Tuesday, 25 July 2023

TUESDAY, 25 JULY 2023

TUESDAY, 25 JULY 2023

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia/Prayers

Karakia/Prayers

Hon JACQUI DEAN (Assistant Speaker): Almighty God, we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests, we acknowledge the King and pray for guidance in our deliberations that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom, justice, mercy, and humility for the welfare and peace of New Zealand. Amen.

Visitors

Philippines—Senate

SPEAKER: I’m sure that members would wish to welcome Senator Pia Cayetano from the Senate of the Philippines, and her accompanying delegation who are present in the gallery.

Petitions, Papers, Select Committee Reports, and Introduction of Bills

Petitions, Papers, Select Committee Reports, and Introduction of Bills

SPEAKER: Petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.

CLERK:

Petition of Louise Duffy requesting that the House implement a national register for standardised medical advance directives and mandate that those directives are followed

petition of Ranjith De Silva requesting that the House urge the Government to encourage the Sri Lankan Government to hold the Local Government election without further postponement, and to stop violent attacks on peaceful protesters.

SPEAKER: Those petitions are referred to the Petitions Committee. Ministers have delivered papers.

CLERK:

Government response to the report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee on the International Treaty Examination on the Framework Agreement on the establishment of the International Solar Alliance

Government response to the Privacy Commissioner’s report on the Identity Verification Service information matching enabling provision

protocol to the accession of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, together with the national interest analysis

statements of intent 2023-27:

Criminal Cases Review Commission

Education New Zealand, and the

Privacy Commissioner

statements of performance expectations 2023-24:

Criminal Cases Review Commission

Education New Zealand

Environmental Protection Authority

Privacy Commissioner, and

Tourism New Zealand.

SPEAKER: I present the Register of Pecuniary and Other Specified Interests of Members of Parliament summary of amendments to annual returns, July 2023. Those papers are published under the authority of the House. Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.

CLERK:

Report of the Education and Workforce Committee on the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 3)

reports of the Environment Committee on the 2023 Estimates for Vote Conservation and the 2023-24 Estimates for Vote Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment

report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee on the 2023-24 Estimates for Vote Defence and Vote Defence Force

reports of the Justice Committee on the 2023-24 Estimates for Vote Attorney-General and Vote Parliamentary Counsel, for Vote Corrections, for Vote Courts, for Vote Justice, and for Vote Police, Vote Serious Fraud, and appropriations within Vote Business, Science and Innovation Retail Crime Subsidy Scheme

reports of the Petitions Committee on the petition of Barry Ramsay and the petition of Fiona Green

reports of the Primary Production Committee on the 2023-24 Estimates for Vote Forestry, and

report of the Social Services and Community Committee on the 2023-24 Estimates for Vote Women.

SPEAKER: The bill is set down for second reading. No bills have been introduced.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Finance

1. INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): This is a tough period for New Zealand and for the global economy. However, there are signs of the resilience of the New Zealand economy as we navigate a pathway through a difficult and uncertain environment. Stats NZ reported earlier this month that there was a net gain of 77,810 people arriving in the year to May. The number of arrivals stood at 181,100, the second-highest on record for an annual period since the March 2020 year. That more than offset the departures of 103,300. Of the 181,100 who arrived, 85 percent were non - New Zealand citizens. Our immigration reset is working, and it is attracting overseas workers with the skills that businesses require to rebuild the economy.

Ingrid Leary: What reports has he seen on tourism and its impact on the economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Stats NZ also reported that overseas visitor arrivals were 160,300 in the month of May, up 87,600 from the same month a year earlier. That level was around 73 percent of the pre-COVID number in May 2019. On an annual basis, overseas visitor arrivals rose to 2.45 million. With the FIFA Women’s World Cup now under way, the tournament is providing a boost to the tourism and hospitality industries during July and August, which are traditionally quieter months for the sectors. We expect to welcome more than 25,500 international visitors to New Zealand for the games being held here, with two-thirds of visitors coming from the United States. In addition to this, FIFA is estimating that around 70,000 New Zealanders are traveling around the country to attend matches.

Ingrid Leary: What other reports has he seen on the economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Activity in the services sector expanded modestly in June, with the BNZ - BusinessNZ Performance of Services Index at 50.1—a reading above 50 indicating that the sector is generally expanding, while below 50 that it is declining. Sales and new orders expanded slightly, though employment declined for the first time since December 2022. As I said in my earlier answer, this is a tough period for many New Zealanders, but our economy is resilient, and we are building for the long term to deliver higher-wage jobs while also lowering emissions.

Ingrid Leary: What reports has he seen on the export sector and its impact on the New Zealand economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Stats NZ reported yesterday that exports rose 1.3 percent, to $6.3 billion in June, led by dairy products. On an annual basis, exports rose 8.2 percent, to $72.8 billion. Looking at New Zealand’s key trading partners, exports rose by 11.3 percent annually to Australia, 11.7 percent to the US, and 2.9 percent to China. As I have said previously, 2023 is a difficult year for the global economy. However, there are reasons to be optimistic, including unemployment being at record lows, inflation heading in the right direction, and public debt levels well below those of the countries with which we compare ourselves. We will continue to carefully and responsibly prioritise our spending without unnecessarily adding to inflation, taking a balanced approach that gives New Zealanders choices and flexibility to respond through these testing times.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

2. CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all of his Government’s statements and actions?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Prime Minister): Yes, particularly the partnership with Fonterra to co-fund a range of projects to cut coal use at its dairy factories. This partnership will result in halving Fonterra’s manufacturing emissions by 2030, equivalent to taking 120,000 cars off the road, and it will leverage up to $790 million worth of investment. This partnership sits within a backdrop of recent Stats New Zealand data showing New Zealand’s emissions decreasing for a third successive year under this Government. I heard firsthand during my recent trade missions that New Zealand’s climate credentials are crucial to our exports. This Government is committed to reaching our emissions reductions budgets, both for the sake of the environment but also because it benefits our exporters.

Christopher Luxon: Was Treasury right that inflation has pushed tens of thousands of Kiwis into higher tax brackets over the last six years, and, if so, will he adjust tax brackets for inflation to let Kiwis keep more of what they earn?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes, in answer to the first part of the question. I’ve been very clear that I don’t think now is the right time for tax cuts in this—the magnitude of tax cuts proposed by the National Party would ultimately result in higher inflation for longer.

Christopher Luxon: Isn’t it a vote of no confidence in his tax policies that his Minister of Revenue was so disillusioned he resigned his portfolio instead of just serving until the election?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I imagine that the members opposite are feeling somewhat disillusioned by their party’s tax policy, given they don’t seem to be able to come up with a coherent one. The member himself has promised billions of dollars’ worth of tax cuts that his finance spokesperson doesn’t seem to know how he’s going to pay for.

Christopher Luxon: Why did he say, yesterday, that David Parker was passing on the revenue portfolio to “[free] him up to focus on [the] transport [role]”, when David Parker said, today, that the real reason he quit was disagreement over tax policy making his position “untenable”?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I know full well from the conversations I’ve had with him that David Parker is enjoying the transport portfolio, is going to get his teeth into that, and I’m looking forward to working with him on it.

Christopher Luxon: Was David Parker right to say that his position as revenue Minister was “untenable” due to his Government’s disagreement over tax policy, and, if not, why not?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: David Parker indicated that he wanted to move on from the revenue portfolio. I was doing a reshuffle and I indicated I was happy to accommodate that.

Christopher Luxon: Why, then, despite the rules on collective Cabinet responsibility, has a Minister who has publicly defied the Prime Minister on tax policy retained his position in his Cabinet?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I reject that that’s what David Parker has done. From time to time, Ministers put proposals before Cabinet that the Cabinet does not agree with and that do not proceed. Ministers do need to be able to explain that. I don’t believe that David Parker has done anything other than that.

Christopher Luxon: Is the real reason he keeps delaying his tax policy plan because he can’t even convince his own Cabinet colleagues to get it over the line, let alone the public?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: That might have more credibility if the National Party had come up with a tax plan that was credible and consistent. But given, even in the last year, they’ve had multiple variations of their tax plan and they’re not actually even in the Government yet—and probably unlikely to be, given they can’t come up with a tax plan that balances out.

David Seymour: What is the Prime Minister’s best explanation for losing four Ministers overboard in just seven months?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Each and every one of those cases is different, and there are extenuating circumstances. Particularly in the most recent case, I would expect the member to show a little more sensitivity than that.

David Seymour: How can Kiwis trust a Prime Minister who didn’t know a Minister was leaking Cabinet information to donors, didn’t know a Minister was defecting to Te Paati Māori, didn’t know a Minister had a major shareholding conflict of interest, and didn’t know—or at least didn’t do enough for a Minister who was facing serious challenges?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I believe that New Zealanders can trust me more than the party of privilege, as defined by the party’s founder, Roger Douglas.

David Seymour: Does he stand by his statement that he’s asked the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet to do a review in light of last week’s shooting in Auckland, and will that review consider whether the law makes it too easy for criminals, some of whom have committed violent offences, to get a sentence of home detention?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The member has mischaracterised the statement that I made. What I indicated was that I had asked for advice from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet on what reviews would be done into an event such as this and whether any additional review would be appropriate in the circumstances. There are a number of reviews under way at the moment. There is, of course, the fact that there is a police investigation still active. There is a police critical incident investigation. The Chief Probation Officer is conducting a review into Corrections’ management of the offender, the potential for a coronial hearing. At this point, I don’t think an additional review is required, but there may well be additional findings out of those other reviews that I just mentioned that the Government will need to give due consideration to.

David Seymour: Doesn’t the Prime Minister want to know how it’s possible and whether it’s acceptable that people on home detention carry out around 1,500 offences they’re charged for every year, including 143 acts intending to cause injury last year?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I don’t believe that that offending is appropriate. Of course those are issues of concern. The number of people on home detention under this Government has stayed relatively static to what it was under the last National Government. There has not been an increase in the use of home detention. Those numbers have been relatively static. We are concerned about that sort of offending. I’m very concerned that the offender managed to get hold of a firearm, for example. It is one of the reasons why this Government is absolutely committed to implementing the firearms register.

David Seymour: Can the Prime Minister explain to the House and the public why someone who broke the law by supplying a firearm to a person on home detention without a licence would have registered their firearm?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: One of the things that the firearms register will do is it will allow police more ability to keep track of where firearms are ending up. I believe that creating the firearms register is the right thing to do. I think the member and, potentially, the Opposition should clarify what their position is as to whether the firearms register will go ahead if there is a change of Government.

David Seymour: What is the Prime Minister going to change in his leadership after his first seven months to persuade New Zealanders that a Government that hitherto cannot manage itself is really capable of fixing the problems of inflation, lawlessness, and division that rive New Zealand under his leadership?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I will be campaigning on the platform that this Government wants to support New Zealanders who worked hard to get ahead so they can create a better life for themselves and their families, and I endorse the sentiments of Roger Douglas that the ACT Party is the party of privilege.

Christopher Luxon: Aren’t his Cabinet Ministers right to be disillusioned when he spent six months stringing them along on the wealth tax only to nix it at the last minute in a desperate attempt to keep his failing Government re-elected?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I utterly reject that. We will be announcing our tax policy shortly, and I can say to the member that we’ll have no difficulty making our numbers add up. It’s no wonder the member can’t announce his policy, because (a), he doesn’t have a consistent one, and (b), his finance spokesperson’s got no idea how he’s going to pay for it.

Question No. 3—Energy and Resources

3. GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: What action is the Government taking to decarbonise New Zealand’s energy sector?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources): Last week, we announced that the Government is partnering with Fonterra to cut their coal use in half for manufacturing emissions at sites across the country. This partnership will result in earlier emissions reductions of around 2.1 million tonnes by 2035 and will result in annual reductions of up to 328,000 tonnes of carbon. That’s the same as removing 120,000 cars off the road. The deal demonstrates how the transition to a low-emission economy is not only good for the climate but also a win for our major export industries by producing low-carbon goods and improving New Zealand’s economic resilience—a longed-for win New Zealand workers by futureproofing our economy and jobs.

Glen Bennett: How will the Government’s partnership with Fonterra help New Zealand meet its emissions reductions targets?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Our partnership with Fonterra will drag the emissions reductions forward into earlier emissions budgets, meaning we invest in New Zealand’s decarbonisation transition rather than buying expensive foreign carbon credits to offset their emissions. The agreement will deliver 1.2 million tonnes of the emissions reductions required in New Zealand’s second emission budget and 830 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions in budget 3. This also makes up around 7 percent of the energy and industry sector sub-target in emissions budget 2, and 4 percent in emissions budget 3.

Christopher Luxon: Where does the money come from?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I challenge Mr Luxon to ask me a question rather than chipping in, and maybe he could explain what National will do instead.

Glen Bennett: Why is the Government partnering with Fonterra to reduce their coal use?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The independent Climate Change Commission has been clear: the emissions trading scheme (ETS) alone is not sufficient for New Zealand to meet its climate goals, with the ETS needing to be significantly higher than it is today to justify fully funding projects. Some large industrial users have said that without complementary measures like Government Investment in Decarbonising Industry, the ETS would have to be up to $200 per tonne for these vital decarbonisation projects to stack up for their businesses. This would massively impact the economy, including driving up New Zealand’s energy costs. For example, this would add more than 40c per litre to the cost of petrol; if that’s what the National Party are suggesting, I suggest they release the policy.

Glen Bennett: What other benefits will be delivered through the Government’s partnership with Fonterra?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: As the Prime Minister said last week, by partnering with Fonterra to reduce emissions, we’re helping to maintain New Zealand dairy’s competitive edge as international consumers and food manufacturers demand further climate commitments. I’ve heard firsthand the importance of New Zealand’s climate credentials to our exports. This partnership is an investment in our future economic prosperity.

Question No. 4—Finance

4. NICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with tax advice provided to him by the Treasury that “fiscal drag has had the greatest impact on average full time wage earners. However, it is increasingly impacting lower income individuals over time”, and will the Government adjust tax thresholds to address this?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): In answer to the first part of the question, yes; as the member and I have discussed on a number of occasions, fiscal drag does have an impact on New Zealanders across the board. This is an issue that all Governments have faced, and as I have stated previously, adjusting tax thresholds is something that all Governments will need to consider over time. However, there are trade-offs involved in doing so, and in deciding that fiscal space should go towards changes to tax thresholds, that means deciding not to invest in other areas like critical public services such as education, health, and housing. In answer to the second part of the question, the Government has indicated its tax policies at the Budget, and this was not part of that.

Nicola Willis: Is he concerned by advice he received in February that fiscal drag is likely to be most acute for those currently earning near the $48,000 threshold, which includes full-time earners on the minimum wage?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I am aware of the advice that I was given, and all Governments—all political parties—have to work out how they balance together providing support to people, for example, earning around that $48,000 level. I do note that the member’s party’s policy would see those people getting $2 a week, and the tradeoff for that would be significant cuts in health, education, and housing, and services they rely on.

Nicola Willis: Is he concerned that the average wage is currently above the $70,000 tax threshold, so, according to his own advisers, is taxed at a marginal rate of 33 percent, whereas in 2010 it was just above the $48,000 threshold, taxed at a much lower rate?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, in answer to the first part of the question, no, because I want New Zealanders to earn higher wages.

Nicola Willis: Well, does he agree with the advice he has received that having a higher proportion of earners with higher marginal tax rates may be expected to lead to lower incentives to work and save over time as the returns on these activities are reduced?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We are clear that we want to see New Zealanders’ wages rise. That is the thing that will continue to provide incentives for them to keep working harder and to be part of a more productive economy. What the member needs to be able to answer to New Zealanders is how does this all balance up, because offering tax cuts in the environment that we are in now means they have to be paid for from somewhere, and that, in the case of the National Party, would have to be cuts to services.

Hon Damien O’Connor: Has the Minister any reports on what would be the impact of an increase in GST after the next election?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: An increase in GST obviously would need to be communicated by a political party, and there is a track record of a party in this House that raised GST and didn’t communicate that. The impact would be significant.

David Seymour: Does the Minister accept that the size of the core Public Service is 28 percent larger than when he first became the Minister of Finance, and, if so, can he point to an actual outcome such as kids learning more, or safer streets, or more operations that have resulted from all these extra people he’s hired?

SPEAKER: That doesn’t really relate to the primary, but if you want to answer—

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I was going to say that the question has been put to the Prime Minister last week and was answered for the member. The question around the growth of the Public Service should be put to the Public Service Minister, but what I can say is that I’m extremely proud, over the last few years, of the way that the Public Service has stepped up to support New Zealanders through the global pandemic; the work that they did saved tens of thousands of lives and thousands of businesses. That is a demonstrable result I am proud of.

Nicola Willis: Isn’t it in fact the case that the Minister is ignoring the advice about the overwhelming case for income tax reduction for working people because he continues to believe that he and his merry band of Ministers can spend New Zealanders’ money better than they can, despite the clear evidence that they have been wasteful and have not delivered outcomes for that spending?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No. The reason why we believe that now is not the right time for tax cuts is because we are in very uncertain and volatile times and because we think New Zealanders deserve to have quality health and education services. Over the course of the last five years, we have been rebuilding from the underfunding of those services by a Government that prioritised tax cuts over investing in them. New Zealanders deserve quality public services. We are delivering them. They are at risk under a National Government.

David Seymour: Is the Minister of Finance aware that the pandemic is, for all intents and purposes, over; and, if so, will he commit to returning the size of the Public Service to pre-pandemic levels, and when?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As in terms of my responsibilities, as indicated to the member on a number of occasions, we are on a track to reduce Government spending as a percentage of GDP back towards the long-run average. If we clicked our fingers and did that right away, as I would acknowledge the member has at least put out a plan to do, it would cause significant damage to the New Zealand economy and to New Zealand society. At the moment, that is the economic plan of a potential alternative Government—because it’s the only one that’s out there—and it’s massively damaging and risky.

Nicola Willis: What conversations, if any, has he had with the Associate Minister of Finance delegated responsibility for assistance on tax policy, one David Parker, and has that to date included any discussions about their mutual disappointment they can’t go on a wealth tax tax grab?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I have many conversations with Mr Parker and usually in the middle of them the words “Tory” and “putting the country at risk” and “tearing up the social contract”—they tend to be the things that feature in those conversations.

Nicola Willis: Do those conversations also feature discussions about their mutual disappointment that the Prime Minister kiboshed their plans for a wealth tax?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I indicated, I’m more than happy to go through some of the other topics that Minister Parker and I discuss from time to time, but mostly they focus on the importance of continuing the excellent work of this Government to lift children out of poverty, to build more State houses, to make sure that our economy continues to grow sustainably, and to make sure that we get on with reforming the Resource Management Act—one of Mr Parker’s other portfolios—which the Opposition singularly failed to do across nine years.

Question No. 5—Justice

5. NICOLE McKEE (ACT) to the Minister of Justice: What was the total cost of cultural reports funded by the Ministry of Justice in October 2017, and what was the total cost of cultural reports funded by the Ministry of Justice in May 2023?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Minister of Justice): Section 27 of the Sentencing Act 2002 allows an offender the right to request a report on their personal, family, and even community circumstances, and how it may have related to their offending. This could possibly include family history and mental health, for example. This Government has not made any changes to section 27 of the Sentencing Act. As released in written question No. 19765, I am advised that in October 2017, the cost of section 27 reports funded by the Ministry of Justice was $1,530; and that in May 2023, the total cost of section 27 reports funded by the Ministry of Justice was $806,022.

Nicole McKee: Can she confirm that in the year to 30 June 2023, the average amount spent on cultural reports was over $630,000 a month, compared to an average of $3,333 a month in the year to 30 June 2018; and does she think this is a good use of taxpayer money?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: As stated before, this Government has not made any changes to section 27 of the Sentencing Act. It is true that section 27 reports are being more frequently used by the defence, as the legal profession’s awareness of them grows. Given the increased use, I’m expecting, and have requested, further advice in the coming weeks to understand whether changes to the system may well be needed.

Nicole McKee: Will she adopted ACT’s policy to repeal section 27 of the Sentencing Act 2002, which allows criminals to get shorter sentences by requesting cultural background reports?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: No.

Nicole McKee: What does she say to the victim of Stevie Taunoa, who was pregnant at the time that she was sexually assaulted in her home and continued to receive threats from her offender following the assault, and who watched as the judge presiding over his case noted his lack of cultural identity before sentencing him to 12 months’ home detention?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: That is a completely unacceptable circumstance for any person to be subjected to. As I’ve already stated to the member, I’m keen to get a fuller understanding of whether the use of section 27 reports remains fit for purpose, and I am not ruling out further changes at this point in time.

Nicole McKee: Why should the victims of crime have any confidence in her ability to defend their rights when she suggests that offenders are like victims, by saying, “It’s a sad indictment on our justice system that the best way to help te iwi Māori is to keep them out of our justice system,”?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: In terms of our focus on victims of crime, I am proud of our track record on supporting victims. Since National left office, our Government has tripled the funding for the Victims Assistance Scheme, and doubled the funding to Victim Support. We passed the Sexual Violence Legislation Act, established Te Aorerekura, and will introduce a bill to give greater protections and rights to victims of family and sexual violence. And we’re establishing three new pilots in the courts to improve victim safety, to ensure they’re heard at bail decisions, and to strengthen the support for child victims of sexual violence. My focus is a justice system where victims feel safe, heard, and empowered.

Question No. 6—Foreign Affairs

6. DAN ROSEWARNE (Labour) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: What recent announcement has she made about New Zealand’s ongoing response to Russia’s assault on Ukraine?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Thank you for the question. In response to Russia’s illegal and unjustified invasion of Ukraine, I’ve recently announced a new tranche of 23 sanctions. These are an extension of our ongoing commitment to stand with Ukraine and to condemn the actions of those contributing to this ongoing crisis. Specifically, these sanctions are aimed at Russia’s military industrial complex, the paramilitary group, and individuals who have played a part in unlawfully transporting and deporting Ukrainian children to Russia. These sanctions will also impact a number of Belarusian financial institutions due to their escalating support of Russia’s war in Ukraine. This represents our staunch stand against the abhorrent actions we are witnessing. Since the passing of the Russia Sanctions Act in March 2022, New Zealand has adopted more than 20 rounds of sanctions targeting over 1,500 individuals and entities. We remain committed to aligning our actions with international sanctions efforts in response to Russia’s aggression.

Dan Rosewarne: How does she plan to address the actions of Russia concerning the deportation of Ukrainian children?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: New Zealand categorically condemns the acts of unlawfully separating children from their families. This is a gross violation of human rights and a clear breach of international law. We have specifically included three individuals involved in these heinous actions in our recent sanctions. We are sending a strong message to Russia and the world that such actions are intolerable and will be met with decisive measures.

Dan Rosewarne: What is the purpose of these sanctions on Russia’s military industrial complex and Belarusian financial institutions?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: The sanctions aimed at Russia’s military industrial complex and Belarusian financial institutions are designed to disrupt their operations and reduce their ability to support military activities. Fourteen of these sanctions target individuals and entities of the Russian military industrial complex involved in the development, manufacture, and procurement of weapons and technology used against Ukraine. We expect these sanctions to have a significant impact and limit their capacity to continue their aggression.

Dan Rosewarne: What is New Zealand’s response to Russian nuclear weapons stationed in Belarus?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: New Zealand remains deeply concerned about Belarus hosting Russian tactical nuclear weapons on their territory. New Zealand has always been a strong advocate for nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation, and any development that means nuclear weapons are sited in more countries is negative. We call on Russia to reverse this course of action, and on Belarus not to host nuclear weapons now or in the future. It represents a direct threat—not only to Ukraine but also to its neighbouring allies—and destabilises the region further.

Question No. 7—Social Development and Employment

7. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does she stand by her statement, “Dental care is something that can be put off due to affordability difficulties, especially for low-income households. We know that issues with dental health have a negative impact on people’s general health, financial health, ability to work, and quality of life”; if so, does she have confidence people unable to afford dental care can access dental grants?

Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister for ACC) on behalf of the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Yes, and yes.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Does she think Ministry of Social Development (MSD) dental grants are meeting the level of unmet need for dental care amongst low-income households; and if so, why are 40 percent of adults and 50 percent of Māori still unable to afford dental care?

Hon PEENI HENARE: We’re proud of the work that we’ve done in this space. In fact, lifting the cap from $300 to $1,000 in the Budget of 2022 has seen a significant uptake of that particular service so that people can receive dental services. What I note, too, is the criteria that it wasn’t only to be for emergency dental but also to allow people to access what would be considered normal dental appointments for fillings or for check-ups to make sure that they don’t fall into the emergency dental criteria. We know that there’s more work to do, but we’ve done a heck of a lot of work to make sure that we can support those who are currently low-income households to access dental services.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Are enough beneficiaries in low-income households able to access dental grants when emergency department staff have reported still regularly seeing patients who have attempted DIY extractions with a screwdriver?

Hon PEENI HENARE: Of course we don’t want to see DIY on dental work in households. What we want to do is make sure that we have the right settings to allow people to access that, and we’re confident that we have by lifting the cap and, of course, changing the criteria to make sure that those who do need it can access that support through MSD.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Does the Minister support people having to get into debt to access expensive dental treatment, which then impacts their ability to meet weekly costs?

Hon PEENI HENARE: That’s why we lifted the cap from $300 to $1,000—to make sure that people don’t fall into the emergency dental trap. We can ensure that they access services to get their kinds of appointments to make sure that they have regular oral health checks, to make sure their teeth get the treatment that they need. We know that there’s more to do, but I am confident that by lifting the cap as well as changing the accessibility settings, more people are accessing these services.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Does the Minister think that only allowing low-income adults to access dental grants where they have an “immediate or essential need”—such as when they’re in pain or when their teeth are decayed—rather than for cleaning, check-ups, and other, broader prevention work is leading to good oral health outcomes for families?

Hon PEENI HENARE: I’ve already explained that we’ve already changed the criteria to make this system a lot more flexible so that it isn’t just for the emergency dental grant: it’s to make sure that there’s better oral health by ensuring that people can book appointments, have regular check-ups, even get a filling; and that it’s not just a one-off—it is a cap of $1,000; you can visit a dentist on multiple occasions to that cap of $1,000. We’re proud of the work that we’ve done in this space. We know that there’s more we need to do to support low-income families, and we’ve done that across multiple portfolios as a Government.

Question No. 8—Police

8. VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour) to the Minister of Police: What recent progress have Police made on tackling organised crime?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Minister of Police): I was incredibly proud to announce last week that Operation Cobalt, Police’s focus work to disrupt gangs and organised crime, has reached a significant new milestone. As of 6 July 2023, police have entered 43,460 charges and have issued a further 55,988 traffic-related infringement offence notices. These charges are supported by 1,235 search warrants conducted and 731 warrantless searches as part of Operation Cobalt. Police have also seized 449 firearms as part of this operation, which builds on the 1,804 firearms seized as part of Operation Tauwhiro. These charges demonstrate Police’s absolute commitment to tackling organised crime and that this Government is backing police to keep our communities safe and to hold offenders to account.

Vanushi Walters: Minister, are you aware of any recent actions taken by police in the past 24 hours?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: This work never stops. In just the past 24 hours, police arrested a patched member of the Head Hunters gang who was observed travelling through the Manukau area. With assistance from the armed offenders squad, an armed vehicle stop was made that revealed a large quantity of methamphetamine, and a further search of the address the offender came from revealed a firearm, which was loaded; ammunition; and a large quantity of cash. The offender has been arrested and charged with possession and further supply of methamphetamine, and police are not ruling out further charges being laid. This is just one more concrete example of the incredible work that our police are doing to tackle organised crime.

