"Thank you for that," Brooking replied. "Good Canterbury farmers there."