Vanushi Walters: What feedback has she seen on the success of Operation Cobalt?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: The successes of Operation Cobalt are known well beyond the confines of this House. Operation Cobalt national controller Detective Superintendent Uraia Vakaruru recently spoke with One News and made it clear that Mongrel Mob, Barbarians, Mangu Kaha, Black Power, Mongols, Greasy Dogs, Comancheros, and Hells Angels members have all been caught in the crackdown, and a recent story in the Police Association magazine highlighted the success of Operation Cobalt, explaining that up to 200 staff were working on the operation over the 12 different police districts, alongside non-traditional groups such as road policing as well. With nearly 700 new police working on organised crime and a spate of new, useful legislation, it’s clear we’re empowering police to get on with the job.

Vanushi Walters: How has new legislation assisted police in tackling organised crime?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: Just this month, a front-line constable in Counties Manukau invoked the first ever use of the new provisions in the Search and Surveillance Act. This new power enabled the officer to seize nearly $24,000 in cash in suspicious circumstances from a gang member who was in breach of bail. The officer was not satisfied with the explanations given and had reasonable grounds to suspect the cash was not lawful. The District Court agreed and granted an order to retain the cash for 28 days, pending further inquiries. This follows previous successes of the use of the Criminal Activity Intervention Legislation Act 2023 in Ōpōtiki during gang conflict, and it demonstrated we’re making sure police have the rules and the tools to get the job done.

Question No. 9—Health

9. Dr SHANE RETI (National) to the Minister of Health: How many times has her office requested officials delay the release of information, as she described in the correction to her response to oral question No. 8 last Wednesday, and when did she first receive any communication suggesting the answers she gave to question No. 8 were not accurate?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister of Health): In answer to the first part of the question, my staff member did not request the delay to the release of the information; my staffer asked the publication not to occur in the week of 5 July. In early June, officials advised me that the due date for the release was to be 30 June. Towards the end of June, officials asked for an extension of time because they could not meet the due date of 30 June. When advised it would be 5 July, my staff member asked for it not to be that week. To the second part of the question, as I already said last week in this House, at approximately 4.30 p.m.

Dr Shane Reti: Was one of the reasons the report was delayed because of observations that reporting of the performance data was “poorly thought out, badly executed and provided … little [information] … to the public anyway.”?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: No. As we canvassed in the House on Thursday last week, it was because of the busy week of that week for which the release was—busy week that that office had in the week that the release was proposed for.

Dr Shane Reti: Did other people in her office have knowledge of the request to delay the data release beyond the person she says contacted her at 4.30 p.m.; and, if so, how many people?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: That relates to the delay in which that question was asked, and the response was corrected in the House. Other political staff in my office would have known about the reply—about the correction—as we prepared to make it.

Dr Shane Reti: Has she or her office also worked on delaying the release of the Ernst & Young review into the Māori Health Authority that she received over two months ago, on 5 May?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: No. That report, as I have mentioned multiple times, is under consideration. It will be released shortly.

Dr Shane Reti: Can she give an assurance that all health performance measures will be regularly and accurately reported as we move towards an election campaign?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: Yes. And that is why Te Whatu Ora went to such great lengths to make sure that their review into the issues that led to incorrect data being reported went into such detail and depth. It is a very good report, and I hope the member is reassured there is a better platform for the provision of health data now.

Question No. 10—Prime Minister

10. DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government’s statements and actions?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Prime Minister): Yes.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does he stand by the comment of the Minister Responsible for the GCSB, who has said that “the white supremacist threat in this country began to get serious attention only since mid-2018”?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I have not seen that particular comment by the Minister, but I have no reason to disagree with it.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What has the Government done since then, if anything, to ensure that responding to the rising threat of white supremacy and anti-Māori hate is a priority for intelligence services and the police?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The member will see that we’ll shortly be releasing national security and intelligence priorities. That will set out some of the work that we have done and some of the work that we are prioritising ahead. That includes targeting those who seek to radicalise anybody for a variety of different reasons. It will also seek to combat mis- and disinformation, which, of course, we know is used in some of the techniques used by groups such as white supremacists. So it will set out quite a comprehensive strategy in those areas, but it will also canvas the things that we have done.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What concerns does he have, if any, that the recent anti - co-governance tour is contributing to a rise in racist rhetoric and violence against tangata whenua?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I strongly disagree with some of the sentiment that has been expressed during that particular tour. I do believe it’s important that we always balance the right to free speech here. People are entitled to have controversial, unpopular opinions, and ones that I strongly disagree with. I happen to strongly disagree with some of the things that have been expressed by the group of people who are running that tour.

Rawiri Waititi: Does he think that the social theory tactics creating moral panic and fear among many here in Aotearoa are being used by other political parties in this House—using words like “subhuman”, a word used by the Nazis, a white supremacist group, when describing the Jews; “apartheid”, a white supremacist tool used against black African peoples; and “separatism”, “segregation”, and Jim Crow laws a white supremacist tool used against African Americans—is fuelling white supremacist anti-Māori tours disguised as anti - co-governance tours plaguing this country?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I don’t think any human beings should be described as “subhuman”. I think those sorts of expressions are reprehensible. I do regret that some phrases are now more commonly used, including the phrase “apartheid”, completely out of context and with an apparent lack of understanding for what apartheid actually involves.

Rawiri Waititi: Does he believe that it is the role of the police to protect only one side of a political debate and allow white supremacists to assault tangata whenua and tangata Tiriti engaging in peaceful protest?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I believe it is the role of police to ensure that the right to free speech is protected, that the right to peaceful assembly and peaceful protest is also respected, and that the right for people to hold uncontroversial opinions and express those is also protected. That needs to be done equally.

Question No. 11—Oceans and Fisheries

11. RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson) to the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries: What recent announcement has she made regarding a new food industry for New Zealand?

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): On a recent visit to Nelson, I was pleased to announce $750,000 to help scientists and businesses look at which strains of microalgae might be suitable for including in foods like protein bars and shakes. Microalgae include single-celled organisms such as diatoms and dinoflagellates. They have caught the attention of scientists around the world for their extraordinary properties and potential to create an abundant, high-quality natural protein source using only a fraction of the water, land, and time of other types of farming.

Rachel Boyack: How will the funding announced by the Minister assist in development of this new industry?

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: This funding is going towards a $1.5 million project with the Cawthron Institute, marine engineering company Kernohan Engineering, and biotechnology nutrition start-up NewFish. The project will see around 100 strains of microalgae from Cawthron’s globally significant culture collection investigated for nutritional properties and ease of production that could open up new, sustainable protein industries across Aotearoa New Zealand. NewFish will work with Kernohan Engineering to take the best microalgae strains and grow them at a commercial scale.

Rachel Boyack: Why is this such an exciting announcement as a potential development for our food industry?

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: What is so great about this project is that it brings together science, food innovation, and engineering to develop future food solutions. This collaborative approach can help provide nutritional and accessible food for everyone. Global food demand is expected to increase by 60 percent by 2050, and food security is threatened by issues like climate change, geopolitics, and pests and diseases. The most exciting part of this announcement is that it is a low-carbon protein, which can be grown sustainably in bioreactors on land. It doesn’t compete with other types of farming for arable land and grows fast, with some doubling in size every day.

Rachel Boyack: How does this announcement fit within other Government initiatives currently under way?

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: The national Aquaculture Strategy aims to grow our aquaculture and to do more aquaculture on land. The Draft Fisheries Industry Transformation Plan highlights the importance of collaboration across the sector, environmental sustainability, and innovation. This project will be another step towards turning the industry transformation plan into action. The microalgae funding has come from the Sustainable Food and Fibre Futures fund. It is the Ministry for Primary Industries’ flagship fund for the food and fibre sector. Since the fund was established in late 2018, the Government and sector have collectively invested almost $560 million in 263 projects across the supply chain.

Question No. 12—Justice

12. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Justice: Is she confident the Government has the correct priorities in justice?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Minister of Justice): Yes. This Government’s focus on justice is clear: we’re backing the police with the rules and the tools they need to tackle crime; we’re putting victims at the centre of our work; and we’re focused on youth offending and cracking down on organised crime. We will continue to create opportunities to break the cycle of offending through programmes that we know are working, and we’ll ensure that there is strong accountability and consequences for those who don’t take up the opportunities that they are provided.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Will she drop the Government’s target of reducing the prison population by 30 percent regardless of the level of crime in our communities?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: No. The two factors that we’ve seen in the reduction of main offences are for drug offences and traffic offences, according to the information received from Corrections.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Shouldn’t the priority in justice be to reduce the number of victims of crime rather than the number of prisoners regardless of the level of crime in our communities?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: The track record of this Government is far better than the previous one, who cut funding to Victim Support. Since National left office, this Government has tripled the funding to the Victim Assistance Scheme and doubled the funding to Victim Support. As already stated today, we have already passed the Sexual Violence Legislation Act and also established Te Aorerekura, and we’ll also introduce a bill to give greater protections and rights to the victims of family and sexual violence. My focus is on a justice system where victims are heard, and that is exactly what we are doing.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Isn’t the thing that victims are most concerned about not to be a victim of crime, and how has her Government made progress when there are 33 percent more violent crimes being committed under her watch?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: Under this Government, police numbers have soared to their highest levels in history. Operation Cobalt has cracked down on organised crime. New legislation has been passed that enabled police to search 26 vehicles, seize firearms, 11 other weapons, and make arrests in Ōpōtiki. National’s track record on crime is not tough. They closed over 30 police stations, froze Police’s budget, let numbers of police fall, and cut funding for Victim Support.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is she confident the sentencing laws are right when convicted serious violent offenders routinely receive home detention, which, by the way, doesn’t necessarily mean staying at home?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: I agree that perpetrators of serious crimes need to be held to account. The Government has not lowered any penalties for individual offences since we have been in office, and decisions in sentences are a matter for the judiciary, something that members of the party opposite don’t seem to understand and saw dangerously close to the very fabric of our democratic institutions.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I was asked about the sentencing laws; I was not asking about the sentencing decisions, and her comment was way off beam in relation to that matter.

SPEAKER: Well, I don’t think so.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: All right. Why does she believe no restriction should be placed on the ability of judges to reduce sentences?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: The Government has not lowered any penalties for individual offences, and those decisions are made by the judiciary and are before the courts, and that is a matter for the judiciary, not a matter for these members in this House.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Point of order, Mr Speaker. She didn’t answer my question. My question was: why does she believe no restrictions should be placed on the ability of judges? And she said—that’s an appropriate question. That’s not a way to answer a question.

SPEAKER: I’ll go back and check the Hansard, but in my mind it’s been answered.

David Seymour: Over what time period does the Minister claim that the first- and second-most prevalent reductions in offender type in prison were traffic and drug offences, and will she table the Corrections material she referred to as having given her that information in her earlier answer to a supplementary?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: The specificity of the primary question—I have that information and I’m more than happy to make it available to that member.

Urgent Debates

Ministerial Resignation—Hon Kiritapu Allan

SPEAKER: I have received a letter from David Seymour seeking to debate, under Standing Order 399, the resignation of the Hon Kiritapu Allan as a Minister. This is a particular case of recent occurrence for which there is ministerial responsibility. Not every ministerial resignation warrants an urgent debate; however, debates have generally been allowed where the actions of a Minister have raised questions of probity. Therefore, I call on David Seymour to move that the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I move, That the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance.

This resignation signifies a very human tragedy wrapped up in a Government in disarray. The events surrounding Kiri Allan’s resignation are sad. She is a person who I think most members would agree was someone of great talent and promise, and yet something that few of us understand has gone wrong and led to these tragic events. It is critical that the public understands what has happened because for the probity of Ministers, and ultimately the respect of the public on this House, it’s just not acceptable to have a Minister of the Crown who is breaking multiple laws on one night—who is driving while over the limit, or at least the infringement offence limit for alcohol consumption, and who has resisted arrest while serving as the Minister of Justice. Those are things that, despite the clear human tragedy at the centre of this resignation, the people deserve an explanation for in order to uphold the probity of ministerial warrants and this House. It is also absolutely critical that people understand the circumstances in which this person was put into this tragic position, because while it is a human tragedy it is also the case that it comes after a cascade of missteps and administrative bungles by this Government that are accumulating—along with the costs and the frustration faced by New Zealanders who put their trust in this Government.

We now have a Government that has no more gas left in the tank. It can’t even field a full Cabinet. The fact that Kiri Allan will not be replaced in Cabinet raises questions over whether or not this Labour Party has the talent to field a full team, and whether or not she felt pressure to remain on the field because they simply did not have any subs on the bench capable of doing the job. It has led to one person holding the justice portfolio and the police portfolio. That is a real problem for New Zealand or any democratic nation, because the Minister of Justice is accountable for upholding those parts of the apparatus of State that uphold, in turn, the rule of law. The Minister of Police is responsible for advocating for the police who have to be restrained by that same rule of law. When a person is put in both positions, that creates a conflict of interest. And, unfortunately, conflicts of interest have led to much of the difficulty that this Government has.

It might have been possible to find someone to replace Kiri Allan as the justice Minister from within the Cabinet. An obvious choice would be somebody in the form of the Attorney-General, who is a lawyer. Perhaps that person could have helped. However, unfortunately, it was found that he was already busy with other jobs. Or perhaps he just doesn’t want any job, but doesn’t even want to be the Minister of Revenue. Perhaps if it wasn’t for the Natural and Built Environment Bill, he would be off completely.

You see, since the Prime Minister said she had “no gas in the tank” back in January, there have been a total of five ministerial departures or resignations in just seven months. First, there was our Prime Minister—which we can come back to—then there was Stuart Nash, who was found to be leaking information to donors in breach of Cabinet confidentiality. And then there was Meka Whaitiri, who was planning to jump ship to another political party and the Prime Minister knew nothing about it. And then there was Michael Wood, the guy who had a conflict of interest with his ministerial portfolios that he failed to declare—and when asked not once, not twice, but over a dozen times to resolve that conflict of interest, he didn’t do it. So Michael Wood is gone. And now, sadly, we see the departure of Kiritapu Allan.

This is a Government that simply cannot hold it together. And people are right to ask: how can a Government so incapable of managing itself be asked to manage the many problems that New Zealanders face, with the inflation that ravages the cost of living, the lawlessness that ravages our streets. It was astonishing, just a moment ago we had what’s called a “patsy question”: a backbench Labour MP asking the Minister of Justice—or was it the Minister of Police? I think it was Justice; it’s hard to know—what is being done about gangs. What the Minister may not have known is that just an hour earlier, Sylvia Park was stormed by armed police, followed by ambulance officers, because two gang—

Hon Grant Robertson: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Speakers’ rulings and Standing Orders are clear around debates of matters of urgent public importance. They are specific to the matters that are in the letter for the debate. While I know there needs to be a time for context, I believe, after listening to the seven or so minutes that the member has been speaking—the vast bulk of his contribution—his speech has not been about the resignation of the Minister.

SPEAKER: Yes, I’d have to agree with that summation of the contribution so far. I will ask the member to speak to the topic of the urgent debate. That’s why I granted it. We’ve had quite a bit of stuff in there that is not related, and the current topic certainly isn’t a narration—unless he can bring it very quickly to the topic at hand, then he should do so.

DAVID SEYMOUR: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I note that my letter did include the conflict created by one person holding both positions, and my letter also pointed to the—

SPEAKER: I just warn the member: he’s having a habit of really commenting on the ruling I’ve just made. I’m well aware of what the application was. You don’t need to—in a way which I think is disrespectful to this House—comment on that, and I’d ask him to stop doing it.

DAVID SEYMOUR: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The resignation of Kiritapu Allan has occurred in a context. It’s occurred in a context of the management of people. It has occurred in a context where a person facing serious challenges was asked to work at full tilt. Having been under question for the challenges that she was personally facing, she was returned to work where she carried out a heavy schedule of announcements in the run up to an election, which amounted to reversing the positions that she, as a Minister in her Government, had been required to uphold for years as a Government and for years, in her case, as a Minister. That could only reflect back on the nature of the Government, the culture that had been imbued in it, and the leadership that it had. We cannot escape the fact that this tragic sequence of events is inextricably linked to the context of that workplace.

We cannot avoid the fact that we have had a Government that for a long time has sought to make policy based on the hope that if only they announce that many houses would be built, it would happen. When you have a Government that constantly tries to ensure that things will happen simply by wishing it so, the frustration that amounts, the problems that arise in the public domain, the pressure that comes back on to Ministers as a result. Well, unfortunately, all of those things which fully reflect upon the Government have been contributing factors to this particular tragic sequence of events. The Government has lost a Minister in highly questionable circumstances that bring into question ministerial probity—not just because of that individual’s choices, which are clearly wrong and for which she has apologised, lost her job, and moved on. But they have occurred in the context of a Government that is failing at multiple levels and cannot be a good place for a Minister to be, where there is not a replacement to come on—all of these things, Mr Speaker.

I can understand why the Minister of Finance doesn’t want to hear them, but, nevertheless, they remain true. They are the true context in which these events occurred. It is simply the case that what we find ourselves with now as New Zealanders is a Government that can at best be described as a caretaker Government: one that cannot field a full team, one that cannot manage itself—let alone the challenges of inflation, of lawlessness, and of division that have grown up like mushrooms under this Government. Failing and lacking the ability to manage itself or any of the problems that New Zealanders face, this Government will now amble towards 14 October, and at that time people facing these problems—this inflation, this lawlessness, and this division—will have to ask themselves: are they not better with a new team? Is it not possible that New Zealanders can hope to see a Government focused not on itself and its multiple losses of personnel, but instead focused on their problems and on solving them with practical solutions that aren’t satisfied simply with sounding good, but actually work? That is the challenge that is now before New Zealanders. That is what this unfortunate sequence of events has brought about, and that is the arena into which ACT enters to provide a better solution, a better way forward, and one that is not going to be so tragically negligent of people that come to serve in the Government.

I finish by giving my best wishes and regards to Kiritapu Allan at a personal level. She is a person that I have known and interacted with over the years and found to be a good person, a person of great intelligence and capability. She has chosen a course, and I respect, obviously, and would like to support from afar that choice that she makes. We wish her all of the best and we hope that all people who come here to do the job can find themselves in a circumstance where they can make a difference as part of a strong team that is responsive to the problems and challenges New Zealand face and put in place coherent solutions that actually solve those problems. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): It is with regret and a heavy heart that I rise today to speak on this motion.

I want to begin by sending my aroha directly to my friend Kiritapu Allan. I have admired the work that Kiritapu has done as a Minister and admired the work that she did before then. She is a person of extraordinary talent, intellect, heart, and mana.

Many New Zealanders first came to understand who the Hon Kiritapu Allan was during her struggle with cancer, and the bravery and the courage that she showed during that period of time. I still have people who talk about the period of time where she was the Minister for Emergency Management and was needing to deal with a particular emergency in New Zealand whilst also knowing, herself, how unwell she was. What people saw there was a person who exhibited the strong qualities of leadership, as I say, and of courage and of bravery and also of enormous intellect as well.

The tragic events of Sunday night have been traversed extensively in the media and I remain very cognisant of the fact that they are also matters that will come before a court in the very near-term, and, obviously, this debate is taking place in that context. Very soon after those events early yesterday morning, Minister Allan tendered her resignation to the Prime Minister after a conversation with him. In doing so, she acknowledged, as she did publicly, that she knew that this was the only course of action that was possible. She fully understood that, as a Minister of the Crown and, in particular, as Minister of Justice, she could no longer remain in that role, having gone through the circumstances of Sunday night. She quickly and swiftly moved to resign and had that resignation accepted by the Prime Minister.

That is undoubtedly the right thing to do. As Kiritapu Allan referred to, herself, in her statement, she understood that these actions were inexcusable, and therefore did not offer any excuse, and moved quickly to resign. That is the right thing to do. There is no excuse for the actions that have been acknowledged by Kiritapu Allan, including the driving while under the influence, and also the charges that have been laid. The consequences of that is that she is no longer a Minister, and she has suffered the consequences for that.

What I want to do, though, is place on record that while I understand and believe those to be the right actions to take in this situation, I do think this House can recognise that we have had a person working as Minister, who is a good New Zealander, a person who is able to relate well to other people, who is able to drive forward policy in a number of portfolio areas, and who represented, I think, to New Zealanders someone who they wanted to be in their House of Parliament.

My reflection is that as a group of people here, we are stronger and better for the diversity that is in this House. We are stronger and better for making sure that people can see a career in politics even if they’re not perfect. From time to time, myself and others have stood in this House and probably said and done things, preying on the imperfections. It’s part of what we do here, and it’s not always right. But I especially think, when we know and when Minister Allan has been brave enough and courageous enough to talk about her own mental health struggles, that we do, as a Parliament, need to think about how we make the job we do—the important job all of us do; not just the Government but the Opposition parties as well—how we make it possible for people to be able to fulfil those roles with a diverse set of backgrounds, with a diverse set of current experiences, including struggles with mental health. I think we can do better, and I do include myself in that along with everybody else.

We need to understand and respect the fact that mental health issues are things that can be worked through. Getting well is what it’s all about; looking after your wellbeing, making sure that you understand how to manage issues when they arise, and that as a group of people in a population, we do that.

I mihi to Kiritapu for the way she’s talked about mental health. I think it’s opened up conversations just in the way that she talked about cancer. It’s opened up conversations among New Zealanders that weren’t happening. She should be proud of that and we should support her and others in doing so—and I acknowledge my old student political colleague Todd Muller in this regard as well, as another person in this House who also did that.

We do need, as a country, to understand the importance of mental health as an issue and understanding how we support people in all walks of life to be able to stay well, and when they are struggling, to be able to be supported to retain their wellbeing and get back to the place that they want to be.

The resignation of a Minister is always challenging for a Government. The Prime Minister’s decisions around what to do when faced with that, in this particular instance, is a recognition of the short period of time that exists between now and when this House rises and we go to the election. We have just five more weeks of this House, and it’s appropriate that Ministers take on the responsibilities that Kiritapu Allan had, to allow us continuity and to be able to move forward towards the election. I’m extremely proud to be part of this Government and this ministerial team: people working every hour of the day to make this country better.

Kiritapu Allan has been a valued member of that team and I am very confident that in years to come, her name will be heard again as doing something significant for Aotearoa New Zealand. She is a person who will make change for the better in the future in her life. What we want for her now is to be able to be given the space and the time to get well, for her situation not to be unnecessarily politicised, but for all of us in this House to gather around her, her whānau, and her friends and give them the aroha and support that they deserve.

Kiritapu, we are thinking of you, you are one of our whānau, and we will always love you.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. We’re speaking in an urgent debate on the matter of the resignation of Kiritapu Allan as a Minister. It’s a perfectly appropriate debate to have, because this is a serious event. The Minister of Justice was arrested, allegedly for resisting arrest, and she has resigned, and it’s absolutely appropriate that the House should discuss that. And we’ve heard some criticism from the other side of the House, as if this was somehow inappropriate, and I don’t agree with that at all. It is quite right for us to talk about these matters and to put them in the wider context.

The context is that this is the sixth resignation we’ve had this year from the Cabinet. I’ll just quickly run through them. Jacinda Ardern first, when she knew the game was up in January, and after five years there was very little to show for the efforts. Second, there was Stuart Nash for leaking information to donors and texting the Commissioner of Police about matters. Third, there was Meka Whaitiri, who showed such a level of animus within the Government that she made sure that her resignation was announced when the Prime Minister was on route to Britain to have a very unwelcome arrival in the airport there. Then, there was Michael Wood—the “16 times is not enough” Michael Wood—which descended into comic farce over a senior Minister not dealing with matters appropriately around conflicts of interest. Fifth is Kiri Allan, as was said, the Minister of Justice, resigning because of resisting arrest and a number of other serious matters. And the sixth, that we shouldn’t overlook, which happened pretty much at the same time, was David Parker leaving his post as inland revenue Minister because he was unhappy with the decisions made within the Cabinet over the wealth tax—not doing what usually is regarded as the honourable thing to do, which is to leave the ministry, full stop, if you don’t agree with what the Cabinet agrees, but that’s by the by. And so what we have is the “great resignation”.

Now, we talked about that in the context of 2022, post-COVID, people leaving their roles. What we see under this Government’s “great resignation” is a Labour Party getting close to the election with nothing to show for their efforts.

When it comes specifically to Kiritapu Allan and her resignation, much has been said and written over the last 24 hours. On the issue of her wellbeing and her mental health, I, of course, like most members of the House, do not know the details and what goes on in anybody’s experiences. We are all very conscious that we are all fallible human beings, we’re all struggling in a high-stress environment, and we all share concern for any member of Parliament—in particular, for Kiri Allan at this time—going through a difficult period. And so I don’t propose to add anything more to that, because I don’t know anything more about it. But what she has said, of course, is that none of that excuses her behaviour on Sunday night, and she has taken responsibility for that, as she really had no choice to do anything otherwise.

And so what can we talk about here? Well, we can and we should—it is appropriate to assess her performance as the Minister of Justice. There has been a lot written. It was written that she was on top of her game. I think it was actually a much more mixed performance as Minister of Justice, because she is responsible for a Government which has struggled to make progress in the wider law and order space. And they have had, I think, I believe, the wrong priorities. And she has prioritised reducing the prison population by 30 percent, even at a time when there has been a real increase in crime.

And so we’re all conscious of the fact, as we go around door knocking and talking to New Zealanders, that there are two issues that they are most worried about. They’re worried about the cost of living and they’re most worried about law and order. And we’ve seen, throughout the period that the Minister who has resigned was the Minister, a period of no movement being made on very large reductions in sentences so that people with serious violent convictions are ending up on home detention. We’ve seen a massive expansion in cultural reports with little to yield for it. We’ve seen a massive increase in ram raids and youth crime generally. We’ve also seen a very significant increase in the delays in the court system. So these are real, real challenges that affect people’s lives. People’s lives have been kept on hold for a long period of time.

And then a final area is we’ve moved away, as a country, from equal suffrage in the local government setting. The Minister of Justice should be standing up vigorously for the principle of equal suffrage—all New Zealanders having an equal say in who governs them and who makes decisions affecting their lives—and she failed to do that. In fact, she failed to even talk about that as an issue. And so that is a perfectly legitimate thing to analyse.

So, like many Ministers, people will look back and see what was achieved. They’ll be conscious of the particulars over which she resigned, but they will also make a judgment about the overall effectiveness of the Government in the justice space.

And I suppose the broader context that we debate in this debate is the consequences of this resignation—what it means for the Government, and what it means for what we have here, and what we all see is a Government that has been overcome with chaos, with confusion, and with incompetence.

Why does that matter—why does it matter? Because, ultimately, the confidence that people have in the Government really has an impact in the confidence, generally, in the country. If we go back to the fourth Labour Government, when it fell apart at the seams and Lange was fighting with Roger Douglas and the whole thing blew apart—that had a terrible impact on confidence as well, because—to understand the relationship—when people are confident about how a country is governed, they are more likely to invest, and if they are more likely to invest, the country has a better chance to grow and to create jobs and to do well. And the inverse is true. When people don’t have confidence that the place is well managed, that a Cabinet is coherent, and that the people within it govern themselves and the country well, they tend to hold back—particularly now, when we have got to a state where the Prime Minister can’t even remember who some of his Ministers are, because there has been such a rapid turnover. That sense of chaos is building.

When you have one Minister being both the Minister of Police and the Minister of Justice—which has been parodied up and down the country as the “Minister of Catch and Release”—that all leads to a sense of lower confidence in the way that the Government is managing itself. And, ultimately, that is unhelpful for a country, and that is why we strongly believe the time is well and truly past for a change, so that we can reassure New Zealanders that they have a Government that can conduct itself well, that it has Ministers who are able to stay the term, and who will obey the rules.

Kiritapu Allan’s case, I suppose, clearly is the most egregious in terms of breaking the laws as a Minister of Justice, but there has been, like I say, a number, over the whole period of the year, where rules have been broken and ministerial understandings and conventions have been moved away from—whether it was Nash, whether it was Wood, or whether it was David Parker.

So there’s a lot to reflect on in this. Nobody takes any joy from the personal downfall of any Minister. I would hope that all people across the House recognise that and they recognise the personal struggles that we have seen here. Like I say, I don’t have any specific insight into that and can only offer my thoughts to Kiri and those who know her and love her. But we do quite rightly expect that our Ministers will obey the law, obviously, and that a Cabinet will be coherently run in good discipline and good order so that New Zealanders can have confidence in that Government.

What we are seeing right here, right now, is the slow and steady disintegration of this, the fifth—is it the fifth?—no, the sixth Labour Government. That is a problem—a political problem—for this Government. It’s a political problem for Chris Hipkins, but it’s a broader problem for New Zealand, because, like I say, when people look to Wellington, when they look to the Government and they see such chaos, the implication is that people will feel less confident, ultimately, to make plans, to invest, and to have a long-term view because so much is so unsettled. And that’s why it’s so important that we restore good Government and good governance in this country. Thank you very much

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to speak in this debate, as I hope others have done, with grave sadness and a sense that, in fact, we shouldn’t be here debating a deeply personal, tragic circumstance in the workplace of the person who, with so much courage, has in fact owned her actions many, many times over. I send nothing but our absolute aroha from the entire Green Party caucus, from myself, and I know many, many others out there in Aotearoa to Kiri—or Minister.

It is sad that we are standing here and debating this issue, but I want to hold that I have, in fact, been heartened by the fact that the vast majority of the reporting since yesterday—when we all woke up as a nation with some shock and sadness to the news of what had occurred in terms of the traffic incident and the resignation of a talented Minister in our Government—has in fact been different than it might have been a few years ago. There seems to be a greater understanding of workplace stress, of mental health, of the way that we talk about things like this in our communities and, in fact, the standards that we hold our leaders to when they stumble. So that actually made me feel a lot better.

And then I saw some of the political commentary in terms of my colleagues in this House and I feel compelled to comment on that, in that I think it has set us back, and in that I think we have a responsibility as members of this House to show better moral leadership. I want to say that as the last speaker, Paul Goldsmith, was wrapping up his speech he started to talk over and over again about how confidence would be eroded out there in the public. But I actually want to say to members of the public, because I know that many, many are finding it challenging right now in a post-COVID environment, in an environment where we’ve always had challenge in terms of accessing mental health care, that, actually, no one will lose confidence in you if you stumble, if you talk about your mental health challenges or crises openly, that your workplace—unlike this one—will probably not make a public spectacle of you, and that, actually, as leaders, most of us in here would have chosen not to be standing up and debating something this personal and turning it into a challenge against your competence.

I wish, on behalf of the National Party, that in the media we’d seen someone like Matt Doocey, the spokesperson, or Todd Muller, a former leader—both of whom have spoken about their own experiences—front for that party rather than Chris Luxon or Paul Goldsmith, who actually turned it into an issue of Ministers needing a psych report to come back to work if they experienced challenges. I want the public to know that if you come forward and say that you are struggling with your mental health in your place of work, no one’s going to institutionalise you and require you to come back with a psych report.

When I went forward and talked openly about suffering from multiple sclerosis it was in part because members of that community kept telling me not to come forward because when they had talked about their chronic illness, they’d realised that they weren’t being promoted at work, they weren’t seen as being competent enough, as other members of our disabilities community have since come forward and told me. So I felt like it was really important to talk about the way that I might need more support in the workplace as a multiple sclerosis sufferer, but that I can still do it. Because maybe it’s important to have people with chronic illness in this place, and maybe it’s important for this place to trust and respect us, just as it’s important that members in this House trust and respect those of us who happen to represent the vast majority of people out there in the world in Aotearoa who have at some point in their lives had mental health challenges.

And I want to finish by commenting with maybe as much sadness and disappointment on the fact that David Seymour felt the need to call this debate at all, and that he had to be stopped twice during his speech for politicising what should have been an urgent debate only about the matter in hand, that it is shameful that in election year some members of this House still think that anything at all is up for debate. That’s not what New Zealand wants. That is what calls the competence of us as politicians into question, not the fact that Kiri Allan suffered from a mental health challenge, that she lost a battle on that day, because we know that she will rise again. We know that life is long and that it’s OK to have challenges. What’s not OK is to see a workmate, see them stumble, and see a personal profit. That’s not the politics that the people out there deserve.

So with that, I want to send our aroha and support to a leader who we know will rise again, and to all the future leaders who will stand, who we will stand next to, who we will lift up no matter what your challenges, whether it’s mental health, whether it’s chronic illness, whether it’s disability, whether you happen to be a queer Māori young woman like Kiri—you’ll be OK. Kia ora.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): I too would like to begin my short contribution by acknowledging Kiritapu Allan and sending our love from her Labour whānau to her. I’d also like to acknowledge that the events of the last 36 hours once again highlight that this is a workplace like no other. I can’t imagine a workplace anywhere else in the country where someone clearly makes a mistake, they acknowledge their mental health challenges, and then there is a discussion and a debate that is televised on TV for the whole country to see. I think it highlights something that I’ve always been struck by in my time in this House, which is that when we see an MP stumble or when we see an MP—from whatever side of the House—clearly see their careers sometimes disintegrate within a matter of hours before our eyes, it is nothing that any of us find comfortable and it is not something to celebrate. It highlights what a different and difficult workplace this place can be.

I would like to acknowledge also the members of our caucus. Events like this have a ripple effect, and it’s never about one person. We become pretty close in these jobs as a caucus and as colleagues, and when one member falls, that does have a ripple effect throughout the team. So I would like to acknowledge the very many members of our caucus who have wrapped their arms around Kiri in the last days and months to support her at what clearly was a trying time.

Kiri has been brave in acknowledging that she was struggling with mental health issues. Last week, she came back to work, and the consensus was she was on top of her game. It was Kiritapu at her very best: articulating policy in her clear ability to communicate and to talk to New Zealanders in a way they understood was on show. But what we saw and what we can’t ignore is that yesterday morning, we saw a Minister who had to have a conversation with the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister did advise that he did not believe that it was tenable for her to continue to hold her ministerial warrants, for very real reasons. I think it has been clearly documented what has happened from there, but I think the best thing now is that Kiri takes the time to heal, that she spends time with her whānau and with her friends, and that she does spend that time healing.

I think that for the rest of us, it is time to reflect on the fact that there are no quick fixes when it comes to mental health. It is something that we have to make sure that we understand that things can change quickly and without warning, and it is something we have to think about in terms of our workplace here in Parliament. But we also, as a Labour caucus, need to continue to focus on all of those New Zealanders who are doing it tough at the moment, all of those members in our communities who are looking to their Government for hope and for support to address the cost of living, to tackle things like crime, and to make sure we have a health system that is serving New Zealanders and an education system that is fit for purpose, and that is exactly what Labour will be doing.

Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I first met Kiri in 2017 when we were both asked to participate in a press gallery debate to raise funds for a charity—I can’t remember what it was now. We both participated in that, and then later on, sitting out the back of The Backbencher, we had a drink together and we talked about an area that we both love, and that is the East Coast of the North Island—Gisborne, from Ruatōria down to Wairoa, where, obviously, Kiri’s family is from and my family is from also. I spent a good chunk of my adult life living over there. I transferred there in the police as soon as I had the opportunity and spent most of my time over there as a police dog handler, operating out of Gisborne. I just have to say that it certainly gives me a sense of comfort to know that Kiri is now back in Gisborne, a very, very strong community there, with her family, and they will be wrapping the support that she needs around her now.

I want to talk to two parts of this. The first part is the human side. I do want to address some of the comments that my friend and colleague from the Green Party, Golriz Ghahraman, made, because, in this country, we are still fighting to overcome stigma. We are still fighting to allow mental health and depression to be spoken about openly as if it’s any other ailment, whether it be a broken arm or a broken leg or a bronchial infection. It’s just quite simply a chemical imbalance in the brain. No one wakes up in the morning asking to have mental health issues. No one wakes up in the morning wanting to be depressed. And we’ve still got quite a long way to go. I’ll just say to the Green member that she spoke about a psychological report as if it was a bad thing. It’s not a bad thing. A psychological report is quite simply a report on someone from an expert in that field—that is passionate and trains and has the ability to care for and provide a diagnosis and a support plan going forward, just like it would be the same if it was a broken arm and you had an orthopaedic specialist or an orthopaedic surgeon—

Ingrid Leary: Are you saying to mandate it?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: What I’m saying quite simply is this: if we want to get rid of stigmas, let’s not continue to talk about them as if there is a stigma, as if there is an issue attached to those types of things. There’s not. There quite simply isn’t.

The human side of this—and I’ve been very clear about this. I consider myself, and I like to think of myself, as a friend of Kiri. I know that when she was facing the terrible challenge around cancer, which she took on bravely—and, by the way, still remained very committed to her role as a Minister, as much as she could, and I think she deserves our admiration for that—I certainly, on a personal level, tried to support her as well as I could through that cancer battle. We stayed in regular contact, and when she put her hand up, again bravely, a few weeks ago and said, “I have got some mental health issues. There are some personal things happening in my life.”—and the tough thing about this job here is that it’s a huge privilege but the reality of it is that you live in a fishbowl; you look out and everyone else looks in. We just have to accept that. That is the nature of this role. We serve the people that send us here. They expect us to be able to do that role, and they’ll hold us to account. That’s how the system operates, and that’s how it should be. But it is very hard when you’re dealing with deeply personal issues and those have been played out in public.

When she put her hand up and she said, “I’m going to have to step back and take some time off because there are some personal issues and it has impacted and affected my mental health”, I did send her a message. I sent her a message of support, and I said, “Good on you for being brave enough to put your hand up, because maybe that will just help others to put their hand up and say that they need help as well.” But my issue with what has happened with Kiri, and I’ve been very clear about it, and some people don’t like it, is that she should have been—and I don’t know whether she did have, because we don’t know the details about her return to work. I want to acknowledge the Hon Willie Jackson, who is in the House. It appears that he has definitely been trying to provide her with support behind the scenes. But my point is quite simply this: she is in a much worse situation now personally, where she’s got some big mountains to try and climb. That, in my view, didn’t need to happen.

If someone is supported properly and if there is a proper process to allow them to come back and re-engage in the workplace, whether it be light duties or whatever the plan may be, as long as they’re properly supported, you’ve got a very high chance of success, of actually getting them back into the workplace. I’ll just say this: often when people are depressed or they’re suffering from mental health, they are not in the best position to judge whether or not they are ready to go back to work. They need people around them that are able to step back and have some perspective, whether that includes professional advice or advice from a counsellor—whoever is providing that support and that treatment—to be able to actually step in and make those decisions. I think what we’ve seen played out in the last 24 hours, in my view, was avoidable.

Now I want to come to the important part too, and that is the fact that—we all wish Kiri a speedy recovery and we all want to see that happening, but the reality of this is that our country at the moment is experiencing a massive crime wave. We’ve got a cost of living crisis. We’ve got interest rates going up. We’ve got Kiwis now trying to borrow money just to get themselves through week to week. They’re having to prioritise, and it is tough. And one thing they expect us to be able to do is come to this place and take that seriously and think about them and make the decisions and do the things that we have to do to make this a better country and an easier country to live in and raise your family. I think that when you’ve got the justice Minister—[Speaker gestures to member] Yes, thank you, Mr Speaker. When you’ve got the justice Minister—and this is the justice Minister; this is one of the highest law officers that we have in our country—in a position where they’re failing, allegedly—and I must say “allegedly”, because we do understand that this is an ongoing police investigation and case—not complying with our front-line police, that is about as bad as it gets.

I just want to say one thing: in the last six years, our front-line police have had to deal with a lot. But one of the things that has been very tough for me to watch is that there’s been a loss of respect in the way that gang members, youth, and juvenile offenders treat our police officers. They are not paid enough to be spat at. They’re not paid enough to be assaulted—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr Mitchell, I’ve asked you to keep this narrow. Keep it narrow or you will be sitting down.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: And therefore, Mr Speaker, we should be sending a signal from this Parliament, from this House of Representatives, that we should be complying and respecting our front-line police officers. We had the person that held the highest position in our Parliament, in terms of the Minister of Justice, that completely failed on that level. And we have to take steps as a Parliament, all of us, and especially as a Government, to restate the fact that our police officers deserve to be shown that respect.

Just very quickly: when I was in Gisborne recently, I was very lucky that, at the police station there, they had a ceremony for me where they presented me with my old armed offenders squad cap, which was 20-plus years old. I hadn’t worn that for over 20 years, and somehow they still had it in the station. During that meeting, they recognised the fact that they respected Kiritapu Allan. They respected her as their local MP. What’s really important now is that this House and this Government gets up and very clearly says we respect the role of our police officers. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister for Broadcasting and Media): E te tuahine Kiritapu, ahakoa he taumaha koe, i tēnei wa ka hoki mai anō koe, e mohio ana au. Kia kaha katahi ka toa, tō mātou aroha ki a koe i tēnei wā. Nō reira kia kaha kia māia kia manawanui.

[Sister Kiritapu, although you are feeling heavy, you will return, I know that to be so. Be strong and you will win. Our love to you. And so be strong, be brave and be resolute.]

It’s a very sad time for this whole Parliament, and I agree with our lady from the Greens, Golriz, who said it for many of us—that we did not need to have this type of debate today. Mr Seymour, on one hand, talks about supporting Kiritapu, and then this whole debate turns into a political kōrero. It saddens many of us today, but what will be will be.

Her resignation is tragic, and as Megan Woods said, we thought she was OK a week back. Yes, we’re not experts, but she was adamant, and particularly with me, that she was ready to come back to work. Mental health’s a funny thing—well, it’s not a funny thing; it’s a terrible thing, I should say. I should put that in a better place. We saw how she operated in the media conference last week. She was absolutely on her game—brilliant, actually. According to Claire Trevett, she gave a masterclass performance in the media conference on ram-raiding and justice. So who would know, when you see a Minister like that on top of her game? She worked well in the House after taking questions from the Opposition. Then just a few days later, down she went.

It was shocking for all of us to see how she went down that track. For me, I take this very personally. My uncle Moana Jackson talked to me about Kiritapu six years ago. He said to me, “I have this young woman who is a great, great talent, and you better look after her.” So that’s when I first met Kiri. I hadn’t met Kiritapu before. He said that she’s got talent and brains and she’s a contemporary of people like—I think you’re a bit older than her, Tama, but she’s part of that legal crew who are so brilliant—that young, Māori crew.

So he put it on me to support her, and so her and I have grown very close over the last six years. I suppose on Sunday I was very sad because she got in touch with me at 6 o’clock and said she was a bit lonely and she wanted to go for a kai. I wasn’t in Wellington at the time, but I thought everything was OK. We were happy at the end of our kōrero, but at 10 o’clock on Sunday night, it all went wrong. So just so saddened by this.

But I suppose I’m buoyed and happy when I see the type of support I heard from the Greens; the Māori Party have been very supportive. Our women out there—I saw Professor Linda Smith salute her. She has a lot of support out there that other MPs would love, but I think it is because she represents so much. She’s young, she’s brilliant, she’s funny, she’s a young leader, and she’s also proudly from the coast. You know, she’s such a hard case, and at the same time is incredibly brilliant. So she’s got so much support out there. So I’ve heard the kōrero. She’ll rise again, and I’ve said that to her too. Politics is a funny game. Politics is all about timing. A few of us know that—a few of us know that.

Hon David Bennett: Winston. Ha, ha!

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Yes, that’s right, Mr Bennett. Like, when is the right time to come into politics? When is the right time to leave politics? When is the right time to come back into politics? For Kiritapu Allan, she is, without doubt, one of our mana wahine. She has been a leader for Māori, she has been a leader for her community, and she is revered right across the spectrum. I said yesterday when I was speaking to an interviewer that she’s a bit different to some of us who just want to smash into the Opposition. She always rose above that. That’s why people like Mr Seymour gave her a good mihi, and others from the Opposition, they supported her, because Kiritapu never really got too personal with anyone, and that was her great strength. I’m glad now she’s going to find some wellbeing with her whānau. I wish her all the best, and she will be back. Kia ora anō tātou katoa.

PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I genuinely rise taking no pleasure from having to take part in this debate. I want to pass on my empathy and best wishes to Kiritapu Allan, and at this time, when her personal and private life is under such public scrutiny, just remind her that this too will pass, and many people have talked about the likelihood of her rising again. So I want to endorse those sentiments.

I want to speak about Kiritapu Allan’s resignation and the context of this, and it has been talked about before that her resignation comes within the context of five other resignations under this Prime Minister—so Jacinda Ardern, Stuart Nash, Meka Whaitiri, Michael Wood, Kiri, and, of course, David Parker. But not only does it come within the context of those six resignations but it also comes within the context of many areas of failed reforms and failed behaviour from this Prime Minister.

I believe that in the context of this resignation, the Prime Minister is the common denominator of many of these issues. We’re talking about a Prime Minister who, while an experienced politician, was certainly not an experienced people manager, and he was certainly not experienced in exercising judgment over staff or people that he worked with. I said very early in my time here that Chris Hipkins wasn’t capable of running a bath because he had never run anything, and I stand by that, and so I think Kiritapu Allan’s resignation has been an incredibly sad consequence of a person being in a position of leading who did not provide that support and leadership that she should have been able to expect.

I talk about the context of the things that the Prime Minister has been involved in in his time as Prime Minister and also as a Minister. I look at the education reforms of the vocational education sector that have been a complete and utter disaster. I look at the roll-out of the vaccines—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Come back, come back please to within the debate.

PENNY SIMMONDS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. So I’m wanting to traverse the areas where I believe that the Prime Minister, and at the time when he was the Minister of these various areas, Chris Hipkins, has let down not only Kiritapu Allan but a large number of people. When I look at farmers who have lost hope for their—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! I’ve warned the member once to come back to within the scope of this debate which is an urgent debate centring around the resignation of a Minister. I’ll ask the member again to stay within the parameters of the debate.

PENNY SIMMONDS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I do think that the Minister resigning is very much as a consequence of the lack of support and the leadership that was not shown to her by the Prime Minister, and I believe that there have been a number of signals over the last few years that this Prime Minister, in his role as a Minister, has done similar things to people within those areas and now to his Cabinet. When we read through six Ministers in the last six months who have resigned, there is a common dominator, and the common denominator is Chris Hipkins, who lacks the experience and lacks the judgment to be able to offer the support that should have been able to be expected of a leader in that context.

RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori): Tēnā tātau, tēnā koutou e te Paati Reipa i homaihia tēnei rima miniti ki au ki te Paati Māori ki te tuku atu i ngā korero kei runga ō mātou ngakau i tēnei wā nō reira mihi nui ki a koutou.

E Kiritapu ko koe tērā e matakitaki mai rā i tō wā kainga, ka tiki ake au i ngā kōrero kei roto i te pae pera tapu, i a Hone, nāna i kī nei kei roto i te pouri te māramatanga e whiti ana.

Ka pērā pea taku korero ki a koe me te mea hoki ka tiki atu au i ngā korero a ngā matua tūpuna, he wahine he whenua ka mate te tangata, he wahine he whenua ka ora hoki te tangata nō reira kia kaha ki a koe kia maia kia manawa nui.

Koinei hoki te mihi hangai tō ki a koe i tēnei ahiahi.

[Greetings, everyone, thank you, Labour Party, for allowing me, the Māori Party, these five minutes to express what we feel right now. Thank you.

Kiritapu, you are sitting and watching this from home. Allow me to make reference to the Bible, to John who said, “Within the night there is always light shining.”

That may be what I have to say to you. Also I would like to reference our forefathers who said, “Through woman and land our people perish, but through woman and land our people also thrive.” And so be strong, be confident, and be compassionate.

These are my kind sincere words to you this afternoon.]

This whole debate focused on Kiritapu and the Government, to me, is a very narrow-minded debate. Instead what we should be debating is the institution of Parliament that continues to uphold a misogynistic culture that was imposed by British men. Everyone sitting in this House is responsible for upholding that culture. Suddenly, everyone here has turned into mental health professionals, when this is the very institution and the very people that choose, every day, to create mental unwellness amongst our people.

Kiritapu Allan is only one casualty among a long line of people who have suffered from the misogyny of this Parliament—especially our wāhine Māori: Alamein Kopu, Georgina te Heuheu, Metiria Turei, Claudette Hauiti, Nanaia Mahuta, Marama Davidson, Meka Whaitiri, Louisa Wall, and now Kiritapu Allan.

This place is unsafe—more so for Māori, and more so again for wāhine Māori. The record shows for itself that the rules and traditions of this place perpetuate an unsafe culture. This place is makariri—which means “cold”, Mr Brownlee. It is void in spirit and this affects Māori more than anyone else in the House. Why? It’s because it was built with the aspirations of ridding Aotearoa of its indigenous people through subjugation and assimilation.

It is our responsibility—every one of you here—to do better, to challenge the very institution of this House that perpetuates misogyny and racism. How do we do that? Through constitutional transformation. We’ve been very clear about constitutional transformation—Te Paati Māori has policies based on it. The Matike Mai report shows a way we could do that to ensure that is a Tiriti-centric Aotearoa, a system that is based on Te Tiriti, a system that allows tikanga Māori to be part of any political system here in Aotearoa. Our Aotearoa hou shows that.

What does an Aotearoa hou look like? It looks like how we would treat you on the marae. This is the way Kiritapu Allan and all these other wāhine Māori and all of us here in this room—none of us exclusive of this—would be welcome to an Aotearoa hou. What does that look like? It looks like how we would treat you on our marae. We will welcome you. We will feed you. We will house you. We will care for you. We will love you. That’s the type of system we should be looking at.

This is not about an isolated case of Kiritapu Allan—kāo. This is about ensuring that this is a safe place for everyone, that this is a safe place for minorities, that this is a safe place for tangata whenua, that this is a safe place for tangata Tiriti, that this is a safe place for wāhine Māori. The record shows that it has not been a safe place for our wāhine Māori. I named a whole raft of wahine Māori that had been affected by the Westminster system that has been imposed on us here in Aotearoa.

So our challenge is to everyone here. This is an opportunity for us to start to look at a system that is more accepting—that is more accepting, that is more Tiriti-centric, and that builds an Aotearoa hou.

So, in saying that, ki taku tuahine, e Kiritapu, kia kaha ki a koe, he wahine Māori koe he tangata whenua koe, kauaka rawa e tukuna tētahi kia tuarua koe ki runga i tā tātou whenua me nama tahi tātou i ngā wā katoa. Madam Speaker, e te Whare, ngā mihi ki a tātou katoa, tēnā tātou. Kia ora tātou.

[To my sister, Kiritapu, may you be strong, you are wahine Māori. You are people of the land. Don’t allow anybody to say you are minority on our own land. We are number one always. Madam Speaker, the House, acknowledgments to us all, thank you all.] 

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Vanushi Walters—five-minute call.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Like many of my other colleagues today, I rise with a heavy heart as well and join them in sending aroha to Kiritapu and to her whānau.

It’s really difficult to see someone who has such a heart for improving our justice system to have to step back in this way. I met Kiritapu many years ago when we were both working at YouthLaw Aotearoa and we connected really in terms of her passion for young people. That’s something that has followed her through her role as Minister of Justice. Kiritapu was always someone who I think, while she had the ball, really was running, and that of course is very difficult to do when you’re going through your own personal circumstances as well.

It is undeniable that her actions on Sunday night are unacceptable, but I think what that shows us is that mental health issues don’t discriminate and they don’t always present in the most obvious of ways. Sometimes they do sit under the surface and often the scale of those issues sits under the surface as well.

I want to acknowledge that there has been a reallocation of the portfolios as a result of her resignation. I just want to acknowledge Minister Andersen as someone I know to be focused on responding to community concerns and very connected to justice issues across the portfolio. I would say to all those who are experiencing mental health issues that your present circumstances don’t determine where you go; they merely determine where you start.

I believe it’s time now for us to give Kiritapu and her whānau some peace to talk with themselves and some privacy. Kia ora.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Sittings of the House

Sittings of the House

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Leader of the House): I move, That the sitting of the House today be extended into the morning of Wednesday, 26 July for the consideration in committee of the Natural and Built Environment Bill, the Spatial Planning Bill, and the Local Government Electoral Legislation Bill; the interrupted debate on the second reading of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Community Participation) Amendment Bill; and the first reading and referral to select committees of the Regulatory Systems (Primary Industries) Amendment Bill and the Regulatory Systems (Climate Change Response) Amendment Bill.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the motion be agreed to.

Ayes 72

New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.

Noes 44

New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Local Government Electoral Legislation Bill

Instruction to Committee

Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Education) on behalf of the Minister of Local Government: I move, That the committee be instructed to consider and, if it thinks fit, adopt the amendments to the Local Government Electoral Legislation Bill set out on Supplementary Order Paper 367 in the name of the Hon Kieran McAnulty.

This Supplementary Order paper will permanently enable local councils to have remote participants in their meetings to count towards their required quorum. This arrangement is already in place. [Bell rung]

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Oh, sorry. No, I meant—

Hon JAN TINETTI: All good. Firstly, this was through the COVID-19 pandemic and now through the severe weather events. The temporary settings will expire, and this change will support the continuation of local authority business. It is supported throughout the sector.

The change will make it easier for councils to conduct business and keep the choice about whether to enable remote participation in their hands. It is up to councils whether, and how, they will make use of this ability through their own locally determined standing orders. But for councils that cover sparse populations and large geographic areas, making these changes permanent will support those councillors representing remote communities to participate in local democracy. This proposal will place no additional cost pressures on local authorities who are already operating under this system.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the motion be agreed to.

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Madam Speaker, thank you. We’ve heard, from the Minister, an explanation of why, in her view, the amendment—the Supplementary Order Paper—is a good idea. And I don’t say that it’s not; on this side of the House, we would need to consider the substance of that, and no doubt it would be in the context of those changes that are contemplated via a piece of legislation that’s currently before the House.

But what I don’t understand—and which the Minister did not touch upon; not that I heard anyway—was why this process is being followed. Why is it that this idea that is seemingly so worthy has not been included in legislation before, within scope, that could have been set out, of course, by the Government itself?

So I don’t intend to take much of the House’s time to, effectively, pose that question. If the Minister is able to respond and explain how and why it is that we are being asked to agree to this change in process—notwithstanding the merits or otherwise of the proposal itself—then that would be helpful, I think, for the House to be able to form a conclusion as to whether we should allow the scope of that bill already in front of us to be expanded in that way.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the committee be instructed to consider and, if it thinks fit, adopt the amendments to the Local Government Electoral Legislation Bill set out on Supplementary Order Paper 367 in the name of the Hon Kieran McAnulty.

Ayes 72

New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.

Noes 44

New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Natural and Built Environment Bill, the Spatial Planning Bill, and the Local Government Electoral Legislation Bill.

House in Committee

House in Committee

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, the House is in committee on the Natural and Built Environment Bill, the Spatial Planning Bill, and the Local Government Electoral Legislation Bill.

Bills

Natural and Built Environment Bill

In Committee

Part 1 Purpose and preliminary matters

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): We come to Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 3 to 12, “Purpose and preliminary matters”. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. We intend to spend a bit of time, on this side of the Chamber, on Part 1 because it is fundamental to the way in which the new Natural and Built Environment Act—if it becomes an Act—will operate. I want to start with clause 3, which is the purpose of the bill. I want to ask the Minister about “te Oranga o te Taiao”, which states very broadly in clause 3(1): “The purpose of this Act is to uphold te Oranga o te Taiao.” I’d like to know from the Minister why the Government has decided to insert into our planning and resource management legislation an entirely new legal term, and has the Government thought through the implications of that, because there has been some quite noteworthy public commentary around the potential for extensive litigation as a result of this?

I have a series of other further questions, but, as a starting point, I want to know about the rationale from the Minister for the insertion of “te Oranga o te Taiao” into our new—potentially new—legislative framework, because the select committee actually strengthened, if anything, this provision and has made it very clear, through clause 3(1), that the purpose of the new Act will be to uphold te Oranga o te Taiao. I’ve got further questions around how the use and development of the environment is subject to that. But that’s a starting point—question—for the Minister.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you for the question; it’s an important one. This essentially adopts the recommendation of the Randerson panel that has since been worked up by the Environment Committee and by officials. The recommendation of the Randerson panel was to change the purpose clause from the Resource Management Act (RMA) purpose clause to “te Mana o te Taiao”. When the exposure draft went to the select committee for an inquiry around these essential parts of the bill, the recommendation of submitters and the select committee was to change the term from “te Mana o te Taiao” to “te Oranga o te Taiao”, and through the development of the legislation the meaning has been further clarified. It is a Māori word, but it is a defined term and I don’t think the committee should get hung up by the fact that it is a Māori phrase rather than an English phrase.

The defined term is intended to emphasise that the purpose of the bill is essentially twofold. The RMA system has failed on both the protection of the environment and the enabling of development. We’ve seen the problems with the RMA in respect of development show up in the escalating land prices, the huge increase in the cost of consenting infrastructure, which, for a mid-sized project in New Zealand, the Infrastructure Commission has proven that the consenting costs—never mind the cost occasioned by delay—have increased to 5.5 percent of project costs for mid-size infrastructure projects. For small projects, the cost is about 16 percent of the project cost, which is disproportionate relative to the benchmarks overseas.

So it’s failed on the pro-development side, but it’s also failed on the protection of the environment side, as evidenced by the fact that we’ve had declining water quality, we’ve seen continued loss of biodiversity—particularly around wetlands, but lots of other instances of loss of biodiversity—and the existing RMA system has been ineffective at guarding against cumulative effects. The “avoid”, “remedy”, or “mitigate” principles of the RMA may have, in the end, turned generally into mitigate, and large numbers of mitigated effects have piled up into cumulative effects that have seen the degradation of water quality.

So the purpose of the new Act is to overcome both of those problems, and it’s achieved by setting out this purpose clause, which does have a Māori phrase, but it’s a defined term and members will note that it’s defined to mean in the bill “the health of the natural environment, … and the relationship between the health of the natural environment and its capacity to sustain life,”. And none of those are new concepts—“the relationship between the health of the natural environment and the health and well-being of people and communities”; I think we can all agree with that as a House as well. And then “the interconnectedness of all parts of the environment”, which is not just a reference to the natural environment but it’s also the built environment—agriculture; it’s all caught within the broader definition of environment, which is set out in the bill. And then the final part of the text is “the relationship between iwi and hapū and te Taiao that is based on whakapapa.” That reference to whakapapa was inserted by the select committee—it actually came from a suggestion from Barbara Kuriger, who was worried that the prior reference was unclear that this was a reference to the whakapapa relationship, or the historic relationship, if you like, between people locally and their natural resources.

Now, the purpose of the Act is to uphold te Oranga o te Taiao, and it must be achieved in a way that firstly protects the health of the natural environment—that’s to guard against these cumulative effects, and there are some exceptions to that for infrastructure that’s necessary, but we can come to that in later parts of the bill. But then having protected the natural environment—and this is a reference to the biophysical environment, not matters of personal taste that have bedevilled the RMA, which has, you know, led to a lot of nimbyism. It’s about the health of the natural environment. But then, subject to that, once you’ve protected the natural environment, fill your boots, fill your boots—it’s saying, subject to this, “enables the use and development of the environment in a way that promotes the well-being of [both] present and future generations.”

CHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you to the Minister for that useful illumination. A number of issues arise—I mean, no one’s placing much emphasis on the fact that the phrase is a te reo Māori word, or even te ao Māori. It’s the fact that it has not been used before that is the thing that people are worried about, and, yes, it is defined in subclause (3).

I suppose I’d just make a number of points to the Minister. The first is that if you read subclause (3) of clause 3, it’s all about the environment. So it’s the “health of the natural environment; … the relationship between the health of the natural environment … the relationship between the health of the natural environment and the health and well-being … the interconnectedness of all parts of the environment; and … the relationship between iwi and hapū and te Taiao that is based on whakapapa.” Well, there’s not a lot there about development and there’s not actually a lot there about growth.

The Minister waxes lyrically, rightly, about competitive urban land markets and making room for growth and urban growth—and that’s important—and says that land prices are too high, and all of that is correct. But none of that is mentioned in—and I see the Hon Phil Twyford nodding. I was going to say “vigorously”, but he’s not nodding that vigorously. But he’s nodding gently—

Chris Penk: He’s nodding off.

CHRIS BISHOP: —agreeing. He’s not nodding off; he’s very interested in this. But none of those very important matters are mentioned in subclause (3). Subclause (3) is all about the environment. I suppose that if you were stretching things, you could say “the health and well-being of people and communities;”, but the other various clauses that surround subclause (3)(c) are all about the environment.

So the first concern is that the purpose of the Act is to uphold a series of environmental outcomes, and then you get to the next bit, which is “The purpose must be achieved in a way that—… protects the health of the … environment;”. Now, as the Minister will know, “protect” has been defined by the courts in King Salmon as a particularly specific thing. “Protect” is a particular legal term, and post - King Salmon, the threshold for protecting the environment is a higher one. So the Minister says that, well, once you’ve sort of satisfied the biophysical limits, you can fill your boots and do whatever you like, except much of the development that we want in New Zealand has an effect on the environment.

Hon Scott Simpson: That’s not what the courts say.

CHRIS BISHOP: It’s not what the courts say, Scott Simpson says, but much of the development that we want has an effect on the environment.

So, for example, we want more houses. We’re desperately short of houses in New Zealand. We have uncompetitive urban land markets. Land prices and, therefore, house prices are way too high, and the Government knows this. I just wish they would go back to the work that the Hon Phil Twyford spent so much time in Government developing—which Megan Woods doesn’t appear to understand—which is that smashing urban limits is the way to drive down land values and drive down house prices. That’s what we need to do.

Simon Court: That’s right.

CHRIS BISHOP: Well, Simon Court is nodding away, but he should maybe mention that to Brooke van Velden, who also seems to think that Auckland has got more than enough housing in Auckland right now when, clearly, it doesn’t, which is why 25,000 people are on the social housing wait list and we have 10,000 families living in motels. So, absolutely, we need to smash urban limits and go for growth—and that’s actually National’s policy—but my point is that that has an effect on the environment.

To take another most obvious example, building wind farms has an effect on the environment. Geothermal power stations have an effect on the environment—they have a noticeable effect on the environment. But the point is that living our lives as humans has an effect on the environment. What the Minister is saying is that, subject to protecting the health of the environment, it can enable the use and the development of the environment.

So I suppose my overall point is that what was basically a balancing approach through the current Resource Management Act (RMA), in which we recognised that having humans living their lives has an effect on the environment, and it’s about how you take account of those effects and mitigate them where possible, but accepting that sometimes you can’t—sometimes you just can’t. Building a wind farm has an effect. It may result in the loss of birdlife. Geothermal energy has an effect on water and geothermal substructures in the Waikato and various parts of Lake Taupō, for example.

Building housing has an effect on the environment. It frequently results in more roads being built, and those roads go through areas of, well, farmland—and there’s the whole issue of the National Policy Statement on Highly Productive Land, which is a whole other issue which we will no doubt turn to in due course. But building roads has an effect and, you know, it results in embedded carbon and all the stuff Julie Anne Genter hates—all that stuff—but I think most people would acknowledge that we need roads to unlock land for housing, and, actually, I would argue that an inability to do that over the last 20 or 30 years has resulted in many of the social problems we face today: unaffordable housing and all the things I’ve previously talked about.

So it’s all very well to say that you can do whatever you like, subject to protecting the environment, but the problem is that protecting the environment has been defined by the courts already as being a high threshold. It requires quite a lot of things to happen, and this is the problem.

Clause 3(2)(b) says that the development and use of the environment “that promotes the well-being of … present and future generations.” is subject to paragraph (a), which is protection of the health of the natural environment. So it’s only once you’ve protected the environment—which, as I’ve previously indicated, requires onerous action—can you get use and development of the environment, and it’s wrong-headed. It’s round the wrong way.

We’ve gone from what was, essentially—I’m paraphrasing, and I’m not a legal expert—a balancing approach through the current RMA, which no one is defending as being perfect, but we’ve got to deal with what’s in front of us, and it’s been put on the Table by the Government. We’ve gone from what was, essentially, a balanced approach, or a balancing approach, to something that I think, and I think many people think, looks like an environmental protection statute at the expense of many other things.

The Minister, I think, knows that the legislation we’re passing has to accomplish many things. That’s why, if you read through the supplementary analysis report and all of the voluminous volumes of paper that have been produced about competitive urban land markets and the promotion of renewable energy and all of the things that most of us want—the Greens don’t, but most of us want—the Minister knows that all of those things are important.

And here’s the issue: I worry that if we pass this, we are going to end up with a statute that makes it nigh on impossible to actually accomplish those things, because we will be writing into statute a provision that makes it very hard to actually fulfil clause 3(2)(b), which is the use and development of the environment, because we’re saying that using the environment and making use of the abundant natural resources we have in New Zealand, or the abundant land—we’re the size of the United Kingdom, but we’ve managed to design a planning system that has resulted in some of the most unaffordable houses in the developed world. We’ll be writing into law a provision that acknowledges those problems, but actually makes it impossible to use our abundant resources to develop our economy and our wellbeing, which is the buzzword du jour, because we’ve decided that the protection of the natural environment is, essentially, the—it’s not quite the be-all and end-all, but it’s not far off the be-all and end-all, because everything else is subject to the health of the natural environment and the protection of the health of the natural environment, and the purpose of the Act is to uphold te Oranga o te Taiao, which—as I’ve said before—if you read through, it contains very little reference to many of the other goals the Minister has rightly talked about.

All four of the five subclauses in that clause are about the health of the natural environment. Clause 3 is fundamental and I think it is going to sink the whole bill, personally, because it is absolutely critical, and members will know that it’s the purpose clause. This will suffuse itself through and diffuse itself through everything that happens through the new regime, if, indeed, it passes into law. The courts will refer back to it, decision makers will refer back to it, and people will be obliged to refer to it. It’s the purpose clause of the whole bill and we’ve got to get it right, and I am utterly unconvinced we have the balance right. I think it will be a disaster in practice.

So that’s many a contribution there. No doubt, the Minister has many things to say in response.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Thank you, Madam Chair. I will endeavour to respond to each of the points that the member has made, and if I fail to address some of the points that are important to him, feel free to put them back to me again because I believe there are answers to all of the questions that have been posed. For a start, I would make reference to the definition of “natural environment” and “environment”. Now, “environment” is defined in the interpretation section of the Act to mean the natural environment, which we all understand; people and communities and the built environment, that includes buildings and roads and farms, etc.; and social, economic, and cultural conditions that affect those matters. So the “environment” is, as you would expect, a very broad definition. The “natural environment” is narrower than that. But when the member referred to “the interconnectedness of all parts of the environment”, that is expressly making reference to the fact that the built environment—the farms, the industry, the roads, the trains: they’re all an important part of the equation.

Now, the second point I would make is in respect of the purpose clause. It says that subject to protecting the natural environment—and that’s not an absolute: you can’t always protect a natural environment; I agree with the member’s point there. You can’t absolutely go back to some sort of idyllic conception of New Zealand’s natural environment pre-occupation or pre-possums who’ve desecrated our forests, or pre-human activity. So it’s not saying that we’re going to return New Zealand to an idyllic state like that. It’s saying that subject to protecting the health of the natural environment—which isn’t an absolute—we enable the use and development of the environment that promotes the wellbeing of present and future generations. And that includes housing, that includes roads, that includes rail, that includes industry—that’s all in there.

How do we do that? The purpose clause is necessarily a statement of generalities; it always is. So how do you put that into practice? Well, the member will be aware that the next clause after the purpose clause sets out the means for achieving the purposes of the Act, and it says, “This section sets out the following key [matters] to achieve the purpose of the Act”. And the first is the system outcomes which must be provided for the national planning framework, and, at a regional level, plans. Now, I’m not going to go through all of the other subsections of that because the first two are probably sufficient for the current discussion. Those system outcomes are then set out at clause 5 of the bill and they include, amongst other things, environmental things to be provided for, public access, recreational use, well-functioning urban and rural areas that are responsive to the diverse and changing needs of people and communities in a way that promotes the use and development of land for a variety of activities, including for housing, business use, and primary production. So the outcomes, which sit under clause 5 of the bill, expressly provide for those development outcomes.

So how does the system do that? Well, it does it both through that hierarchy that’s set out—both the principles that are set out in the Act. But, actually, the detail of it sits in national direction through the national planning framework and then in plans. But then, of course, the member, Mr Bishop—I was going to call him Mr Bridges there for a second, sorry—says, “Well, you can’t achieve everything all of the time”. Well, that’s quite true; in not every area can you protect the habitat of kiwi and build a house. It’s obvious. And the Act says, at section 5A, that “not all [of the] outcomes are required to be achieved in all places or at all times”—that’s in 5A(2)(b). So I agree with that, as well, but the legislation already provides for that.

In terms of the reference to King Salmon, the hierarchy of instruments that was found to be effective if well stated, according to King Salmon, is preserved in the statute. Until the King Salmon decision you could theoretically have quite directive statements in both the Resource Management Act and then in national direction, and then you could have some quite grunty words and plans, but then someone applied for a resource consent and the lower courts had always said, “Well, notwithstanding all of that, you balance everything”. Well, what King Salmon said is so long as the hierarchy is clearly stated, including a pro-development hierarchy where you’re developing things, then that hierarchy prevails and you can’t just throw everything up in the air again on an individual consent decision and make a balanced decision. You’ve got to do what the law says, which is set out in the Act and then in national direction. Now, the national planning framework comes into play here and I’m sure that will come up later so I won’t go into that in detail now. But it, for the first time, includes some pro-development chapters that will facilitate development of infrastructure, which of course is also central to housing.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. One of the many challenges with this bill is its length and complexity, and the fact that the Minister has presented a number of changes in his Supplementary Order Paper (SOP)—I think the latest SOP was 3.56 p.m., about 15 minutes before we started debating the committee stages. So I’m not sure that I’ve come to grips with all of the changes, but the use of the revision track changes version is helpful.

Could I go to new clause 3A which is the means for achieving the purpose of the Act, which the Minister was just referring to, and note there that the Minister’s SOP is very helpfully using words like outstanding, which is referring to intrinsic values, which was missed out in the version that the select committee reported back. But in terms of natural features and landscapes, there has been a change in new clause 3A(i) that refers to the fact that natural features, including geoheritage features—and that was an important change that the select committee made to the bill to recognise geological features—and landscapes that are important at the local and regional scale, may be provided for. This is still quite a significant change from the Resource Management Act, where the protection of outstanding natural landscapes and features is a matter of national importance.

Could the Minister explain what he sees as the purpose of that change through his SOP, and whether he sees natural built environment plans, the regional plans, and the regional planning committees as having quite a responsibility to ensure that those regionally important landscapes and natural features are actually identified, and provision is made for their protection? Recognising that the way places of national importance are defined in the bill doesn’t require these places at the regional and local level to—doesn’t really include them within the definition. So if he could just talk to what he sees that the changes that he’s proposing to 3A(i) will achieve.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Thank you, Madam Chair. I take it that the member is referring to new clause 3A(h) and (i)?

Hon Eugenie Sage: Yes.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Thank you. The current system enables the protection of a wide range—this is the Resource Management Act system—of biological and historical features, and features of cultural significance. The new system aims to—I’ll go back a step. The new system aims to categorise those according to two levels measures: matters that are nationally important and matters that are regionally or locally important.

In respect of those things that are nationally important, this is essentially built on the Australian system where they seem to have achieved a better balance of protecting the truly important, but not pretending that the important but not as high level of importance should have the same level of protection. Now, why is this important? When Parliament is considering the protection of important matters such as these, Parliament has a choice as to whether we have a high level of protection which is seldom breached, or a lower level of protection which can often be breached. If Parliament sets up too high a level of protection for everything, you effectively frustrate the system, and you can build things that you need, when you need to, too often. So what this section does is try—it doesn’t try; it actually achieves the requirement for the nationally important to be identified and then have very, very limited exceptions to it.

Essentially, if it’s a matter that’s nationally important in respect of a highly vulnerable biodiversity area, then that area must be recognised, protected, and sustained for their intrinsic value for the benefit of present and future generations. Then there are some very specific provisions later in the Act that say that even then you have to have the occasional exception, because there are occasions when you can contemplate—but even then there’s some important piece of infrastructure that can go nowhere else, but the country none the less needs to have.

In respect of those highest level of protections, it’s a very high bar to cross to being able to get an exception, and there are only limited exceptions for the likes of those classes of infrastructure. Even then, if you got an approval because there was no other practical place that you could put it, there would be offsetting requirements in order to offset the adverse effects that were created by that infrastructure that can’t be put anywhere else.

So other than those exceptions, the high level nationally important and highly vulnerable biodiversity areas must be recognised, protected, and sustained for their intrinsic value and for the benefit of present and future generations—the Australian system, and it works in Australia, I’m advised.

In respect of the lower level—and I don’t want to diminish them to say they’re irrelevant; they’re not, but it is wrong to say that everything is just as important. Those matters, the protection of natural features, including geoheritage and landscapes, they’re important at the local and regional scale. They can be provided for, but they’ll generally be provided for in local plans. That’s essentially the rationale that lies behind those clauses.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m delighted that the Minister has confidence that because something happens in Australia, it might happen here. Well, I’m not so sure and I remain to be convinced.

But I think partly the issue that we have on this side of the House is that what we’ve heard just from the chair of the Environment Committee about the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) being delivered to the Table literally 15 minutes before this debate commenced—

Hon David Parker: That’s not this one.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: It’s not this one?

Hon David Parker: No.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: Well, I’m interested to know, then, what was the SOP that the chair of the select committee was referring to.

But, indicatively, that’s part of the problem, and has been from the get-go, with this piece of legislation. It is that it is being amended on the fly and has been for the last six or seven month that it’s been considered either through the initial Randerson report, through the initial draft piece of legislation that we saw and considered at the select committee, and then to the actual legislation, and then to the submissions, and then officials changing their mind and rewriting and re-wording all the way through. It has been very much a moving feast and continues to be. I think that’s really the essence of some of the problems that we have with Part 1 of the bill.

I want to go back to some of the issues that my colleague Chris Bishop raised in his earlier questioning of the Minister, and it relates to the inclusion of this whole new unjudicially tested concept of te Oranga o te Taiao. Now, we’ve heard the Minister talk about the rationale for inclusion of that, and it goes back to Randerson, and we understand and get that, but we haven’t actually heard why—why it was that this terminology was used. At the select committee, we heard from many submitters who thought that the wording should be different. There were some who were interested initially in the original wording, which was that “te Mana” be used rather than “te Oranga”. So there was a change there along the way somewhere, and I’m keen to know in some detail about what that change was.

Then we also heard from a number of iwi and hapū submitters that they felt that they should be able to define the phrase, rather than letting the Parliament define the phrase. My concern is that it won’t be the Parliament or indeed hapū or iwi who end up doing the definition; it will be an activist judge somewhere or a whole bench of activist judges somewhere that will make a final determination as to what the interpretation of that phrase means and what its implications are, because they flow through the rest of the entire statute.

And then the Minister rightly points out that clause 3(3) then goes on to define what the meaning is. Well, I’d say that’s not so much a definition; it’s more of a description rather than a definition. The potential for judicial interpretation is going to be obvious and it’s going to be long and it’s going to be expensive. And I just pity the poor schmuck that is going to be the first test case for the interpretation of some of these new phrases, the new terms. We all accept that much of the existing Resource Management Act is not serving us well. But to consider that a whole new phraseology and new terminology is going to somehow clarify that, I think is folly and I think it’s going to create even more problems than we have heard to date.

I don’t doubt the sincerity of the Minister. He’s very good and I respect his knowledge and his expertise, both from a ministerial point of view but also as a former practitioner in this area of the law; he knows what he’s talking about. But most people don’t. Lay people don’t, and many of the legal practitioners don’t. The challenge, I think, for us when we are preparing legislation of this sort is that the terminology, the phraseology should be, wherever possible, consistent with that which has already been interpreted by the courts. And it would have been useful if we could have had wording that was consistent, tested and understood by lay people, by practitioners and by developers, and also by environmental groups, NGOs and the like, who obviously take an interest in all these matters.

So we are concerned, on this side of the House, about the use of new terminology, what it means, how it’s going to be interpreted. And the Minister said that, really, a purpose clause is nothing more than a statement of generalities. Well, actually, that’s true to a point. But the trouble is that those generalities then have to be interpreted and made to work in practical terms. What we will be testing as we go through this clause by clause, part by part, over the next day or two, is: what does this mean in practical terms? What is it going to mean for someone who wants to build a development, a housing development? What does it mean for a local council that wants to do some development? What does it mean for someone who just wants to build a house? Does it make it easier to get things done? And we on this side of the Chamber have some real concerns about that.

So my questions to the Minister relate again to some further probing of the use of the new terminology. Yes, I understand that this is terminology that was first conceptualised in the Randerson report. But what we don’t have is an analysis of why Randerson necessarily should be carved down as some kind of a tablet from upon high as being the be-all and end-all. We have never accepted that on this side of the House and we still don’t today. So I’m keen to delve into what that was all about. Thank you, Minister.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Thank you, Madam Chair. In respect of the Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs), can I begin by thanking the Environment Committee, because, actually, relative to the length and importance and detail of a cornerstone piece of development and environmental legislation, the changes that have been made by Supplementary Order Paper today are very small, because the hard work that was done by the select committee put in the vast majority of the amendments that were necessary.

Now, the amendments that are set out in a change-tracked version of the bill, which is Supplementary Order Paper 389, members will see, as they leaf through that, that the vast majority of this text is unaffected by the Supplementary Order Paper. And members will see, when they read through those change-tracked versions there, that nine out of 10 of them, or 90 out of 100—or 99 out of 100; I’m not sure—really are technical changes. There’s not much of substance in the SOPs.

In addition to that, there are three tabled amendments that are in my name that are a page long each. The latest of those was tabled at 3.56 p.m., which was the one that was referred to by the Hon Eugenie Sage. You’ll see that they’re very, very brief tabled amendments.

In respect of the fact that there will be some new law as a consequence of the change to this regime, you can’t change the regime without changing it. This moves to an outcomes-based regime from an effects-based regime. Those outcomes, as I have previously described, they can’t all be achieved at all places, but generally we’re trying to put heightened emphasis on protecting the biophysical or natural environment. We are lessening the impact of matters of personal taste, because we think that’s been a crutch upon which nimbyism has rested. And subject to that, we are pushing forward development to make it easier to develop.

Now, even if we hadn’t changed the purpose clause and we had just said that the old Resource Management Act purpose clause had to be achieved according to the new outcomes regime of the new legislation, that would have thrown up for reinterpretation the existing purpose clause, because the effect of the purpose clause would have been different than it is in the new statute because of this movement away from an effects-based regime to an outcomes-based regime. So the idea, with respect to members who think that you can actually substantially change your resource management system without having reinterpretation of the same phrase or a substitute phrase for it, is, with respect, incorrect.

I’ve gone through for prior members at some detail how te Oranga o te Taiao works. The change from “te Mana o te Taiao” to “te Oranga o te Taiao” as being the term which is defined occurred at the first select committee inquiry on those main provisions of the bill, and it’s been further refined at select committee to, we think, make it clearer so that, in part, the development side of the purpose clause is not complicated by environmental outcomes.

Obviously, if you’re developing, you still want to minimise the environmental effects, but the part of the purpose statement that relates to development, which is the second part of the purpose, enabling “the use and development of the environment in a way that promotes the well-being of present and future generations.”—and, as I said before, “environment” includes buildings and roads as well as animals, be they indigenous animals or introduced animals like sheep and cows. We think it’s clearer now than it was under the existing statute that we are trying to promote development outcomes so that we don’t have a recurrence of these ridiculously high land prices, and so that it doesn’t cost the earth to consent infrastructure.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you, Madam Chair. It is a pleasure to speak on the Natural and Built Environment Bill. While I did spend some time on the Environment Committee on this, but not as much as others—to my good fortune, I think!

My question to the Minister for the Environment is around clause 4, around the Treaty of Waitangi, where it says, “All persons exercising powers and performing functions and duties under this Act must give effect to the principles of [the Treaty of Waitangi].”—or “Te Tiriti” or whichever way you want to call it, and there are differences; there is one here. I’d like to know why they chose that version and not the “the Treaty of Waitangi”—the one that took primacy in 1840.

Further to that, where are the principles? There’s no reference in that clause to the principles. What are they? Where are they listed? How will they work? We can’t judge that unless we know what they are. I would suggest that that’s going to make it pretty difficult.

I do note, at the beginning of the original bill, it gives a definition, although it’s not in the bill itself, of “tikanga”. We heard in the Environment Committee last week, expert witness evidence on the seabed mining inquiry about such matters and the difficulties that they create, because, ultimately, good law is something that has to be able to be known—it doesn’t have to be known, but has to be able to be known—and yet tikanga is not known; it’s, essentially, secret knowledge. In a normal case of events—and this is where it relates to this bill, Madam Chair—when this bill becomes an Act and tikanga comes up in a hearing or in a consent process, it doesn’t have the same process as it would if it was expert evidence, say, about environmental effects. So if we had a marine biologist, for example, giving evidence about the effects of potential seabed mining, for example, or it could be a wind farm and the effect on birds, where we have witness expert evidence that would come up from the applicant, and then those objecting to it, on the other side of the argument, could get their own expert witness and then we would have something to weigh up and a decision to be made. But with tikanga, that can’t happen. Well, that’s my understanding, but perhaps the Minister is going to enlighten us all, because it certainly had that legal expert very confused as to how that might work and the practicalities of it and also the fact that money changes hands to get a lot of these reports through. So I asked that witness—

Hon Member: A lot of money.

STUART SMITH: —yes—how he would deal with that, how that would be dealt with in the law. His response—it was interesting, I think, and I—

Hon Scott Simpson: Tell us.

STUART SMITH: Well, I will. I’m hoping that the Minister’s listening, because I’d like him to come back with an answer to this—whether this is right or not. He said, “Well, you simply make it of no value. If you can’t test it, then it’s bad law, and so therefore you have to make it of no value.” So it could be admitted and used but it has no real value, because it can’t be tested. So I really would like the Minister’s view on that. So how’s that going to work on a day-to-day basis when I make an application for a wind farm on a nice ridge line overlooking Auckland? Have they got some ridge lines in Auckland somewhere?

Hon Member: Bound to.

STUART SMITH: Go and put some wind turbines up there, and the local residents complain or object, and I have some expert—

Simon Court: Give them a gas turbine, Stuart.

STUART SMITH: Well, a gas turbine—well, I might be doing that as well; the same thing. It would be more efficient, I suspect, in the long run. But how is that going to be weighed up with the principles of the Treaty and how’s it going to be weighed up with tikanga? If I get someone to give evidence, who invokes tikanga and says it’s worthwhile on the basis of that secret knowledge, can that be tested, and how can that be tested if it’s secret knowledge? So I’d really appreciate the Minister’s answers to those questions.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Dealing with the first point the member raised, which was that clause 4 of the bill says that “All persons exercising powers and performing functions and duties under this Act must give effect to the principles of te Tiriti o Waitangi.”, the term “te Tiriti o Waitangi” is defined in the “Definitions” section, in clause 7(1), and it is defined to mean “the Treaty as defined in section 2 of the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975”. I know—because I had advice on this on the way through—that definition refers to both versions of the Treaty. So it doesn’t give preference to te reo version or the English version. It does as the Treaty of Waitangi Act does and makes reference to both.

In respect of the “give effect to the principles of” the Treaty clause, that’s broadly the same as the “give effect to the principles of” the Treaty clause in the Conservation Act. So that’s not new. The wording is slightly different, but it’s of similar effect. And it was recommended by the Randerson panel and it’s previously been recommended by the Waitangi Tribunal.

The Waitangi Tribunal went quite a bit further. It’s clear from some of their writing that they would have preferred a co-governance model for resource management, that we haven’t pursued through this legislation, because the Government didn’t agree that that was appropriate.

In respect of the issue as to tikanga Māori, this is not a new concept; it is in the Resource Management Act (RMA). Is the definition the same? The definition is broadly similar. If the member’s got specific questions about that, I can dig out the RMA to answer some further questions about that, but I haven’t got the RMA definition right in front of me. But tikanga Māori is in the existing Resource Management Act.

In respect of the issues as to secret evidence that I think the member referred to, if whatever happened would be in relation to something like—if there is a place known to local Māori on their piece of land that there is a burial site, they don’t necessarily want archaeologists, if this is on public land or something, going and digging it up. So they might come and they might say to the authorities, “Look, please listen to us as to where that burial site is. We know it’s down there, but we don’t want you to broadcast that.” That would be up to the court to determine or the council to determine whether they thought that was fair. If they didn’t think that was fair, they would obviously make that sort of thing public.

But “tikanga Māori means Māori customary law, customary values, and customary practices”. Irrespective of whether we had that definition in the law, the Supreme Court has recently found that tikanga is a branch of the customary law that does have a current place in New Zealand law. It obviously has a current place under the Resource Management Act because it’s provided for. Really, the only way that this Parliament could have a different outcome in respect of tikanga, these days, would actually be to expressly exclude it by legislation to say that tikanga Māori cannot be taken into account in respect of these resource management decisions. That’s not a position that this Government or, obviously, the prior Government that was in power for nine years—the National-ACT Government never did that in respect of the RMA.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. Minister, thank you for being so fulsome in your explanations and for giving your time so generously to explain this bill to the committee, and to New Zealanders who might be listening: the Natural and Built Environment Bill, which we know you have heavily invested your time in, and also directed officials and others to heavily invest their time in, and, of course, the taxpayer’s dollar to fund this development of this legislation.

Minister, before I come to some questions, I just want to make it clear what ACT believes the issue is to solve, with resource management law. We have environmental protection on one hand; we have urban development and infrastructure needed to deliver social and economic benefits to communities on the other. How do we balance our desire, our passion, as New Zealanders, to protect those special places, those special parts of the environment, those iconic places which feature in our tourist promotions—the places where we go tramping and camping, those places where we go fishing and diving, and those unique wetlands, for example, where endangered birds like the kōtuku, the white heron, live? How do we balance up the need to protect these very, very unique and special places, with our need to occupy, develop, and use resources for our economic and social wellbeing?

Well, Minister, unfortunately, ACT opposes this bill because we do not believe that it efficiently resolves the obvious clash between those two outcomes. And that’s because it retains an integrated approach to land use, planning, and environmental management—that was the original flaw of the Resource Management Act (RMA), rather than separating them into two separate regulatory systems: one to protect the special places, which we could do if we had a piece of legislation, such as an environmental protection Act that said where the special places are, how we know that they’re special, and what the criteria are—is it water quality, is it ecology, or is it a threatened species, is it a national park somewhere with our tallest mountain on it? Let everybody chip in and identify—through consultation, through legislative process, and through select committee submission—what the special places are that they want to protect and why.

You might have to also identify where these might be on private land because, of course, if the Government intends to restrict the use of private land and say it’s special to other people, they should have very, very, very good reasons as to why to do it, and be prepared to pay for the privilege, because that’s not Government land, that’s not public land, that’s private land. But, of course, if the Government wants to protect public land and say that these are special places, then it should have the right to do that by the means of an environmental protection piece of legislation.

Alternatively, when it comes to urban development and infrastructure development, having carried out spatial planning activities—which are pretty common across New Zealand, although not to the same level of detail; I mean, why would you do it to the same level of detail in Kaitāia as you would for an urban metro like Auckland or Hamilton or Christchurch? It’s absolutely vital that where that planning shows people will live and where business land is zoned for business activities—manufacturing, production, and so on—we need a piece of legislation that identifies how infrastructure corridors are protected, and then how that infrastructure should be delivered, funded, and financed, and which entities might have responsibilities in that sector, and, of course, when it comes to urban development, where people want to build in existing urban areas or in new urban areas, that there is legislation that provides for affordable housing development and also linked to the provision of services. Two pieces of legislation, Minister, that, if separated, would be a much more efficient way, in ACT’s opinion, of giving effect to the laudable objectives expressed in this bill—essentially to protect the environment, the special places, while making it easier to build and get on with delivering infrastructure that has social and economic wellbeing outcomes.

But, Minister, I just have a few questions for you now, because if we are intending to solve that problem this evening or tomorrow morning, if we continue—[Bell rung] Madam Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): I call on Simon Court. And can I actually ask the member to get to his questions. It’s a wide-ranging debate, but you’ve had five minutes of really wide-ranging speech. Please ask the Minister your questions.

SIMON COURT: Thank you, Madam Chair. So the issues to solve appear to be complicated by the purpose clause—in particular, the purpose of the Act is achieved in a way that enables use and development and promotes the wellbeing of not just present but future generations.

So, question one, Minister: how are we to value resources for future generations when we might want to use them now to build stuff? We might say there’s a piece of land that somebody owns, whether publicly or privately, which might have quarry resources on it, valuable minerals, or rare-earth minerals that might be used for electronics or batteries or to help achieve a low-carbon future for some technology; how do we balance the needs of present generations against future generations, when it’s the people who are here now, our children who are with us now, whose economic and social wellbeing we must surely give primacy to, Minister?

Second question: te Oranga o te Taiao—and I have been listening to the debate and I know you have answered some questions, Minister. Will you please describe what “interconnectedness with all parts of the environment” means? Because, if you think about electrons, if you think about physics, if you think about atoms or neutrons, they’re all buzzing around, they’re all connected. How does that help a decision maker—either looking at a resource consent application or a judge looking at an appeal—decide whether an applicant is upholding te Oranga o te Taiao? Should they have knowledge of physics and, potentially, advanced physics, or is this something that is intrinsic knowledge? And if it’s intrinsic knowledge, Minister, that a judge or a decision maker will need, how do they get this knowledge? Is it absorbed, somehow, through life experience? Is it learnt at university? Are they born with it? Is it an ethnic thing? Minister, explain how on earth somebody is supposed to understand that as a decision maker? Because Ernest Rutherford said, Minister, “If you can’t explain physics to a barman, it’s not good physics.” But if you could explain the interconnectedness of all parts of the environment to the House this evening, maybe it is good policy after all.

Minister, I would like to get to the changes that this bill makes with regard to the Treaty of Waitangi obligations on all persons exercising functions and duties under the Act, which now requires, quite differently from the Resource Management Act, decision makers to give effect to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, whereas the RMA sought to have decision makers—those exercising powers—to have regard to the principles. That’s quite different, because, Minister, in a reply that you’ve kindly given to me in another portfolio area today, your transport portfolio, you outline what those principles are—they’re expressed by the courts and the Waitangi Tribunal.

The principle of partnership: well, I mean, anyone who’s been in business would appreciate how important it is to respect your partners in any business activity or undertaking in the community.

The principle of mutual benefit: well, every deal has some kind of trade-off in it, Minister. There is not always a mutual benefit. There’s not always an equivalent benefit. There’s not always a balancing of benefits. Somebody is doing something next door to your land. The person who’s receiving the effects of an activity, whether it’s a house being built or a quarry being developed or a cell tower going up—there’s no mutual benefits for somebody who doesn’t like the shading, doesn’t like the noise, doesn’t like the dust, and doesn’t like looking at a cellphone tower. Then, of course, is the principle of active protection.

So, Minister, would you please explain to us how on earth the interconnectedness of all parts of the environment is to be understood by decision makers? And how are decision makers—those exercising powers and duties—meant to give effect to the Treaty of Waitangi principles: partnership, mutual benefit, and the principle of active protection? Minister, if you could give us some examples, that would be a great start to the evening. Thank you.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): The first point I will respond to is the question as to whether you go for an integrated management approach—which this Act continues—or whether you have separate environmental protection legislation and separate development legislation. We did consider that, as did the Randerson panel.

The first point I would make was that when the Resource Management Act was passed, it replaced the separate statute approach where you had the Town and Country Planning Act and you had the Water and Soil Conservation Act, and 27 other Acts. The Resource Management Act (RMA) repealed 28 Acts. Well, if the ACT Party want to go back to that separation of development from—

Damien Smith: Two!

Hon DAVID PARKER: Oh, two! It’s going to be very simple under the ACT Party prescription. Very simple.

The second point I would make is if the Parliament wanted to have separate environmental protection and development statutes, it doesn’t resolve the underlying tension sometimes. What happens when a road is needed to go through a wetland—and it sometimes happens? Auckland has to expand their roads—there’s nowhere to expand them—into wetlands. So how does the separation of the development statute from the environmental protection avoid that contest? It can’t—it can’t.

That’s actually got to be resolved by principles as to how you resolve the tensions between those things. That’s what this Act does. It says, you know, “There are some things that are very special that you shouldn’t normally intrude into.” A wetland could be an example of that if it was a really important wetland, but it then says, “Occasionally you have to have an exception.” and it sets out principles as to when you can have an exception and therefore gives guidance to decision makers as to whether they should make an exception.

That assessment cannot be avoided whether you have both of those things together in the same statute or whether you have them in two separate statutes. You can’t plan for everything, and if the member wants shorter plans and shorter statutes, well, you can’t resolve those tensions. Those tensions exist, and you have to set out principles to resolve those tensions.

Now, the overall length of the statute is virtually identical to the RMA and the fast track, because fast track comes back into this and these two things—the fast track and the RMA legislation—are virtually the same. In fact, I asked officials to total that up for me. The RMA plus fast track is 992 pages. The Natural and Built Environment Act (NBEA) is 977.

Hon Scott Simpson: Oh, that’s a huge saving.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Oh, I know. Well, I mean, it’s a puerile argument if we’re actually down to the number of pages. But if you are worried about the number of pages, have a look at the UK statute, that’s much longer; have a look at the Australian statute, that’s much longer. If that’s your test, this is better. I don’t think that is the right test. But if that is your test—which I think is very superficial—this is better.

In respect of the issue of current and future generations, we are trying to sustain the environment so that our children and grandchildren don’t inherit a despoiled planet. That is no different to what is in the RMA; that principle is already in there. The member—who’s a member of the ACT Party—was, for nine years, a member of the ACT-National Government. They didn’t repeal that part of the RMA that said we should be trying to protect environmental values for future generations rather than use them all up for this generation.

Now, that’s not to say that there are not some finite resources that ought to be used by the current generation. Of course there are. Quarries are a good example. We need quarries. Under the new legislation, those quarries will be better protected than they are under the old legislation, including from reverse sensitivity effects. Also, a regional spatial strategy under the Spatial Planning Act flowing through to an NBEA plan could say, “We need a quarry in this area. It’s ridiculous that we’re carting quarry for 300 kilometres when we could get it around the corner.” So those sorts of things are actually facilitated by this new legislation.

In respect of the member’s question about the interconnectedness of the environment, the environment, and I’ve previously covered this for earlier members’ questions, is defined in the legislation to include the natural environment, people, communities; and the built environment, including roads and farms and quarries and, you know, all of the things that we have in our lives as well as—it’s so broad that the environment includes all of those aspects, as it must do; as it must do. The natural environment is a subset of that.

But in terms of the interconnectedness of the environment, of course we are. We’re connected with the environment and the way in which we live our lives. I use roads every day. I live in a house. I drive in a car that has steel in it. The idea that you can have an environmental statue or that we would ever contemplate an environmental statute that didn’t cater for the needs of people—well, how ridiculous would that be? This statute doesn’t make that mistake.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you, Madam Chair.

Matt Doocey: Tell us about your car, Stewie!

STUART SMITH: Well, my car is made of steel as well.

Hon Member: Oh, is it?

STUART SMITH: Well, it’s got rubber as well. A bit of plastic—glass, of course.

It is actually fantastic to see that the Minister has been woken up by the member from ACT, Simon Court, and got him quite active, actually, which is quite good.

Now, to the point about the number of pages, all I would like—I would like one more page at least, which had the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi in it, which they do not have. There’s no principles. The Minister gave an explanation before which actually made things worse, because he said, “Well, it all went along with what the Waitangi Tribunal—they agree with it.” Well, that’s hardly a ringing endorsement. And then the Randerson review—well, that was his own commissioned review. He’s getting his own team to judge him, really, and I think that’s not good enough.

He still hasn’t answered for us: what are the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi? He listed everything else; they’re all everywhere—no principles for the Treaty. How can we have bill that does not—that refers to some principles that are not included in the bill. So I’d like to see that. He talked about the Supreme Court and tikanga. Well, that was a 3:2 decision, so it was hardly a ringing endorsement either. I think we want more details on that, the Minister, and I think you have not answered the questions that I gave you earlier.

He’s also said that it was all in the Resource Management Act (RMA) anyway. Well, that’s why we’ve got the problems with it: nobody likes the RMA—except for the legal profession, perhaps, and even they don’t like it because they have clients that want to get stuff done.

Look, we don’t want certainty of outcome from these pieces of legislation; we want certainty of process. And, actually, what the problem is with the RMA is there is no certainty of the process. It’s a long-winded, overly bureaucratic exercise that could be carried out with much less bureaucracy than we have today. That’s one of the greatest sources of issues that come in around councils that I get in through my office every week. It’s about the RMA, it’s about the extra costs and the inefficiencies in it, and the waste, quite frankly. It is a waste, and, yet, we’ve got no improvement; in fact, this is going to make it so much worse than we have at the moment.

So I’m looking forward to—the Minister’s taking advice there, so I’m looking forward to having that list, and my pen is waiting, ready to note down those principles. Thank you, Minister.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): There are two forms of Treaty clause—or two main groups of Treaty clauses across the statute book.

One lists the way in which the Treaty is to be given effect to—saying, essentially, “the way in which this legislation gives effect to the Treaty is by doing that, that, that, and that”, and it’s effectively code and a list. The other is to refer to general obligations to take into account or to give effect to the principles of the Treaty. When that latter form is used, and it is the most common form of the statute book, the practice is not to define it; it is to rely on the principles that have been developed by the court. Were we to move to another articulation of that—really, this just changes from “to take into account” to “to give effect to”. That’s the change of this, compared with the Resource Management Act. It doesn’t change the underlying principles, and it would be very, very—in my opinion—difficult to do so.

In respect of the member’s question about tikanga Māori, I believe I’ve already addressed that in the earlier answer. You know, it’s defined to mean “Māori customary law, customary values, and customary practices”, and I covered the Supreme Court jurisprudence.

I take the member’s point to it being a split division in the Supreme Court, but I don’t have a particular difficulty with the idea that customary law can include Māori customary law. In our common law jurisprudence in New Zealand, customary law from the English tradition was always possible to be part of the law, and customary law, whether it is Māori customary law or English customary law that we inherited, can always be modified by statute, and, in many ways, is by this litigation. But I can accept the principle that there is the possibility of residual law that is not overridden by the Resource Management Act or, in the future, by the Natural and Built Environment Bill that still has a place.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, an introductory comment and then a series of questions, obviously in Part 1. Look, the good people of Tāmaki already find the Resource Management Act (RMA) a huge mess, and I don’t think anyone in the committee here would disagree that the current RMA is a massive, massive mess. It could be best described as slowing everything down and I think of everyone from neighbours, friends, locals, constituents, developers across Tāmaki—they find the RMA majorly problematic.

The issue I have is that these 900-plus pages are going to make things much worse. In fact, from where the current RMA stifles things, this one is going to stop progress in its entirety. And one of the things that concerns me is how few New Zealanders know what the Government is doing in this space. As I say, this new Natural and Built Environment Bill, along with its secondary cousin, is going to basically stop development in New Zealand, and the primary reason for that is it is introducing enormous uncertainty into the system and, in particular, into the legal system. I understand, and the Minister can correct me on this, but even the Chief Justice has come out and indicated in a submission, I think, to the Environment Committee that this is going to grind the courts down because there are so many concepts in here that no one knows what they mean.

Let’s be really clear; I want to be very clear: new concepts, ideas, and principles are welcome, but when it comes to law, they need to be clearly spelt out. And yep, we can, if you want to take on, you know, the fancifulness of the American model and others to allow the courts to decide—well, that takes time and money. The Minister should know already, particularly in Auckland and certainly in my electorate, that it already takes too long to build things, let alone what this is going to do. So I can’t say it’s a pleasure to rise to speak on this, because trying to lift 900-plus pages is quite a work-out.

The purpose of the Act: the first purpose, Minister, is to uphold te Oranga o te Taiao. My translation of “Taiao” can be land or it can also be “world”. Why I’m asking that is: does this bill need to take in the concepts of the world? Does the world or do the people in the world get to have a say? So, obviously, we are all interconnected, but words are important. And he’s been stressing the importance of law and the word. So the purpose of this Act is to “uphold the health of the world”, is one interpretation. In other words, are events overseas going to affect what decisions are being made here in New Zealand? Then, ultimately, who gets to decide what is healthy or not? What are the qualifications?

This is the second set of questions for judges, because as I go through clause 3, particularly subclause 3, on what te Oranga o te Taiao means—the healthy environment, the relationships in the environment, and so forth, the interconnectedness—I’m wondering whether we need theologians and philosophers to be our judges. I say it somewhat tongue in cheek, because I’m both of them. But as I read these words, I’m thinking of concepts like Gaiaism, animism, pantheism, panentheism—for those who are interested in these things—vitalism. So many of the concepts that are already being articulated here are quite actually philosophical, and, to some of us, are quite theological. So at one level it’s a facetious question, Minister, but there’s a serious edge to it: are judges going to be required to be theologians to try and work through what are, effectively, spiritual concepts?

Then the next section is in clause 6 around decision-making processes. I know others have already raised the place of tikanga. Now, I want to be really clear and on the record: there is a place for tikanga. There are different customary approaches, but my question is: how is this going to operate in the process of law? The Minister rightly pointed out English common law and so forth, but it’s written down. It’s in black and white. It’s clearly defined. My experience dealing with tikanga is that it can be amazing, but tikanga is remarkably flexible when it’s wanted to be, and then it’s enormously rigid when it also suits. How are we going to navigate this as a country and where is it written?

I think even in my own electorate there are multiple iwi, let alone hapū, and yet your bill here says that we have to look not only to be responsible to each iwi, but to every hapū. Again, that’s not a problem—to want to engage them—it’s just how do we do this, Minister, in a way that’s going to be timely and helpful? Locals already know the difficulties there are to deal with iwi—and I want to stress again from a matter of process, not in terms of the respect and engagement, but it’s incredibly time-consuming. And the ultimate question is: where is this tikanga written down? Because I fear the Minister and perhaps even the Supreme Court are conflating the notions of law—that written law that we’re used to is the same as tikanga, and the two are not the same.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): For a start, I do feel the Opposition are flailing a little bit here around this idea that we are imposing complexity on the system. This system is being reformed because of the complexity of the current system. Under the current system, do members know how long it normally takes to make a plan change? Ten years—10 years. I was speaking to someone from the hort sector the other day and I asked her what she was doing and she says, “What I’m always doing, I’m in a constant unending melee of plan changes.” It never finishes. Even within one region, it never ends. It goes on and on and on for 10 years, by which time they’re starting again. It’s ridiculous.

What happens under the new system? Well, the number of plans goes down from over 100 Resource Management Act (RMA) plans to 16—16. You can’t tell me that once we go through this transition that 16 plans are going to be harder to put together than 100. I’m also confident that if we do the first ones well, we’ll avoid the mistakes of the RMA, which has plans with unnecessary difference. There are some necessary differences, but at the moment there’s a lot of unnecessary difference—they’re all laid out differently, they have unnecessary differences within the same region. The recession plane might be 33 degrees or 35 degrees or 30—I’m sure the regions will be able to agree on 32.5 degrees or whatever the recession plane is at a boundary. So there’ll be a number of plans—

Hon Member: How can they agree?

Hon DAVID PARKER: They don’t have to—they don’t have to. But I reckon common sense will prevail because, you know what? I trust local politicians to want good outcomes for their people. They are so frustrated with the system. Who would want to be a mayor or a councillor in a council where you can’t effect change through your planning instrument except over 10 years? Goodness me. Our processes around here are complex enough and long enough, but 10 years to change a—what does that go to under the new system? Four years. Four years from whoa to go, and you will have a regional plan. Four years. And that’s partly because we’re adopting the process that, in fairness, came from the National-ACT Party—Rodney Hide, for putting together the Auckland Plan. Because the Auckland Plan bringing together the plans of all of the separate—Mount Albert, you know, the central Auckland city, other Auckland—

Hon Phil Twyford: Waitakere.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Waitakere—

Hon Phil Twyford: Manukau.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Manukau—all of those district plans were put together into one plan and they did that through an independent hearings panel. It was chaired by an Environment Court judge, in that case, David Kirkpatrick, and they did it. They did it and it was efficient, and you’ve got a better plan in Auckland than you would other—it’s not perfect, it’s not perfect, but it’s better. So we go down from 100 plans to 16 plans, and instead of taking 10 years, they take four. Now, that’s efficiency. That is efficiency, and that’s what the country needs.

Now, in respect of the benefits to users, the cost-benefit analysis—the supplementary analysis report says that there’s a number of benefits. There’s going to be an increase in housing affordability of between $146 million and $834 million for the mid-range benefit per annum. It’s quite significant. It will flow through to housing costs. In respect of consenting processes, these become more efficient and the benefits to that are felt by the people who apply for resource consents or the people that buy services like roads and sewerage and footpaths and electricity and telecommunications and all of the other things that flow through to the price of a house. Those consenting cost savings are estimated for being between $210 million and $430 million—that’s just the mid-range; it’s not the top range, I’m being relatively conservative here. So between $200 million and $430 million per annum cost saving; that’s cost saving. It’s real cash. And in addition to that, the savings of time. If you’re a developer and you have to hold land for an extra two or three years while you sort these things out, those costs are astronomical, they’re much higher than the process costs.

So there will be more permitted activities, we have fewer plans, and there is a duty under this legislation for that to be the outcome. In terms of the issues in respect of the Treaty issues that the National Party went back to, again—you know, because these take into account provisions in the RMA that didn’t work, we have had all of these bespoke arrangements up and down the country through Treaty settlements, the most grunty of which were agreed by the National-ACT Government for the Waikato River Authority and the Hawke’s Bay Regional Planning Committee.

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki-King Country): Thank you, Madam Chair. On Subpart 1, page 37, Minister, I’d like to ask you: you’ve made a change to clause 5(6AB) around the habitat of trout and salmon. We had a number of concerns around the fishermen on this clause. Can I ask you to perhaps explain to those fishermen—so the piece that’s been crossed out in your Supplementary Order Paper says “The habitat of trout and salmon is protected, so far as consistent with the protection of indigenous species.”, and in clause 5(6AB) that you’ve replaced it with “The habitat of trout and salmon are protected, as far as this is consistent with the protection of the habitat of indigenous freshwater species.” I just wanted to ask you a question, really, around the piece that says “as far as this is consistent with”, and wondering if you could speak to the fishermen about just allaying their concerns on that issue.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Thank you to the member for that question. Well, the Environment Committee said, “Look, this is not all about indigenous. We need to protect the habitat of trout and salmon.” It’s good; the existing Resource Management Act does that. One of the reasons why submitters wanted that is that a lot of the environmental advocacy that goes on up and down the country is actually by a fantastic membership-based organisation, Fish and Game Councils. They are regional organisations, they have a regional structure, they do have a head office in Wellington, but, actually, the head office is subservient to the regional bodies, not the other way round, although sometimes to them it doesn’t feel that way, I know.

They’ve got members up and down the country who are passionately interested in protecting their access to trout and salmon, and they’re a force for good. They try and protect the habitat of trout and salmon against degradation. So they came along and said, “Look, you know, we really find it harder to do our business if there’s not a reference into the statute saying that the protection of a habitat of trout and salmon is important.”, and so the select committee put that into the statute.

The Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) corrects the grammar. As it was at select committee, it said “The habitat of trout and salmon is protected.” Well, that was a rookie error by someone, but “The habitat of trout and salmon are protected”—you could have different habitat of salmon to the habitat of trout, therefore there is more than one habitat, therefore they “are protected” rather than “is protected”. So that’s the first change.

Then it said “so far as consistent with the protection of indigenous species”, and the words “this is” were missed out. So the words “as far as consistent” have been changed to “as far as this is consistent”. So the member can see, I think, that these are very technical changes. They do make the wording of it better, easier for people to understand, and that’s actually the nature of a lot of the amendments in the SOP.

Can I thank the officials for all of the enormous work they’ve done here. I do think that, for Parliament, I know there are people who say we’re rushing it, this legislation, after all of the multiple reports in the three years that we’ve taken to land it. We’ve landed it within three years, because that’s all you have within a parliamentary term. I’m of the view that we do need a four-year parliamentary term, and this is an example. But within that three-year term, we have put a lot of pressure on officials as well as civil society to land it, and so I’m very pleased with the effort that Government officials, Parliamentary Counsel Office and the like, have put in to make this legislation as good as it can be. And that is an example of how they’ve scrubbed up the legislation and improved it in minor ways since it came back from the select committee.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. Oh look, the fascinating insight to the thinking of the Minister behind the bill. He’s demonstrated it is possible to balance the needs of indigenous creatures—the banded kōkopu, the giant kōkopu, who occupy the same habitat, potentially, as those colonising fish, trout, and salmon. So there is hope for “tangata trout” and “tangata kōkopu” in our future. That’s wonderful!

But it doesn’t resolve some of the other tensions, Minister. Because you mentioned in your reply to one of my earlier questions that we do need to resolve the issue of how to build a motorway across a wetland. Well, of course we do, but the technology is available to do that. Either we move the wetland, we divert the wetland, we build the bridge on piers over the wetland; many, many ways to resolve it.

But if you don’t have a series of criteria that identify the special place in the first place, then you’re still going to be stuck in litigation between the applicants who want to build the infrastructure, the regulators who have to make a decision about whether they should be allowed to even apply for a consent, and, of course, all of those activists who will insist that nothing should ever be done to damage the three bulrushes in a paddock which currently passes as definition of a wetland under the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management. So Minister, we don’t understand how these tensions are going to be resolved. It’s not clear from this bill or from the Supplementary Order Papers.

Minister, you mentioned that plans take 10 years to resolve. Well, I thought I should check that, because that’s not what we heard in the evidence that was given to the Environment Committee. If you just look at what the New Zealand Planning Institute suggests for a complex, complete plan change: six years. For a private plan change, between one and three years—depending if it’s complex. So people might ask, “Why would you need a private plan change if council does all the planning?”

Well, it’s because sometimes an individual might want to use their land in a way that a council planner doesn’t agree with. They might say, “I’ve got a novel use for my land. Instead of a farm or a paddock, instead of growing, I don’t know, some bulrushes or some cows, I might want to build a distribution centre and I might want to connect my distribution centre or warehouse to the closest motorway so I can deliver goods to my customers in a timely way.” So that is why private plan changes—and also for housing developments and so on—are required.

It’s because central government and local government—even though we’d like to trust our councils and their planning functions, whether it’s under the Resource Management Act or some other kind of Act—don’t have all the answers; they don’t know. That’s why ACT proposes something quite different, which is a resource management reform focused on property rights.

So rather than having to ask for permission—to beg for the ability to get consents—or to hope, fingers crossed, that the thing I want to do is some kind of permitted activity, ACT would say, “Look, you should be able to use your land for however you wish, and the only people you should have to satisfy about mitigating the effects of your development are your neighbours, whether it’s noise or traffic or dust or whatever it is, if it’s a temporary effect or a long-term effect of a big extractive activity like quarrying, and of course if you’re making discharges to the receiving environment—in other words, if it’s something washing off your property or leaving your property in a pipe that’s going to the receiving environment—then of course you must pay attention to the effect on the commons and mitigate those to the bare minimum.”

But Minister, I also just want to come back to what you described as the Waitangi Tribunal insisting on a 50:50 partnership on the regional planning bodies—but you stated that had been rejected by Cabinet, and instead this bill proposes for regional planning that there would only be two iwi Māori representatives required out of a potential six. But Minister, isn’t it correct that a judge might decide—because that’s the minimum required—that, in fact, on appeal, if iwi Māori feel they weren’t represented on a planning tribunal, that, in fact, they could require a planning tribunal to have 50:50 iwi representation along with any local government representative? [Time expired]

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Order!

SIMON COURT: Madam Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): I call on Simon Court.

SIMON COURT: Well, I’ll let the Minister answer.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Thank you, Madam Chair. Firstly, the member says, “Well, we need to identify the places of national importance so that there’s certainty in the system.” I agree with that, and I agree that we also need to make sure that we’re not having the bar so low for what’s of importance that we gum the system up by calling everything important. And there have been instances in New Zealand where landscapes, for example, have been identified all to be of natural importance around something. The example that’s most often used is around Queenstown, where the planning code in respect of significant landscapes essentially makes it very, very complicated to bring a new transmission line into Queenstown, even though you need it. So I agree that the system needs to identify those places.

The statute covers that off by making reference to this having to be done—and in clause 3A(h), it says, “the attributes of places of national importance and highly vulnerable bio‐diversity areas must be recognised … (see subpart 5 of Part 6)”. And then if you go to the index, you’ll see that that takes you to clause 427C on page 291 of the bill that says that they must be identified. So, you know, that will flow through.

In respect of the property rights argument, I would make two points. The private property right to the use of land has never enabled you to do anything on your land. In a residential area, you can’t put in a freezing works, you can’t build a tannery—and I don’t understand the member to be in favour of that—so you’ve got to have planning rules that actually say what you can do on the land. You can’t be so simple as to say, “Oh look, just because the property rights owner owns the fee simple, then that fee simple right includes the right to build anything on the land.” That has never been the law in New Zealand—under the Town and Country Planning Act, under the Resource Management Act, or under this. So the idea that you can just rely upon nuisance or the rights of neighbours is just incorrect, because we have codes in New Zealand which say: well, this area is basically for residential and allied services, this area here is mainly commercial. In respect of modern ways of living in commercial as opposed to industrial, we often merge the two together and have retail and businesses and things in some residential—in the same area. But it has always been the right of the planning system to control those issues. In respect—

Simon Court: Well that’s all that we’re supposed to do.

Hon DAVID PARKER: I would also make the point that I find the ACT Party’s protestations on these issues simplistic, given that they’ve been so opposed to the intensification work that we’ve done in New Zealand to bring down the effect of cost of land prices. [Interruption] Well, I see Chris Bishop with a smile on his face there laconically saying, “Well, you might be right there, Minister.” Because it’s hard to reconcile the ACT Party voting against some of the intensification provisions that we as a Government brought forward in order to make housing more affordable by enabling more, and that more enabling planning provision to enable well-serviced landmarks—so there’s plenty of opportunities to build a house or an apartment, whatever it is, to bring down land prices; it’s implemented through the system.

Final point on the member’s question about “Can we have a takeover of Māori on regional planning committees?” It was dressed up in slightly different language, but that was, effectively, the question. Now, the answer is no, because in order to, in part, avoid all of the complications that we have through all of these bespoke Treaty settlements continuing to proliferate throughout the country, we’ve said, “Look, there should be some Māori participation on the regional planning committee.” We did think, “Well, should that be one? Should it be half and half?” We didn’t think it should be half and half. We thought that one could be a bit lonely so we actually came up with the number two, but it will be up to the region to decide. And if the region can’t decide, it’s set by the Local Government Commission. It’s not set by the courts; it’s set by the Local Government Commission. I can’t conceive of a situation where they would say that, you know, councils don’t have the majority voice.

So the member’s quite right to say that the smallest of these regional planning committees is likely to be in the Southland region where there are four councils, including the regional council. If you have two Māori participants on that regional planning committee, there will be two Māori participants and four council representatives. The councillors might say, “We want two each.” Invercargill might say, “Most of the people live here; we need two.” The regional council might convince people down there that they need a couple of voices for the regional council. That’s for the region to set out. We don’t need to predetermine—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Order! I call on Tama Potaka.

TAMA POTAKA (National—Hamilton West): Kia ora tātou. I’d like to echo the concerns of my knowledgeable, erudite colleagues sitting on this side of the Chamber, especially our infrastructure sentinel here, young Chris Bishop.

The purpose of the Act, te Oranga o te Taiao—I would call it the description rather than the definition that’s been attached to it—is very, very curious; curious. The phrase, for someone who’s been brought up in tikanga and kawa and mātauranga Māori for the last 47 years—47½ actually—and a lawyer managing a Resource Management Act (RMA) team, te Oranga o te Taiao is a completely new phrase to me. It makes me very curious—never heard of it before. What I have heard of is mauri and Te Mana o te Wai and other concepts like kaitiakitanga, which have all given rise to an evolving jurisprudence within the courts and some workability and some commonality, some universality, across different RMA practitioners and lawyers. Those interpretations have been built over decades, but now we’ve been launched with something called te Oranga o te Taiao, which, once you take it to its extremes, means that none of us is here any more. We’re on a spaceship to Mars! Te Oranga o te Taiao, at its extreme, means that there are no people on the planet.

The introduction of this phrase to legislation, whilst it may have been well meaning, creates a lot of amorphous and unusual and uncertain circumstances. In fact, it gives me the impression of putting a pounamu on a white horse. The depth and the breadth of that phrase is something that I don’t think has been very well manicured in this proposed legislation. And, to that end, I think we need to get some context and guidance of what te Oranga o te Taiao means in terms of the health and wellbeing models that are very well known in te ao Māori and how those have informed, if at all, the meaning of te Oranga o te Taiao. Can I start with the Atua Matua model of Dr Ihirangi Heke, or the Tapa Whā model? Taha hinengaro taha wairua taha whānau taha tinana [The intellectual aspect, the spiritual aspect, the family aspect, and the physical/body aspect] of Sir Mason Durie? Or was it the Te Wheke model of Rangimārie Rose Pere, or the cultural health index?

Shanan Halbert: All the models.

TAMA POTAKA: Or was it all of the models? Then it’s none of the models. Te Oranga o te Taiao must have been informed by something or some sort of kaupapa Māori model that helps us better locate ourselves in this discussion, and it certainly would help the judiciary to locate themselves in any interpretation of this phrase. What is the context or what is the guidance we get from Māori health models? That’s number one.

Number two is that the hierarchy or the weighting across the various subclauses, (a) through (e), is, again, very uncertain, particularly when they lean heavily into the protection dynamic of our planning system rather than a more balanced and fair and objective protection and development twin objectives, which is what I understood the planning legislation sought to achieve. So, again, the hierarchy or the weighting across each of those subclauses is something that we would like to get a little bit more colour around, because, at the moment, it looks very short-sighted and possibly myopic to say that it’s 20 percent for each of them.

Finally, further on in Part 1—we’re only up to clause 3—there is a mention of kawa within clause 5 and clause 6, and I would like to know, given that it is not defined in this legislation, what the Minister’s interpretation or definition of kawa actually is, because I do not know what it is, looking through the 1,270 pages of this document. Kia ora tātou.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): I’ve already, on a number of occasions—at great length, actually—gone through the whole of the definition of te Oranga o te Taiao, which is a phrase which is defined in the ways in which I have previously explained, and I won’t go into that again. I explained the history of it—te Mana o te Taiao. I explained how it had come through the Randerson panel. I explained how the select committee inquiry had come out with te Oranga o te Taiao on the basis of submissions, and I explained to the House how that had been tightened up in the latest select committee consideration of the bill that went out for public submissions. So I am not going to repeat that.

I will, in respect of system outcomes, because there is some concern, obviously, from members of the Opposition that this is going to tie up the system and we’re not going to be able to do anything. Well, the outcomes—

Tama Potaka: The Chief Justice is concerned too.

Hon DAVID PARKER: No, actually, the Chief Justice’s principal concern was that the way in which the Environment Court was constituted was subject to the Treaty clause. Interestingly, the Environment Court, which is constituted under the Resource Management Act, is actually constituted subject to the Treaty clause. No one thought of that at the time—or, if they did, I’m not aware that they did—and no one thought of the effect that changing the Treaty clause would have in emphasising the giving effect to the principles of the Treaty applying to all decision makers, including the Environment Court, constituted under the Natural and Built Environment Act. The Chief Justice was correct that that wasn’t the intention of the legislation, and the select committee corrected that so as to make it clear that, although the Environment Court, when it is considering decisions made by people under the new Act, has to give effect to the principles of the Treaty, the court itself is not constituted pursuant to those principles; it just has to apply the law, which includes those principles. That was the main point of the Chief Justice’s submission, and I’m very glad she made it, because otherwise that mistake could have been made, because no one, officials and I myself and others, had thought of it.

In respect of the outcomes, returning to what Simon Court was referring to earlier, system outcomes include, at clause 5(7), that there be “well-functioning urban and rural areas”—which includes the “use and development of land for a variety of activities, including for housing, business use, and primary production … development capacity, in relation to housing and business land, being available well ahead of expected demand”—it’s a current problem that we have in the system that we’re fixing through this legislation—and that we have “adaptable and resilient urban forms”. I’m sure that if there are other points that members want to reinforce with me, I can take a later call.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to come back to the Treaty clause, clause 4. The Minister has made reference on several occasions to the wording, which is one of the most significant changes to the existing legislative framework, versus this new methodology.

So under the existing Resource Management Act, the Treaty clause there says—I don’t have the exact wording in front of me, but essentially—that people exercising powers and performing functions under that piece of legislation must have regard to the Treaty. The new clause 4 says that “All persons exercising powers and performing functions and duties under this Act must give effect to the principles of te Tiriti”. So that is a very significant difference.

Now, the Minister has alluded to the fact that there is similar wording in the Conservation Act, but the primary difference between the Conservation Act, and, of course, this piece of legislation is that the Conservation Act refers to and is essentially responsible for the conservation estate, rather than this piece of legislation, which gives much broader powers and purview to private property, to developments of any sort, and, indeed, to the entire footprint of the nation.

So notwithstanding the matters that the Minister has already raised, I’m interested to know, potentially after the dinner break maybe when he comes back into the chair, if he could give us some insight as to why this is such a significant change. It was made for—I would assume what he thinks is—good reason, good effect. But it was the subject of a lot of discussion at select committee, an enormous amount of submitters’ time and energy, and, again, it goes to creating what is, effectively, further legal uncertainty in this area.

So I’m keen to know from the Minister: what was the rationale—and it may be simply that, “Oh, well it was part of the Randerson report.” Well, we’ve heard that on several occasions in the debate this afternoon in the committee of the whole House that “it was just Randerson.” I’m not sure that just because it was in the Randerson report that is nearly sufficient enough. Randerson and his committee are not Moses and carving tablets and bringing them down from upon high, but that seems to be the way that much of it has been interpreted—

Simon Court: Sacrilege!

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: I think Mr Court might agree with me on that. But it’s an area where there is a lot of public concern; a lot of submitters made reference to this particular clause. The impact and potential for significant change is enormous, and then when we asked officials to define the principles, we were told by officials that, actually, there is no formal definition of the principles; that they are merely evolving—evolving. “The principles of the Treaty are evolving.” That provides very little confidence or certainty to anybody wishing to rely on this piece of legislation. Thank you, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members, the time has come for me to leave the chair. I will resume the chair at 7.30 p.m. after the dinner break. Ka kite anō.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Associate Minister for the Environment): In response to comments made by the Hon Scott Simpson just before the dinner break, and now actually just after the dinner break—sorry, about the football result—but on to what you were talking about before the dinner break, which was the Treaty clause and the change. I wanted to note, of course the Resource Management Act (RMA) has a Treaty clause at the moment in section 8, and that test is to take into account—and it still talks about the principles, which is the same language as clause 4, which has this higher test, and that higher test is “must give effect to”. The Hon Scott Simpson was asking before the dinner break about where this had come from. He made some interesting comments around the Randerson report in the committee. Of course, where it has come from is a long gestation or the long being—not even the gestation—of the Resource Management and the feeling from many people who have to use the RMA that it wasn’t strong enough in this clause and that it wasn’t strong enough for Māori. That has been a sentiment that has come through in submissions and in various consultation documents for a long time. So it’s a fairly simple answer.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Just to pick up the point around, well, what Scott Simpson had raised earlier: does the Minister appreciate, and regardless—well, sorry. First and foremost, of course there are people who want stronger Treaty provisions, and that’s perfectly understandable. But does the Minister understand it is an enormous step legally if not morally to move from “consideration” to “effect”—like, from “take account”, sorry, to “to effect”? This is an enormous change. This is not just a simple change of nomenclature in terms of particular principles—any principles for that matter. I’m sure a human rights lawyer would understand, as I look to my left, that to say “to take into consideration” or “to take thought of” human rights and principles is one thing. To “give effect to”—that’s an enormous, enormous change.

The second is that the Minister, earlier in the day, had been talking about how we’d moved from 100 plans to 16 and how the rewrite of this Part 1, in particular—but the whole 900-plus pages is going to make an enormous impact. And I suppose the question to the Minister in the chair is: does she really believe that the change of font and format in the presentation of a law is somehow going to outweigh or, rather, make things so efficient and outweigh the enormous effects of 900-plus pages of, effectively, new concepts untested in law? To put it another way: does she really think that all these enormous changes, as I say, untested judicially—that the Chief Justice has warned the select committee of just the enormous workloads going to be created—does she think, as Minister Parker indicated, that simply changing the font and format and reducing the number of plans is going to outweigh that judicial uncertainty?

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Associate Minister for the Environment): To the first point, am I aware of the difference between “give effect to” and “take into account”? Yes. And to the second point that it’s 900 pages of brand-new concepts that are going to be tested by the courts, absolutely not. Some of the concepts in here are different, and there will, of course, be some litigation around those, but a lot of the framework of the bill is similar to what the Resource Management Act is. There are some fundamental changes, but a lot of it—you still have resource consents, you still have plan-making, and a lot of the provisions of the bill are to set out very clearly what they are. In terms of the re-order of the Act, that’s to make it easier for the users.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you, and, again, hopefully, it’s a short retort. Look, I appreciate, I say to the Minister, that my earlier comment of 900 pages—it’s not all completely new—was a slightly facetious comment at one level. However, does she also appreciate the very fact that Part 1, clause 3, inserts a whole lot of new concepts that by the nature of our legal system sit on top of everything else? In other words, even existing elements from the current Resource Management Act (RMA), which is brought into this proposed new bill—these are now all going to be governed by the preceding or the initial clauses such as clause 3.

The first purpose is “to uphold te Oranga o te Taiao.” Now, that’s going to cover everything that follows. In other words, I say to the Minister, I appreciate, again, that it’s a debating point, of course. But it doesn’t matter how much existing RMA reform comes into this new tome—one that would make Thomas Aquinas weep—the very new purposes that are put at the very front of the bill, including that one around te Oranga o te Taiao, are going to affect how it is implemented. That in itself, I’m sure, is undebatable. It is a completely new concept in law.

It’s not a new concept in itself, but in law, and, as I pointed out in an earlier contribution, even the word “taiao” can be interpreted between the word “land”, which makes it much more domestic, and the word “world”. So is this legislation meaning to take the health of the world into effect? Is Greta Thunberg going to turn up tomorrow and opine on what our RMA should be? Again, it’s—

Hon Scott Simpson: She’s been arrested.

SIMON O’CONNOR: She’s been arrested—that’s true. But, again, I’m being slightly facetious to illustrate the point, but it is unclear, and until it’s tested in law—so, again, the fundamental point is an appreciation of these new concepts put at the front of the bill will govern everything that follows, including any existing legislation brought across.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Associate Minister for the Environment): Mr Chair, thank you. I understand that there has been a lot of discussion about clause 3, “Purpose of this Act”, this evening already, and, of course, “to uphold te Oranga o te Taiao.” I would just restate—I think Minister Parker said this before—that there was a lot of discussion and submissions on this point. I don’t disagree that putting “te Oranga o te Taiao” here in the purpose is significant. It is a change from the Resource Management Act, and no doubt the courts will have something to say about that.

But I’m very pleased with the response that we see here in the amended bill, which both defines “te Oranga o te Taiao”, and new clause 3A sets out the means for achieving the purpose of the Act. I think they will both be very helpful mechanisms to be clear about what it is that we are wanting this bill to achieve, which is to protect the health of the natural environment and to enable the use and development of that environment.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): I just advise members that a different member asking the same question does not constitute new material. I’ve been watching from my office and this debate has been going for some time, so we will be looking for new material in the very near future.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Mr Chair, and welcome, Associate Minister for the Environment Minister Rachel Brooking, who is, in fact, one of the architects of this bill from her previous life on the Randerson panel as a resource management law expert. So we couldn’t ask for a more competent and experienced Minister in the chair tonight than the Hon Rachel Brooking, which actually creates a bit of a dilemma for me because, as I’ve mentioned to the Minister before, when I was a civil engineer trying to get consents for projects so we could deliver bridges and roads and build landfills, the Minister may well have been one of those resource management lawyers that I would have asked for advice from and, in fact, have asked to help get a resource consent under the Resource Management Act.

So I’m interested in the Minister’s interpretation about clause 4, “Tiriti o Waitangi”, and the difference between the Resource Management Act’s “have regard to” the Treaty and the Natural and Built Environment Bill’s “give effect to” the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. So that’s any decision maker—“All persons exercising powers and performing functions and duties”.

So, Minister, could you please explain for the committee and for the people at home—relying on your previous experience and your familiarity with the Randerson report and the legislation that’s come out of it—what is the practical difference between “having regard to” as a decision maker or when exercising powers and performing functions and duties, and “giving effect to” Te Tiriti, and particularly with respect to an answer that Minister Parker provided before, where he referred to, which is in terms of the Conservation Act, the following principles of the Treaty of Waitangi as expressed by the courts and the Waitangi Tribunal: the principle of partnership, the principle of mutual benefit, and the principle of active protection? If the Minister could explain how those principles apply in giving effect to the Treaty under this legislation as opposed to having regard to the Treaty under the Resource Management Act—thank you, Minister.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): This clause 4 is one of the very pivotal clauses in this massive statute, and it’s the reason that on this side of the House we want to give it the attention that I think it deserves, because this is a very significant change in policy direction from the existing legislative environment. The term “must give effect to” is a very significant change from the existing Resource Management Act, which says “take account of”. Now, in the King Salmon case, the court decided that—and I quote—“In the view of the Courts and the Waitangi Tribunal, the Treaty principles are not set”, but in the King Salmon case, the court actually said that “ ‘give effect to’ simply means ‘implement’ ”.

Now, if that is the decision of the court in King Salmon, the question I have for the Minister is why wouldn’t that term “implement” be used—the Act must implement the principles of the Treaty? Why was that word not used, rather than the words “give effect to”?

Then, further, it’s been the decision of the Waitangi Tribunal, but when considering issues relating to the principles of the Treaty, they’ve said that “In the view of the Courts and the Waitangi Tribunal, Treaty principles are not set in stone. They are constantly evolving as the Treaty is applied to particular issues and new situations.” Then we were advised in the select committee by officials that there are usually multiple ways of applying a principle and that different contexts will require different approaches. So it’s that uncertainty that is at the crux of our concern about this particular clause and the provision in it.

What I think New Zealanders want is a degree of certainty about the legislative environment, they want to know what the words mean, and they want to understand what the impacts of those words will be on their development, on their business, on their neighbourhood, on their home—all those sorts of things. So a couple of questions to the Minister: why not use the word “implement” in clause 4, instead of “give effect to”, as has been defined in King Salmon, and then how can certainty be given when the principles, we are told, both by the Waitangi Tribunal and courts and by our advisers on the committee, are evolving and will apply differently in different circumstances?

TAMA POTAKA (National—Hamilton West): Thank you, Mr Chair. Just in the vein of the discussions that have been flowing through the vessels of both Mr Court and Mr Simpson, two issues in relation to clause 4, the first one being that the way that it’s worded says, “give effect to the principles of te Tiriti o Waitangi.” I just wanted to get some clarity whether or not there is the same interpretation given to that as section 4 of the Conservation Act, which refers to the Treaty of Waitangi, or if there’s something different—if we’re incorporating the contra proferentem rule or something of that nature—so we have some clarity around that. That would be very helpful.

The second thing is that section 4 of the Conservation Act, which this nearly mirrors, was subject to the significant Supreme Court decision and coupled with a relationship agreement, with a specific example in the Hauraki Gulf and Motutapu Island and the Ngāi Tai v Department of Conservation case. What emanated from that decision and that set of relationships was actually quite a very compromised manner in which the parties tried to do things, but, essentially, could not get things done together—the conservation department and the tribe involved in that particular decision. The concern that I have is that, again, we’ve created something in writing but there’s no real legislative guidance as to how that would be implemented. So two questions. Thank you.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Associate Minister for the Environment): I’m answering those three questions sort of together, in terms of from Simon Court, the Hon Scott Simpson, and the last speaker there, Tama Potaka. Some of the questions, I think both from Simon Court and Scott Simpson, were around, you know, what does this change mean in clause 4? Of course, it is a strengthening, and that was a very deliberate decision, and there’s also other mechanisms in the bill to help strengthen what was in the Resource Management Act (RMA). So the other changes go to the people who will be sitting on the regional planning committees, the strengthening of the Mana Whakahono ā Rohe, and, of course, the creation of the National Māori Entity as a monitoring device.

So those different measures support the strengthening of the Treaty clause. And the way the RMA clause is written—for many years, there were no cases whereby a decision was made that something could or couldn’t happen because of the Treaty principles or, in fact, the stronger words in the RMA at section 6(e) or section 7(a), kaitiakitanga. So those are all differences.

The Hon Scott Simpson asked why not use the word “implement”. Of course, as the last speaker just said, the Conservation Act does use these words, “give effect to”, and that is a known phrase. I acknowledge the Ngāi Tai decision and what that means in terms of the Conservation Act. But it is also the point that we want it to be stronger, and this is a stronger clause.

In terms of the definition, Te Titiri is defined, and it refers back to section 2 of the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975. So it’s certainly not meant to be any change there in the substantive meaning of what the Treaty is; it’s just to reflect the language that is currently more commonplace.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Junior Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I want to turn now to another significant clause in Part 1, which relates to clause 5 “System outcomes”. It’s in this clause where the whole hierarchy of outcomes is defined.

Now, at the Environment Committee, we heard, again, a lot of submissions on the prioritisation of outcomes, whether there should be a hierarchy of outcomes, and, if so, what should be the determining factors as to that hierarchy, and which of those outcomes should have precedence over another where there was conflict.

So my questions to the Minister in the chair relate to all of clause 5. It’s quite extensive in its provision. It runs quite clearly through a range of issues that are to be considered in terms of system outcomes. But what we still don’t have is the kind of clarity, I think, that people will be looking for in terms of what the issues that are going to be given higher degree of precedence when making decisions as opposed to those that won’t be.

So, Minister, if you could enlighten the committee of the whole House as to the Government’s thinking on clause 5, why clause 5 has been adopted in the manner that it has, and why the hierarchy of system outcomes as set out in clause 5 has been established and what the principle and rationale behind that is or was, please.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Junior Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you, Mr Chair. I welcome Rachel Brooking to the chair, the Minister. It’s great to get her opinion on a few things. Particularly, I would like to turn to clause 5(9), “In order to promote the well-being of both present and future generations, highly productive land is protected—(a) for use in land-based primary production; and (b) from inappropriate subdivision, use, and development.”

What is “inappropriate”, in that sense? Somebody’s appropriate subdivision on a piece of land is someone else’s inappropriate subdivision on that land. How is that actually defined? I think I’d be really interested to hear that.

I’d also go to clause 6A, “Procedural principles”, while I’m on my feet. Under clause 6A(1), “All persons exercising powers and performing functions and duties under this Act must take all practical steps—(a) to use timely, efficient, consistent, and cost-effective processes that are proportionate to the functions, powers, and duties being exercised [and] performed; and (b) to promote collaboration between or among local authorities, communities, and Māori on their common resource management issues.”

Now, I don’t understand that last bit, “Māori”. It’s not local Māori; it’s Māori. Is it the local iwi or the local hapū? Because if we go back to clause 4, we have to take account of the Treaty or Te Tiriti. The Treaty was signed by chiefs of hapū, so surely it would be a hapū that would need to be referenced in this bill, but it’s not; it’s Māori. That could be just someone who identifies as Māori. How is that defined? I don’t understand that. Local communities, or if the words “local Māori” might have been there, that might make sense. But to have just “Māori” I don’t think is helpful. Is that just a drafting error or is “local authorities” meant to be “local authorities, local communities, and local Māori on their common resource management issues”?

So it’d be really helpful if we could get some enlightenment on that, because it’s a really important piece of legislation and to get all these terms all mixed up, I think, is really quite unhelpful.

Hon Scott Simpson: No consistency.

STUART SMITH: No—no consistency at all. So I look forward to hearing some enlightenment on that point.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Mr Chair. Firstly, I just want to open by offering a perspective on the way that I understand Māori have been treated by local government, by central government, when it comes to developments around infrastructure, whether it’s waste-water treatment plants being built in front of a marae in the Manukau Harbour in Auckland or Governments taking Māori-owned land under the Public Works Act as an easier option than negotiating with other private landowners.

We heard at the Environment Committee a number of concerns raised by representatives of iwi, hapū, and other Māori-based organisations about that concern and how they wanted to make sure that they were not treated unfairly when it came to resource management decisions, decisions about land use, planning, and so on in the future, and that their rights be protected in any legislation that reformed the Resource Management Act. The ACT Party would absolutely support their private property rights and their right to be able to negotiate fairly with the Crown or local government or any other public entity that seeks to acquire land in order to deliver infrastructure. So we can understand there’s some really powerful historical motivations that probably feel quite visceral and current to iwi, hapū, in particular, and individual marae who have suffered from that kind of treatment at the hands of Government in the past.

But what I don’t understand, and what the ACT Party cannot comprehend, is how those wrongs have then been translated into what appear to be general principles for decision makers to give effect to the Treaty of Waitangi, and then to take account of a concept known as mātauranga Māori, which, if you look at te reo Māori dictionary, simply describes it as “knowledge”. If you look at other places where mātauranga Māori is defined, it’s defined as “traditional Māori knowledge”. In other places it also includes tikanga, kawa, and kaitiakitanga. So what does it actually mean, this term “mātauranga Māori”?

When I asked the select committee, firstly, to seek advice from officials—can we please have some advice about what a definition might mean, what this term might refer to?—that was declined by the committee, by the majority. Then when I proposed to include a definition of it in the bill, that was also declined by the majority of the committee. Of course, that’s parliamentary democracy. That’s what we do. So because the term hasn’t been defined in the bill, and because it creates an uncertainty about what the effect is, requiring decision makers in terms of clause 5(10), how are we to treat this?

Minister, the ACT Party has proposed, in a Supplementary Order Paper, that we could remove some of the confusion this causes by simply removing references in the bill to “mātauranga Māori”. Because in the absence of a definition, and with so many explanations for it crowding out what could be a sensible definition like simply the word “knowledge”, ACT believes we should remove it entirely.

But I also want to acknowledge that there is a place for indigenous knowledge about plants, about natural systems. I mean, imagine, for example, if we had an oral history available to us to describe what it was like, the events of that night that an enormous tsunami hit the East Coast of the North Island in about 1400 AD and engulfed the communities, those double-hulled waka sailing craft builders and all of those other people with that traditional knowledge of celestial navigation who came to New Zealand from the Pacific Islands. Imagine if we had an oral tradition that we could compare against the geological record of where that tsunami reached in the hills near Te Puke, so we could better understand what it was that happened that day and maybe inform us about where we should and shouldn’t be building communities presently. If that’s what mātauranga Māori means, then it would be very helpful to have a definition of that type in the bill.

But I want to give you an example about how confusing it is, so I hope the Chair will extend to me the privilege of an additional few minutes, because I’ve done some research—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Order! The member’s time is complete.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Associate Minister for the Environment): Thank you, Mr Chair. Trying to answer a number of those questions. If we go back to the Hon Scott Simpson about the system outcomes in clause 5, there are a large number of them, but I would, again, refer back to new clause 3A, “Means for achieving purpose of Act”. So the system outcomes are to be provided for at the national level through the national planning framework, the NPF, and at the regional level and plans. Of course, then we also have new clause 5A, “Providing for outcomes”, and some useful clauses at clause 6 as well, that say things like decision making “not to prefer a use because it is either new or existing use when considering how the outcomes are to be best achieved”.

So those outcomes will not always be in agreement with each other. Where they are in agreement with each other, then both should be achieved. If there does have to be some sort of hierarchy, then that needs to be provided for, consistent with the purpose of the Act, which provides some, and then in the NPF and in the plans.

There were some other comments there about the use of the word “inappropriate”. That’s a term that’s come from the Resource Management Act. Also about the use of the terms “hapū” and “iwi” versus “Māori”—you will find that it is purposefully used throughout the bill where it refers to “iwi” and “hapū”. I’m not sure if Scott Simpson is saying that a Government bill should not refer to iwi at all and only to hapū, because that is who the Treaty was signed with, which he said—

Hon Scott Simpson: It was Stuart Smith.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: —and that that would—oh, did I say Scott Simpson? Sorry, I meant Stuart Smith. I was looking at Stuart Smith. My apologies. I know that you’re very different.

So, as I was saying, “Māori” is used for the more general roles which aren’t linked to that ancestral land, say, in clause 6(2) versus clause 6A(1)(b), which Stuart Smith referred to.

In terms of mātauranga, I think it’s not that difficult, really, when we look at the clause that the member was referring to, for that to be taken into account. I don’t think it’s something that will cause problems in interpreting it. And the member talked about how his definitions include knowledge, but it might be wider, and he was starting to tell some stories. Both of those things are good, and they were interesting stories, Mr Court.

Simon Court was also talking about private property rights, and, I have to say, I’m a little bit confused on this issue, because, of course, many iwi and hapū and whānau don’t have the private property land rights any more, for historical reasons, and that’s some of the reason why we now have these Treaty clauses in our legislation: to right those wrongs.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Junior Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.

Ayes 72

New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.

Noes 44

New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Minister’s tabled amendments to clauses 3A, 5, and 7 on Supplementary Order Paper 389 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments to the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 72

New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.

Noes 44

New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.

Amendments to the amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Simon Court’s amendments to Part 1 of Supplementary Order Paper 389, set out on Supplementary Order Paper 392, be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments to the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 44

New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 72

New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.

Amendments to the amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 389 as amended be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 72

New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.

Noes 44

New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.

Amendments as amended agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Simon Court’s amendment to the definition of “infrastructure” in clause 7(1) set out on Supplementary Order Paper 386 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 44

New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 72

New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.

Amendment not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 1 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 72

New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere

Noes 47

New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2; Whaitiri.

Part 1 as amended agreed to.

Part 2 Duties, responsibilities, and restrictions

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Members, we come now to Part 2, the debate on clauses 13 to 30, “Duties, responsibilities, and restrictions”. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

TAMA POTAKA (National—Hamilton West): Thank you, Mr Chair. I wanted to particularly take a look at clause 13 and the ethic of stewardship, which I didn’t see was defined therein. The notion that we will sustain the health and wellbeing of the natural environment for the benefit of both present and future generations—I’m pretty keen to understand from the Minister how many generations we are talking about here. When we start going out three, four, six generations, the decisions on what we can do as planners or as decision makers today aren’t necessarily well informed on what the situation is going to be like in four or five generations.

The other issue that emerges from that is: do we weight it equally across the number of generations, which we’re yet to know about—we might get an answer to that—or is there a staggered weighting across the future and present generations?

Final question: what happens in a situation when the ethic of stewardship as espoused here actually cuts across the mana and the kawa—ill-defined in the previous part—and there is an inconsistency between that? Thank you.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m wanting to just ask the Minister a couple of questions about clause 15, the duty to avoid unreasonable noise. Clause 15(1) says “This section applies to (a) every person who occupies land (including any premises and any coastal marine area); and (b) every person carrying out an activity in, on, or under a water body or the coastal marine area.”

Noise can be a particularly problematic environmental hazard, and I know that this particular clause attempts to provide some guidance and limits around noise emissions and the standards that may be applied to them, in some kind of sensible framework. My particular question relates to one that is in clause 15(4)—“This section applies to overflying by aircraft, but only to the extent that noise emission controls for airports, including those in the coastal marine area, are [not] prescribed by a framework rule or by a plan rule.” I’ve had representations from a number of people in the Ōhāriu electorate who have been concerned about the excessive noise from changed flying patterns that have meant that the good people of Ōhāriu are now being inflicted with aircraft noise that is causing them concern and angst. So my question to the Minister—

Simeon Brown: If only the local MP did something about it!

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: Well, if only! That’s quite right. If only! But I’m convinced that there will be a new MP shortly and that that new MP will almost certainly take up the cudgel on behalf of the people of Ōhāriu.

Simeon Brown: Get Ōhāriu back on track.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: Get Ōhāriu back on track. So my question relates to this clause about overflying by aircraft, and if the Minister could give us some enlightenment as to this provision, its rationale, and how actually it is going to be applied in practical terms, in a practical sense. What will be the impact? And will the good people of Ōhāriu be protected by clause 15(4) of the Natural and Built Environment Bill. If so, how?

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Associate Minister for the Environment): Just in answer to those two questions, clause 15—the duty to avoid unreasonable noise—is, of course, very similar to section 16 of the Resource Management Act (RMA), but also merged with section 9 of the RMA, so really the Act applies to the aircraft issue that the Hon Scott Simpson just said; so the same framework there.

In terms of Tama Potaka’s questions about the ethic of stewardship, of course, that is found currently in section 7(aa) of the RMA. And to ask about how many future generations, I think the point here is not just to be thinking about tomorrow.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair, and can I congratulate the Minister in the chair. It is great to have the expertise of the Hon Rachel Brooking in the House during the committee stages.

A question on clause 15 also, “Duty to avoid unreasonable noise”. The Minister will be very aware, from her other portfolios, in terms of the importance of the Hauraki Gulf and a recent study by the Hauraki Gulf Forum by the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research, which highlighted the value of the gulf is between $40 billion to $100 billion and that we do not invest adequately in protecting it. The forum also released a study last year about the impacts of underwater noise on marine species and the racket created by boats, particularly in areas around Kawau Island, but also around the Goat Island Marine Reserve at night, which suggests there were potentially illegal activities that may have been happening there. But the noise of boats was enough to drown out sound that marine species needed to communicate with each other—particular fish, for example.

So does the Minister contemplate that the national planning framework might provide some guidance in areas like the Hauraki Gulf to ensure that our marine life are not exposed to levels of unreasonable noise which can disrupt their behaviour and reduce their ability to communicate and reduce healthy functioning under the water? We may not be aware of that noise—jet skis certainly—but is that potentially a matter which this clause 15 could be used for?

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Associate Minister for the Environment): I’m advised that that is a potential, and acknowledge that the member is concerned about the Hauraki Gulf, which is, of course, so important to the whole of Aotearoa, but it wouldn’t be in the first national planning framework, so it would have to be more work into that fair matter.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Minister, I just want to draw your attention to clause 13—Part 2—“Environmental responsibility”. It’s got very laudable, aspirational content in clause 13(1): “Consistently with the ethic of stewardship, every person has a responsibility to protect and sustain the health and well-being of the natural environment for the benefit of all [both] present and future [generations], including as required by section 14”—duty to avoid, remedy, mitigate, offset, and so on. And that responsibility referred to in subsection (1) is not, of itself, enforceable against any person, and no person is liable to another person for a breach of that responsibility to protect and sustain the health and wellbeing of the natural environment.

Minister, could you please explain for the committee, for people listening, for the record, for the Hansard, for an enduring description of what is the purpose of 13(1) and 13(2), why is this in the bill if it creates a “nice-to-have”—a vibe—but is not enforceable against any person for a breach of any responsibility to sustain and protect the health and wellbeing of the natural environment? Minister, why is it in the bill?

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki-King Country): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ve just got a question for the Minister around Subpart 3, clause 26 on page 79, that talks about “Certain existing uses in relation to land may continue”, and really wanted to clarify for those people who are watching this tonight. It basically says, “A person may use land in a way that contravenes a plan rule administered by a territorial authority if (a) the use was lawfully established (i) before the rule became operative; or (ii) before the proposed plan was notified; or (iii) by way of a designation;” and that the adverse effects are actually the same or similar in character as to before. So I really just wanted to get some surety and some clarification for people that currently their private property right use is protected under this new piece of legislation, given that nothing changes in the way that they’re operating it.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d like to talk about clause 21, “Restrictions relating to water”. This is very concerning, actually. Clause 21(1): “A person must not carry out the following activities in relation to water in a manner that contravenes a framework rule or a plan rule administered by a regional council”. So: taking, using, damming, or diverting any open coastal water. And in (b): taking or using any heat or energy from any open coastal water. Does that include putting beer in the water to cool it down? Because that’s taking energy out of the water, and so it’s a serious question: is that actually the case? Because people can use heat-exchanging devices in the water. So it says “heat”; does that mean it could cool the water but not heat it? Or is it taking heat out of the water and not cooling it? So I’ll leave that with the Minister.

SIMON COURT (ACT): I’ll just give that Minister a moment; she’s getting advice. I want to ask the Minister a question about clause 14, the “Duty to avoid, minimise, remedy, offset, or compensate for adverse effects”. In fact, one remarkable thing about this bill, Minister, is that despite all of the concerns that were raised by various environmental groups during the hearings on this bill, which I remember you attended for some time in your capacity as a member before you became a Minister, many, many environmental groups interested in protection of the environment above all else were very concerned about the concept of offsetting or compensation for adverse effects. So it’s actually heartening to see that there are some good concepts that have flowed through into the bill that would allow the likes of infrastructure developers, for example, or housing developers, to carry out some work on some land where there might be some natural value of some kind. I mean, it could be a wetland in terms of the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management which, I understand, defines a permanently damp part of a paddock, whether that’s three bulrushes in a 10-square-metre part of the paddock or whatever that is—if that’s to be cleared through earthworks, or disturbed, then there’s an opportunity for offsetting.

So would the Minister please describe for the committee and for the record, as well as, hopefully, responding to my question about clause 13 on environmental responsibility, how does the Minister see offsetting? Would the Minister be able to give an example about where, say, disturbance or removal of a wetland or some other kind of natural feature in order to build infrastructure could potentially be offset by building another somewhere else, maybe a better one, which, of course, is quite common. I mean, when I worked in the waste industry building landfills, we used to build fantastic engineered stormwater ponds incorporating all types of species of sedge and rushes, creating serpentine water-flow systems so the water slowed down, dropped its sediment, and provided a habitat for all kinds of native fish species: the banded kōkopu, the giant kōkopu, shags—I’m afraid I don’t know te reo Māori name for that bird—and eel, of course, or tuna. So, Minister, does this clause 14 allow for wetlands to be removed so infrastructure could be built and a new wetland built somewhere else to offset? And what does compensation mean? And Minister, if you could just respond to my question about environmental responsibility and what’s the purpose of that clause.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Associate Minister for the Environment): Thank you. So—jumping around a wee bit here—Simon Court was asking about clause 13 and why it’s not enforceable. The point of this clause is to give an overarching responsibility, and then it’s supported by the more specific obligations that are elsewhere in the bill. In terms of that last question around offsetting, I mean, I’ll say briefly that, of course, there is a schedule around offsetting—that is not in this part of the bill. Going to Stuart Smith’s question about beer in the river in clause 21, at clause 6A in Part 1, of course, there is a principle of proportionality, so I think he need not worry about his beer. Then Barbara Kuriger was asking about existing uses. The current Resource Management Act has existing-use provisions as well, and these are similar but they do enable some changes to those rights in a narrow set of circumstances, which are set out in that clause.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to move on a bit further into the nitty-gritty of Part 2, and, in particular, reference to Part 2A, and specifically clauses 30A, 30B, 30C, 30D, 30E, 30F, and—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Just reminding the member, though, that there is actually a separate debate on Part 2A.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: On Part 2A? Ah, OK. Well, in that case, I wasn’t aware that the—I thought that Part 2 was going to be completely—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Well, a pleasant surprise for the member.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: Thank you very much.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 2 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 389 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 72

New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.

Noes 44

New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.

Amendments agreed to.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Point of order, Mr Chair. It’s really just to get some clarification from you in the Chair. Part 2A has some subparts as well. Is it your intention to take all of Part 2A or are you going to take it by subpart?

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): No. It will be all Part 2A, so everything that—

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: Including the subparts?

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): —comes under that section; yes.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 2 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 72

New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.

Noes 47

New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2; Whaitiri.

Part 2 as amended agreed to.

Part 2A Exercise of functions, powers, and duties under this Act

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Members, we come now to Part 2A. This is the debate on clauses 30A to 30ZZM. The question is that Part 2A stand part.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Well, they say patience is a virtue, so we have arrived eventually. As I indicated previously—and erroneously—under a previous part, I do want to spend a few minutes just teasing out clauses 30A through to about 30F, I think. These clauses relate specifically to the functions and powers of the Minister for the Environment.

Now, it goes without saying that for a piece of legislation of this length, breadth, and depth, that the role of Minister for the Environment is going to be very significant in terms of the day-to-day functional operation of this entire statute—not only the natural and built environment statute but also the spatial planning statute, and then eventually the adaptation piece, which we have yet to see. But in this Part 2A, we see that the Minister for the Environment is granted extraordinary powers to be involved at a very intimate and intricate level in almost every single decision-making process.

That is part of the framework of the legislation. Particularly, for instance, in clause 30B, where the “Minister for Environment may investigate and make recommendations in respect of local authorities and regional planning committees”, and then there is a series of specific instances cited in clause 30B. Clause 30C relates to the “Minister for Environment may appoint substitute for local authority”—again, extensive powers in that area. In clause 30D, the “Minister for Environment may direct preparation of plan change or variation”—again, an opportunity to be intimately involved in the process, the detail, and the work. Clause 30E: “Ministers may direct that review of a plan be undertaken”, so even when a plan has been made and established and set in place, the Minister may at his or her discretion instruct a review be undertaken. Clause 30F gives the Minister for the Environment the ability to “direct other action that may be taken”—again, some wide and extensive powers there.

So what I guess I’m getting at with the reference to all these particular clauses is that the particular Minister of the day is going to have enormous influence and power to intervene, in a way that may be helpful but similarly may be completely unhelpful. And what concerns me most of all is the potential for a Minister—any given Minister of any particular political flavour, colour, or hue—to bring to this legislation their own political and eco-political agenda in a way that means that they can influence unduly the process that this legislation seeks to put in place. So my question, really, to the Minister in the chair is what guarantees, what assurances, what commitments can she make on behalf of the current Government that these very extensive powers that have been assigned and delegated to the particular Minister for the Environment of the day are going to give certainty, are going to give confidence to New Zealanders who want to use this legislation? How are they going to know that, for instance, in some Government department, this current Government—I mean, we’ve had multiple Ministers in some ministries; three, four, five Ministers in some of those—

Simeon Brown: Minister of Transport.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: Minister of Transport’s a good one—how many Ministers of Transport have they had in a relatively short period of time? What would happen, what would be the practical implications of a merry-go-round of Ministers—a merry-go-round of Ministers of the sort that we’ve seen in other portfolios, if that applied to the Minister for the Environment—

Simeon Brown: Resource management issue.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: It is a resource management issue. My colleague Simeon Brown makes a very good point. So extensive, wide-ranging, and enormous power given to the Minister for the Environment. Some might say that we have a steady hand in that portfolio at the moment, but that’s not always necessarily going to be the case. I can think back to Marian Hobbs, I think, who at one stage was the Minister for the Environment in a previous Labour administration—I would not have wanted her, for instance, to have the ability to have the powers and influence that are going to be extended under this legislation.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Associate Minister for the Environment): I will make a brief reply to this issue, and then I think I will swap out of the chair. Yes, because we were just talking about the safe pair of hands—the Hon Scott Simpson was saying—that we have in our current Minister for the Environment, the Hon David Parker, who has just returned to the Chamber. And—

Hon Scott Simpson: I don’t think it’s proper to mention the presence or otherwise of a Minister or a member.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: I can say he’s in the Chamber? Apologies for that. So the question is around what are the protections, that a Minister won’t go rogue with these powers. Of course, some of these clauses do provide caveats, such as in clause 30E that the Hon Scott Simpson referred to, about the “Ministers made direct that review of a plan be undertaken”. To do that, under clause 30E(3), “The Minister must provide reasons why they are directing [that a review be undertaken] and make their reasons publicly available; and prepare a statement of expectations … and consult any relevant ministers or any other person”. Further to that, I’d say that of course the purpose of the Act will apply, and that is to, of course, uphold te Oranga o te Taiao.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Simon Court.

Hon Rachel Brooking: I’m still here.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): You are still here. I’ve noticed that. Simon Court.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m interested if the Minister could just give an explanation of how she sees the powers being used, particularly clause 30C, “Minister for Environment may appoint substitute for local authority”. Now, the Minister of Local Government already has the power to appoint commissioners to investigate, see whether local authorities are fulfilling their obligations under the Local Government Act. But this also allows another Minister—another Cabinet Minister—to appoint a substitute for a local authority. So how is this power to be exercised and balanced against, potentially, the obligations of a local council to perform its functions, duties under the Local Government Act, versus what’s described here? What could they possibly do which would trigger a Minister to appoint a substitute?

I mean, it could be Auckland Council. Maybe they decided not to follow the Government’s process for changing their plan to allow for three units of three storeys everywhere, like that Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Act that was passed by National and Labour unanimously last year—it was only with the objection of ACT to that bill. Maybe Auckland Council, in the future, doesn’t want to adopt the National Planning Framework and all of the instruments that come with it because they feel they’ve already done their unitary plan. They spent four or five years consulting on the unitary plan. What Auckland Council said when they came to the Environment Committee was, “Please don’t force us to do a whole other planning exercise. Please don’t force us to get involved in these regional planning committees and have iwi co-governance appointees and have to go through the whole process again—it cost us tens of millions of dollars.”

Auckland Unitary Plan was consulted on. A lot of people were able to make objections. They had an independent hearings panel. The hearings panel recommended that the draft plan be amended, and then it was sent to Auckland Council’s elected members—the full council—to be voted on. While some people continued to take appeals about particular matters, the Auckland Unitary Plan was done at that point, and it enabled infrastructure operators, if they had the budget to, to then work out where to plan transport, pipes, where to upgrade the waste-water network, for example.

So I can imagine that if a Minister for Environment who was unhappy with a council that had failed to follow the planning directions set out in this bill—because they might say, “Hey, we’ve just spent half a decade doing this and we’ve only had it operating for six or seven years. Minister, would you leave us alone to get on with planning and building our city?” I could see how a Minister who had invested so much in this piece of legislation might actually want to direct them to do it his way.

So to the Minister in the chair, what is the criteria where a Minister for Environment may appoint a substitute for a local authority? And how does that compare to the criteria that a Minister for Local Government might use?

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Associate Minister for the Environment): Thank you, Mr Chair. Well, of course, that distinction is that it has to relate to this Act. And as for the other points, I think the member answered his own question.

TAMA POTAKA (National—Hamilton West): Yes, fresh from those ambiguities we heard in Part 1 and the brown-washing of Māori terms through this legislation, I come to Part 2A, Subpart 5 of the proposed legislation, clauses 30ZE to 30ZT, “National Māori Entity”, which I have read through and become quite enamoured with, but actually am disturbed by the criteria and a few other things of this.

This Subpart 5 is a real departure from clause 4, to give effect to the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, because what it actually does is sets up a pan-tribal entity that is not representative of iwi and hapū—and they might get some suggestions from iwi and hapū. But that pan-tribal entity, Government-appointed, has a real ability to cut against and operate against the kawa, the tikanga, and the mana that the proposed legislation intends to protect, because it’s a pan-tribal entity that has its own views.

So I’m quite disappointed by the criteria in clause 30ZM(3), when we have a purpose of the legislation, back in clause 3, talking about te Oranga o te Taiao and the health and wellbeing of the natural environment, but I see no mention of health in any of these paragraphs (a) through to (f) of 30ZM(3). So I start wondering whether or not the actual appointment criteria—and there’s also no mention of development expertise in here, given that it’s a decision-making framework that we’re trying to establish—for appointing persons recommended by the nominating committee to the Minister does not link back into the purpose and the health and wellbeing and those Māori terms that we referred to—kawa, tikanga, mātauranga Māori, mana—I don’t know if it’s atua, tipuna, whenua, wāhine, or moana—there’s an inconsistency there.

What I wanted to ask the Minister for the Environment is: what commitments can the Minister give that we don’t have a Māori entity set up—it’s actually a Government entity that’s got a Māori stamp on it—to cut against the kawa and the mana and the tikanga of various iwi and hapū? At the moment, this Māori entity sounds like a group of resource management sycophants with no development expertise. Kia ora.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Ah, the vexed issue of Māori politics coming out from the National Party. This issue is—there are different views within Māoridom, and Māoridom are not at one in respect of who should speak for Māori in these issues. There are some people who say that the post - Treaty settlement entities are the only people who should speak with iwi in an area. There are some people who say that it should be iwi organisations who speak for Māori within an area. There are some people who say that in some areas it’s not iwi; it’s hapū—subgroups of iwi. Then there are other groupings like the Māori Council, the Federation of Māori Authorities, who say that there are other Māori groupings, including Māori land - owning groupings and fractioning out Māori trusts and the like who own land assets, and other organisations who have a statutory basis like the Māori Council who should have voice.

On the issue of how you put together regional planning committees, that issue went to the Waitangi Tribunal because there were some who said that the way in which we were putting those regional planning committees together was wrong. The Waitangi Tribunal said that, although they would have liked 50-50 co-governance, they thought the Government was entitled to land it where we were. They further said that the primary group that you should be dealing with generally is iwi or hapū, but they also said that there are occasions when there are representative groupings of Māori, other than iwi and hapū, who should be listened to. So how do you resolve that? Well, to a certain extent, you’ve got to trust Māori to resolve it, and the legislation, effectively, creates mechanisms to allow that to happen, mechanisms to help Māori resolve those disagreements where they have disagreements locally, and time lines by which if those matters are not resolved by Māori, the system launches forward anyway, because the system does have to proceed.

In terms of the National Māori Entity, the support for that, essentially, divides along lines of people who say that it’s only iwi, hapū who should have a voice, and people who say, “No, Federation of Māori Authorities, Māori land ownership trusts, and the likes of the Māori Council, on occasion, should have a voice.” So faced with that choice, the Government, having heard the submissions from both of those viewpoints at the Environment Committee decided we would keep the Māori entity, in part because I can foresee a possibility that, if there are inefficiencies that develop in the way in which Māori are coalescing around how they participate in the new legislation, it might be helpful to have someone like the National Māori Entity both helping the Crown but also help Māori sort those issues out locally. Now, I say that with trepidation because the iwi hapū construct will jump down my throat, and say, “No, we never want to be told what to do.” But I also know that iwi hapū is not the only perspective to be taken into account here, and that’s why this institution has survived. I think it will help, not hinder.

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki-King Country): So to carry on that conversation from a different perspective, if we look at clause 30Q(3) on page 95, “In preparing [the] statement of community outcomes, the territorial authority is subject to the general obligations on decision making”, but over the page it said it “need not ensure that the statement complies with the national planning framework or any regulation other than planning document under this Act or the Spatial Planning Act 2022.”

So my question really is kind of on the same topic because I think I mentioned in the second reading that there were a lot of issues around local voice and how they got transferred on the way up. So I am just a bit concerned about this clause in that the community might actually organise something that doesn’t fit with other parts of this piece of legislation and it creates some tension between everybody.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Thank you to Barbara Kuriger for that question—very good question. The Environment Committee has altered the legislation to make it clearer that statements of community outcome can come up; it can well up from councils who tell the regional planning committee what they think the plan should provide for in terms of the outcomes that they want.

It’s not intended that there is an obligation on the district council, for example, putting forward their statement of community expectations that they have to go through it in absolutely fine detail and, effectively, write the plan for the regional planning committee. That would be a duplication of effort.

Accordingly, we’re not going to impose upon them the duty to dot every “i” and cross every “t” when it comes to the national planning framework. We’re going to say what they want and the level of detail that they want to come out of the plan to meet the expectations of their community, as expressed by the elected councillors in that district. So if we were to go—and it’s a fair question to ask: why don’t they have to meet the details of the national planning framework? But that’s the answer. It’s not expected to necessarily be that detailed.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Oh, thank you, Mr Chair. I want to turn to clause 30I “Delegation of functions by Ministers”, and it says, (1), “A Minister of the Crown may, generally or particularly, delegate to the chief executive of that Minister’s department any of the Minister’s powers, functions, or duties under this Act.”, and, (2), “A delegation made under this section must comply with clause 5 of Schedule 6 of the Public Service Act 2020.” Then it goes to (3), “However, the following functions or duties must not be delegated”—and I won’t go through those. Then, (4) says that the “chief executive may, in accordance with clauses 2 and 3 of Schedule 6 of the Public Service Act 2020, subdelegate any function, power, or duty delegated to them by a Minister under clause 5 of that schedule.” So my question is: why is that power there? If it is thought or deemed appropriate for the chief executive to carry those powers, why isn’t that expressly put in the legislation in the first place, and why, then, when the chief executive has got that, do they have the power to then subdelegate that further down? Because you could in theory have the lowest ranking person in that Government department be the person with the responsibility. And I don’t know that this House—

Hon Scott Simpson: Effectively, Ministerial responsibilities.

STUART SMITH: Well, yes, you know, it doesn’t seem to be that responsible, quite frankly. And there may be a very good reason, and I’m dying to hear it—and I just see the Minister for the Environment’s storing up his energy, ready to spring to his feet the moment I start to even slowly move to take my seat again. But I’m looking forward to the answer, thank you.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you, Madam Chair. We’re making good progress. Well, I’m going to be at about page 94 of the 971 pages; so we’re about 10 percent into it. So we’re making good progress.

I want to ask the Minister about clause 30P—matters for which regional councils have responsibility. There’s a pretty good and, I think, reasonably self-explanatory list relating to the use of land, coastal marine areas, and so forth. But I am particularly interested in 30P(b)(vii), where there has been the inclusion there of responsibility for the emission of noise and mitigating their effects, to include the emission of noise and light and mitigating their effect. I’m interested to know from the Minister what the rationale was for including light. Was does light mean? Who measures that? Who decides?

I come from an area of the country where a portion of my electorate around the Kūaotunu peninsular wants to institute a dark-sky reserve. I’m wondering whether this provision is one that means the Waikato Regional Council will be able to assist in using this clause to help facilitate a dark-sky reserve at the Kūaotunu peninsular. But, in more general terms, if the Minister could cast some light on the reason for the inclusion of light, please.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Could the member assist me by just referring again to the clause number?

Hon Scott Simpson: It’s page 94, clause 30P(b)(vii).

SIMON COURT (ACT): While the Minister is seeking enlightenment, I would just like to come back to a previous question, which I asked the previous Minister that was in the chair, the Hon Rachel Brooking, around—Minister, while you’re looking for that beam of light, under what conditions would the Minister for the Environment appoint a substitute for a local authority, and how is that different or how does that interact with the conditions under which a Minister of Local Government would, say, appoint a commissioner?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): I call on the Minister the Hon Dr David—David Parker. I promoted him to doctor!

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): I’m a mere bachelor! Clause 30P(b)(vii), the emission of noise and light and their effects—that’s actually in relation to the coastal marine area, in conjunction with the Minister of Conservation. So I think that’s limited to the coastal marine area, rather than land more generally. Officials are nodding that—I’ve that wrong? It’s all land, OK.

Well, it’s an example of it. I can tell you an example of a recent letter than I’ve had from a member of the public concerned about flicker from the effect of windmills causing light to flicker like a strobe effect. But beyond that, I’ll take advice from officials and get back to the member. In respect of the question that the member Simon Court has repeated, I repeat the answer of the Hon Rachel Brooking that the Local Government Act sets out the conditions upon which a person can be put into a sister council or to replace them and, under the Resource Management Act, that function sits with the Minister for the Environment under the Resource Management Act, or, in this case, under its replacement Act, the Natural and Built Environment Act. Those are separate functions and separate decision-making criteria.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): So I just want to follow up on this question of light, because I do think it’s quite an interesting one and accept that this is a clause that relates to the coastal marine area. But, of course, in an electorate like mine, the electoral boundaries are about 500 kilometres of coast. So this potential for being able to control the emission of light and mitigating the effect of light from the coastal marine area potentially upon coastal land, or an area of coastal land, is quite significant and of interest to me and my constituents.

Simon Watts: Is that where the sun rises?

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: Simon Watts wants to know if it’s where the sun rises. Well—

Simon Watts: The beautiful Coromandel.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: The beautiful Coromandel hasn’t seen much sun lately. That’s been part of the problem. We haven’t seen much sun. But I am interested to just tease that out a bit, because the example that the Minister gave about a windmill—is that maybe in relation to an offshore windmill? Would it be, for instance, there’s a lighthouse on Cuvier Island? Some people might decide that the light from the lighthouse is causing some grief.

But I’m interested to know, because it’s been an addition. The original subclause, 644(b)(vii), didn’t have the “and light” in, but “light” has been now included. So I’m still keen for the Minister to give us a little more “light” on the situation.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): I call on the Minister, the Hon Dr David Parker.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Again? I’m advised by officials that the power is necessary for both territorial authorities in respect of land—that’s covered by clause 30R(b). In respect of the coastal marine area, those functions are exercised by the Minister of Conservation. So it’s just consistency across both of those domains.

TAMA POTAKA (National—Hamilton West): I just wanted to follow up the professorial comments regarding the vexed issue of Māori politics but in relation to Subpart 5 and the interaction that that has with clause 5(10) and clause 6(2), because the comment that was made is that there was an accommodation for iwi, corporations, trusts, and every other man and his Māori through the National Māori Entity and the establishment of that. That’s already drawn the ire of the Māori Freshwater Forum leaders. But the understanding when you interpret between clause 30 and the National Māori Entity, and you revert back to clauses 3, 4, 5, and 6(2)—my understanding from the materials was there was a commitment to uphold the kawa and mana and tikanga of iwi and hapū. But, now, we’re told, actually, the National Māori Entity is more about accommodating every man and his Māori. So I’d like to get a commitment from the Minister for the Environment that, actually, we are focused on the kawa and mana of iwi and hapū, as espoused in those early clauses in Part 1, rather than some pan-tribal notion of what kawa and tikanga happen to be.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): I believe I addressed that in my earlier comments.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Well, thank you, Madam Chair. Minister for the Environment, in 30T, “Minister of Conservation has certain powers of local authority”, “(1) The Minister of Conservation—(a) has, in respect of the coastal marine areas of the Kermadec Islands, the Snares Islands, the Bounty Islands, the Antipodes Islands, the Auckland Islands, Campbell Island, and the islands adjacent to Campbell Island, the functions, powers, and duties that a regional council would have under this Act if those coastal marine areas were within the region of that regional council”. Firstly, is that the case under the current legislation? Secondly, would this have any impact on a Kermadec sanctuary when the Government brings that bill to the House? Yeah, that’d be great.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Yes, it is the case. It’s found at section 31A of the Resource Management Act—it’s a carry-over. There is no regional council that covers those areas, therefore the regional council functions that affect those uninhabited islands fall to the Department of Conservation. And in respect of the Kermadecs, were there to be a marine reserve in the areas around the Kermadecs, I don’t think that would affect the outcome of that.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): I move, That the question be now put.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. Minister, I just want to come back to the functions of regional planning committees—clause 30N—and the power for the regional planning committee to set any environmental limit and interim limit for a region that the national planning framework requires the plan to prescribe.

Minister, I just want to ask you: how is it fair and reasonable that an unelected, only appointed planning committee, which includes not just, potentially, appointees from local council—and not necessarily elected members; they could be officials, they could be technocrats, plus a minimum of two iwi Māori. How is it fair and reasonable that an unelected planning committee should be allowed to set environmental limits that affect productive use of land in regions, particularly where primary production, where farming, is the main activity, or even in urban environments, where manufacturing, for example, and using water, for example, in an urban environment, or even having stormwater discharging off large commercial industrial sites, has an effect on receiving waters, receiving environments? Those are currently consented. Those consents are issued by local councils, and those local councils which set rules for their region are democratically elected—at least, their governing body is.

So how is it fair and reasonable that regional planning committees will be setting environmental limits and that the people who live in those regions which depend on being able to use their environment and who could potentially agree on what effect on a common resource they’re prepared to accept won’t be able to do that? That power will be taken out of their hands.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Thank you, Madam Chair. The scheme of this system is that you go down from over 100 plans to 16, and they are put together regionally. Once you take that decision to put them together regionally—and we think there are good reasons to do that, relating to the quality of the plans and the way in which you can approach planning regionally in respect of the issues that are identified through a spatial strategy, flowing through to Natural and Built Environment Act plans; it makes good sense to do it regionally.

Once you do it regionally, you don’t have any choice but to put it together through a body that is formed from the constituent organisations, and we’ve been through the fact that the formation of those committees, which we’ve spoken to in the discussion on the earlier part, is left to the local councils, working with local Māori interests. If they can’t agree, the decision is taken by the Local Government Commission. Every council has a right to appoint at least one person to that committee, and beyond that it’s up to the locals to sort out. There’s a minimum of two Māori representatives, and if they can’t agree, the Local Government Commission does it.

Now, there were some differing viewpoints around that at local government. The local government steering group that we put together, who we’ve worked with extensively, who provided very good input, was concerned to make sure that that didn’t mean there was a loss of democratic input, which is why the statements of community expectation are provided for and strengthened in the bill.

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki-King Country): Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to go to clause 30ZB and ask the Minister if a local authority or regional planning committee receives a request for joint management, if there’s something that they see goes across border—must firstly “notify the Minister”, in subclause (1)(a), and then “(b) satisfy itself that each possible party to the proposed … agreement” does certain things—given the geography of our country and the 16 regional planning committees that the Minister talked about before, how often does the Minister envisage having a Minister having requests, in terms of people or organisations and groups wanting to cross borders? I’m just questioning whether it’s seen that it may become an onerous task or maybe an occasional happening.

SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. It’s a pleasure to make a contribution in regards to this bill. I’m interested in particular around clause 30P, “Matters for which regional councils responsible”. In regards to that clause, in particular, 30P(b)(iv), which is the aspects around discharges of water into water, which is relevant in the context in terms of how this clause, which is in regards to matters for which local authorities are responsible. I’m interested in the Minister’s contribution in regards to how this interacts with the legislation which actually has quite a lot of similarities to this, the three waters legislation, and the Water Services Entities Act in particular. But I’m interested in regards to how that clause interacts with that other aspect of legislation, in regards to this saying that these are matters for which regional councils are responsible for, but obviously the water services entities now have responsibility for particular aspects around the discharge of water into water.

Further to that, subclause 30P(e)(i)(B), which relates to maintaining and enhancing the quality of water in the water body, again has a significant overlay in regards to the water services entities roles. I guess the question there is around what the alignment is between these two aspects of the legislation that have to be considered, in terms of the fact that the water services entities actually will be taking responsibility for that, which are not regional councils. And where’s the demarcation line in regards to those accountabilities and responsibilities lie—in regards to that?

The enhancing of water quality in the water body will no doubt become part of the responsibility of Taumata Arowai, which is the water quality regulator, as well. Again, not the role of regional councils. No doubt, you know, through the process that consideration would have been made, but I’m interested around some clarity in that regard. Thank you.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): In respect of the question around joint management agreements, it’s similar to the provisions found in the Resource Management Act at sections 36B and 36E, so it’s a carry-over of that—or similar to it.

In respect of the question that Simon Watts has just asked around clause 30P of the bill—soon to be section 30P of the Act—discharges of sewage, for example, or stormwater are required to have a Resource Management Act consent now; in the future, they will require a Natural and Built Environment Act consent for that discharge. So there’s no change to that.

In respect of the interface with the regulator, the regulator can set minimum standards for the drinking water that comes out of a tap, and they will, but the permit to extract the water from a river, for example, that might then be treated to a standard that comes out of a tap has always been dealt with under the Resource Management Act and will continue to be dealt with under the replacement legislation.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. Another water question. Subpart 7, which is at the end of Part 2A, deals with the establishment and role of the Freshwater Working Group—clause 30ZZI, page 117 of the bill and following. That group has got to be established and has got to report back, under the bill, to the Minister not later than 31 October 2024. The Government established the Kāhui Wai Māori group to work on fresh water in 2018 to initiate a wider conversation with Māori. How does the Freshwater Working Group differ from Kāhui Wai Māori, or will it build on the work of Kāhui Wai Māori group, and has the Minister and the Government done any work to actually establish the Freshwater Working Group already? There’s been a lot of work that’s been done before the bill passes, in terms of the National Planning Framework, and I just wondered, in terms of the quite compressed time frame to have that conversation on freshwater allocation with iwi and hapū at the regional and local level, what work has been done already to get that group established, going, and how it relates to Kāhui Wai Māori?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Kāhui Wai Māori was largely dealing with water quality issues that were landed during the last Parliament, through the changes to the National Policy Statement on Freshwater Management, the new national environmental standard, and some regulations that were passed at the same time, as well as some amendments to the Resource Management Act, which changed the process for the creation of water plans. So that group is, if you like, functus officio—doesn’t do anything now; it’s finished its job, largely.

This grouping here, again, there are viewpoints of some within Māoridom that this should be only freshwater iwi and hapū. It seems to me that that’s a pretty narrow view of the interests that have to be considered. I think, if you were coming up with a fair allocation methodology for water, you would have to consider the interests of the likes of Māori land owner groups. There hasn’t been much preparatory work gone into the creation of this group; although, I intend in the next little while to write to people and say, “Look, can you start forming this advisory group.” It is a working group. It doesn’t have determinative powers but it does set up a process that obliges the Government to actually deal with these long outstanding issues and try and bring them some time to a conclusion. It has a number of stages in the process, and, in the end, subject to there being no national direction to the contrary—and by that time, a future Government of whatever persuasion might have some further national direction on the issue—but in the absence of that additional national direction, the decision would be left to the regional planning committee or a subcommittee of that regional planning committee to make the final determination as to what the plan would change.

What the effect of this is to actually knock over “first in, first served” as being, essentially, the way in which water is allocated. That was good historically. I know people are critical of “first in, first served”. When water was ample and there was more than enough to go around, who did you serve it up to but the person who asked, and which order did you serve it up? You gave it to the person who asked first, because there’s no competition for the water. That’s “first in, first served”; it just no longer works and has economically inefficient outcomes to the detriment of the New Zealand economy, as well as unfair outcomes to the detriment of people who haven’t got those historic water entitlements and perhaps didn’t have the ability to use water, because they lacked a capital base to develop their land. We need to work those issues through in the future as a country. This isn’t the end of that process, but it does create a process that will come to an end.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Minister, I want to ask you about Mana Whakahono ā Rohe—beginning on page 109. My question really goes to the potential scenario of different hapū and iwi with overlapping areas of interest. Let’s say in a scenario, one hapū or iwi might wish to set up a Mana Whakahono ā Rohe. That might go through a period of time—some months maybe—and I note that participating authorities must conclude a Mana Whakahono ā Rohe not later than 12 months after the date in which the invitation was received or within any other period agreed by all the participating authorities.

My question is: what happens if that goes through a number of months, then, say, another hapū or iwi with an overlapping area of interest decides to set up their own one, and then, if we proceed through this, they cannot come to an agreement? I note clause 30ZZD, “Resolution of disputes in course of negotiations” in which participating authorities choose a binding or non-binding process involving an arbitrator or mediator and that they can’t resolve it, then they may individually or jointly seek the assistance of the Minister. I’m curious why there is no timing on when the Minister needs to make a decision on whether to appoint and meet the costs of a Crown facilitator and direct the participating authority to use a specified dispute resolution process for that purpose.

But in addition to that, I note that clause 30ZZE specifically talks about what happens when the disputing parties have an overlapping area of interest and do not wish to work collectively on developing a Mana Whakahono ā Rohe arrangement. I note that the parties to the dispute must attend a hui facilitated by an independent person appointed by the Māori Land Court and if a dispute remains unresolved, then the Chief Judge of the Māori Land Court must make a final determination of the matter. And I note under clause 30ZZF that timing has been given there and that once proceedings commence they must be commenced not later than two months after the date of the hui referred to above.

So my question is: how long could this entire process take and why is there not any legislative requirement for timing specified in respect of the Minister’s decision to require that a Crown facilitator be appointed and for parties to the dispute to attend a hui? It looks, by my reading of this, that it could take a very, very long time before matters are resolved potentially going through the mechanisms that are specified in this piece of legislation.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Thank you, Madam Chair. The member will see that underneath the end of all of these clauses there’s a reference to “1991 No 69 s 58P”, looking at, for example, clause 30ZZ to which the member referred. That’s the reference to the same provision in the Resource Management Act. Those provisions were introduced by the prior National-ACT Government, with the support of the Māori Party, in order to try and actually create some practical mechanisms to make relationships between councils and Māori work better, and they’re carried on into the new legislation. There are sometimes time frames. For example, clause 30ZZA sets out the time frame for settling Mana Whakahono ā Rohe agreements and it says that “If an invitation is initiated under section 30ZY(1), the participating authorities must conclude a Mana Whakahono ā Rohe (a) not later than 12 months after the date … [when] the invitation is received; or (b) within any other period agreed by … the participating authorities.” So there are mechanisms to bring these things to a head.

I think one of the great improvements in this legislation over the current legislation actually relates to who you should have to notify in respect of a notified consent. That’s considered in a later part of the legislation, but, essentially, currently there is a non-codified list maintained by Te Puni Kōkiri. One of the frustrations that councils write to me about, and applicants, at times is they use the list in good faith and then someone else pops up and says, “I should have been on the list. You didn’t consult with me, therefore you’re in breach of your duties.”, and they get sued and sometimes injuncted. In those other parts of the Act, we’re making that list a code that can be relied upon by people at the date they use it so that they have certainty that if they use that list, then they have dealt with the right people. That doesn’t mean to say that the list can’t be updated for the future. It can be, but the decision as to who they consulted on the date they accessed the list can’t be second-guessed.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): I move, That the question be now put.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Minister, thank you for your answer before. I just want to clarify that point you made around clause 30ZZA and the “Time frame for settling Mana Whakahono ā Rohe”, which must be “not later than 12 months after the date on which the invitation is received”. What happens if, prior to that 12 months, a dispute does arise between parties, say, with an overlapping area of interest—say, two or more hapū or iwi—and then this mediation process has to happen?

What happens to that provision, that it must be “not later than 12 months”? Will that Mana Whakahono ā Rohe still have to be concluded not later than 12 months notwithstanding the dispute that hasn’t been resolved, or will that dispute have to be resolved and therefore they have the section 30ZZA specification of “not later than 12 months” become void to some degree?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Clause 30ZZD says that if a dispute arises amongst the participating authorities in the course of negotiating one of those agreements, they “may undertake a binding process to resolve the dispute; but if they do not agree on a binding process, [they] must undertake a non-binding process of dispute resolution.”

TANGI UTIKERE (Chief Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.

Ayes 72

New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.

Noes 44

New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Simon Court’s amendments to Part 2A of Supplementary Order Paper 389 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 392 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments to the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 44

New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 72

New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.

Amendments to the amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 2A set out on Supplementary Order Paper 389 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 72

New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.

Noes 44

New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.

Amendments agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 2A as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 72

New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.

Noes 47

New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2; Whaitiri.

Part 2A as amended agreed to.

Part 3 National planning framework

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members, we come now to Part 3. This is the debate on clauses 32 to 94, which is the “National planning framework”, including Schedule 6. The question is that Part 3 stand part.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): I thought the committee might be interested to understand why clause 35 is in the bill. Clause 35 records that “Te Ture Whaimana is intended by Parliament to be the primary direction-setting document for the Waikato and Waipā Rivers and activities within their catchments”, and you’ll see that there’s reference at subclause (3) to the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Act 2010, the Ngati Tuwharetoa, Raukawa, and Te Arawa River Iwi Waikato River Act 2010, and the Nga Wai o Maniapoto (Waipa River) Act 2012. Now, all of those are Treaty settlements. All of those Treaty settlements were agreed by the last National-ACT Government, and they include promises to Māori in respect of the national direction under the Resource Management Act (RMA), where the national direction under the RMA is not allowed to be inconsistent with Te Ture Whaimana, which is a schedule to those agreements and which sets out the aspirations for the Waikato and Waipā rivers. So what that provision does is it carries forward the primacy of that.

The principle that’s been adopted by the Government in respect of all Treaty settlement obligations is that we are neither writing them up nor writing them down. We’re just transitioning them into the new system, like for like, updated for the new processes under the new Act. I mention that because it’s of considerable importance to those iwi that have those provisions in their Treaty settlements. There are other provisions in the schedules to the Act, which we’ll come to later, that have more general promises by the Crown to uphold Treaty settlements.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the Minister providing that background information. It was useful. Part 3, “National planning framework”, sets out the requirements for such a framework, and clause 33 sets out the purpose, which it says it is to achieve by “(a) providing direction on the integrated management of the environment in relation to—(i) matters of national significance; and (ii) matters for which national consistency is desirable; and (iii) matters for which consistency is desirable in some, but not all, parts of New Zealand; and (b) providing direction on the resolution of conflicts about environmental matters, including those between or among system outcomes; and (c) setting environmental limits and targets.”

So my question at the outset in this part to the Minister is: could he provide the committee of the whole House a layman’s guide to the national planning framework and the kind of insight and oversight as to why this framework is going to be put in place, what it hopes to achieve, and why it’s there. I’m asking him that question because, again, I think that this is a piece of the whole legislation that needs to be understood by laypeople, not just those who are practising resource management or who are planning professionals or, indeed, are specialists in the area but from people who are just interested New Zealanders wanting to get things done. Can the Minister just explain, perhaps giving us what is essentially an elevator pitch to the national planning framework please?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank the member for the question. This is actually an important part of the new system, as national direction has been an important part of the Resource Management Act (RMA). One of the criticisms of the Resource Management Act is there has been too much uncertainty left for regional and district planning because of the absence of national direction. Therefore, there has not been enough guidance given to councils about what should be done in their planning instruments—a common criticism by local government, by central government, and by civil society, whether they’re development or environmental interests, depending on the issue.

Now, this Government has already filled in some holes in the existing national direction. Existing national direction has a number of instruments under the RMA: national policy statements, national environmental standards, and regulations under section 360 and various subsections of the RMA. All of those are combined into the national planning framework, so they’re consolidated into a document which will have various chapters. Those chapters will include the existing national direction that we have around air quality for controlling the small particles that give people asthma, for example, if you have too much coal burnt in an area. They will include the transitioned and, essentially, like for like—the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management and the national environment standards that we have for various things.

In addition, there’s going to be some new national direction in the first version of the national planning framework. Some of it is more grunty than other pieces. The most grunty bit of new national direction will be the section of the national planning framework where the drafting is being led by the Infrastructure Commission to make easier the consenting of infrastructure. One of the purposes of the bill—and we discussed this under the discussion on Part 1 of the bill—is to enable development once you’re protecting those natural environmental values, and one of the ways you do that and drive cost out of the system is to make it possible to have more permitted activities. In order to have more permitted activities, you can’t have as many bespoke conditions for things like sediment control or noise when you’re building a road or a new building, and in order to move away from notified applications, or, indeed, controlled activities that aren’t necessarily notified but none the less require a bespoke application and bespoke consent conditions to be set by the consent authority, is to enable the creation of standards around those sorts of issues that can, effectively, be adopted by someone that needs permission to do something.

So the new national direction that’s coming from the Infrastructure Commission, which will be a new chapter in the national planning framework, will be facilitative of the infrastructure that we need in our cities and our towns and, indeed, in rural areas, and it’ll drive cost out of the system. That’s one of the ways in which the very considerable cost savings that are achieved in the new system compared with the old system are achieved.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you very much. That was a useful elevator pitch. I’m not sure, though, that an ordinary citizen going about their day-to-day life and work would necessarily still be any more informed as to the purpose of the planning framework. But still, none the less, it was a useful exposition.

Clauses 37A, 37B, and 37C propose, firstly, minimum acceptable limits, then clause 37B proposes the purpose of mandatory targets, and then clause 37C proposes the purpose of discretionary targets. I’m interested to hear from the Minister about the rationale and practical application of those three clauses and what they might mean in real terms for someone, for instance, who wants to—I don’t know—build some apartments in an urban environment or maybe a house in a rural environment, and what those practical applications are in terms of the limits, the targets, and the standards.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): The areas for which there must be environmental limits are set out at clause 38(1), and that’s air, indigenous biodiversity, coastal water, estuaries, freshwater, and soil. The rest are discretionary.

In respect of what that might mean for someone building a house, well, probably not a lot, unless you were building a house next to or in an estuary. If you were building a house next to an estuary and you were likely to have a disturbance to the land that would cause a lot of sediment to flow into the estuary, you might breach a limit. But other than that, I would have thought it’s unlikely to have much effect on someone building a house.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m just continuing that discussion on environmental limits, which are an important part of the bill and which the select committee did quite a lot of work on to strengthen them because of the concerns of submitters that it was locking in existing degradation. The bill requires minimum acceptable limits to be set if ecological integrity is unacceptably degraded, and that environmental limit can be set in the national planning framework (NPF). I’m interested, Minister, in what work the Ministry for the Environment (MFE) has done to date around management units, because the limits need to be identified in the management unit where the environmental limits might be set.

We’ve seen recent coverage of the major air quality problems because of the industrial area in Mount Maunganui, and dust is quite a significant issue there. We have national environmental standards for air quality which deal with the bigger particles—PM10—but not, as I understand it, the smaller particles—the PM2.5—which are more dangerous because they can get into the lungs.

So in terms of those environmental domains that the Minister highlighted from clause 38, which of those is the ministry going to prioritise in terms of setting environmental limits, recognising that a lot of those existing national policy direction and national environmental standards are going to come across—except when they’re being reviewed—into the transitional NPF? So what work has MFE been doing on identifying management units, what is the time frame for getting those identified, and what out of those environmental domains is the ministry going to prioritise for setting new limits?

The Minister mentioned sediment. Sediment is a major issue in the Hauraki Gulf. We continue to get a lot of sediment run-off from earthworks. Is the impact on coastal water and estuaries of sediment going to be one of those areas where there might be some strengthened limits?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): The management unit for the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management (NPSFM) is being protected so it’s not re-litigated. So that management unit carries on into the first version of plans.

In respect of the rules relating to the existing limits that we have in other national direction like air quality, we’re not proposing to change that in the first version of the national planning framework (NPF); we’re just transitioning everything in as is. But there is work under way to the ministry to update that air standard in the future. In respect of estuaries, again, the first version of the NPF will just carry forward the NPSFM, and it won’t change that.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m just carrying on sort of a discussion on clause 38, “Environmental limits”, because I think the chair of the select committee raises some good questions. Particularly, I’m interested in what happens where there are conflicts between limits, and I’m thinking that maybe there could be situations where there’s a conflict between coastal water and estuaries, for instance. How are those conflicts or potential conflicts going to be managed?

Secondly, I’m keen to know from the Minister, with reference to clause 38(2), which states, “Environmental limits may be set for any other aspect of the natural environment in accordance with the purpose of environmental limits.”—I’m interested to know what the Minister imagines could be included under clause 38(2): what they might be, how they might be determined, who decides, and what the process is for inclusion of any other aspect of the natural environment in accordance with the purposes of the environmental limits. Thank you.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): In respect of conflicts between or tensions between different national directions, the national planning framework can provide direction on the resolution of conflicts about environmental matters, including those between or among system outcomes, and that’s provided for in that clause 33(b). In respect of other environmental limits, I’ll take advice from the ministry before I respond to that.

TAMA POTAKA (National—Hamilton West): Just in relation to clause 35 in Part 3, “Te Ture Whaimana”—which are remarkable sets of legislation to do with the Waikato and Waipā rivers—has there been any consideration given to the Te Papakura o Taranaki arrangements that are about to be settled with the various iwi of Taranaki and any future arrangements that may be curated in the Treaty settlement - scape in the event that other iwi or other organisations are set to have their settlement arrangements at an elevation higher than the national planning framework? Or is that going to be something that in the event there is an ongoing Labour-led Government, they will not permit?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): There are general propositions that are set out in other parts of the bill and not this part of the bill, under which the Crown promises to uphold all Treaty settlements.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Madam Chair, thank you. I just want to explore with the Minister the implications of clause 40, which is the form of environmental limits, and, in particular, where it says that “An environmental limit must be expressed as relating to the ecological integrity of an aspect of the natural environment”—so, for example, in clause 40(2)(b), “the amount of harm or stress to the natural environment that may be permitted in a management unit.”

Minister, I’m really interested as to how that may be determined, because if I’m thinking about, say, the conditions in a period of warm, dry weather, or a warmer dry cycle like, say, El Nino, it might affect the East Coast of the North Island, as opposed to the La Nina weather pattern, which has been much, much wetter. How would it be possible to set an environmental limit that would allow for natural variation in climate conditions, for example, when we’re looking at water abstraction from rivers or aquifers for production, or we may be looking at other matters, like, for example, carrying out soil-disturbing activities or earthworks, which create a risk, if they’re not well managed, of allowing soil to discharge to waterways, or of allowing erosion, generating sediment.

So, Minister, I’m interested as to how the form of environmental limit will be set with respect to the amount of harm or stress to the natural environment that may be permitted in a management unit, thinking about climate change, weather patterns, and the specific example around earthworks and the amount of disturbance that might be allowed. Is that envisaged as part of setting this limit?

Minister, I also want to just ask you to comment on clause 40C, “Lack of scientific certainty no reason to delay or not set limits”. Now, that seems like a remarkable clause to include in a bill which purports to be about managing natural and built environments. I mean, how is it possible? On what basis could a limit be set on, potentially, the condition of a waterway or the condition of a wetland or air quality if you don’t have the data and if you don’t know whether you are making a decision?

If you can’t quantify the costs and benefits when you’re making a decision, that may have quite significant impacts for businesses that are manufacturing, for organisations that depend on being able to take water from groundwater, from surface water, or from impoundments for their own use. How on earth in the 21st century—in 2023—are we making decisions about setting limits in the absence of scientific certainty, Minister?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Dealing with the earlier question about clause 38(2), I’m advised that for an example of what an area that you could have environmental limits would be, an example could be non-indigenous biodiversity—no plans to do that at the moment, but you could do that in the future.

In respect of the question about environmental limits, if it were related to human health, you’d get advice from the Ministry of Health, and that’s set out at clause 40(3A). In respect of other environmental limits, it will be developed by central government agencies if it is an environmental limit for national direction, and then there’s a process through which that is tested by a board of inquiry process.

In respect of clause 40C, that’s not intended to mean that you don’t need any scientific basis; that’s just saying that the fact that your science isn’t perfect shouldn’t stop you acting. For example, you might have uncertainties as to what’s an exact population, but you might need to protect what’s left before you know the exact numbers.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, that’s a fascinating explanation of clause 40C and how it might be interpreted or applied, Minister. I guess one of the problems with that is, as an organisation or an individual or a landowner affected by a limit set under clause 40C, how would you be able to establish whether, in fact, the effects on your property, on your business, on your undertakings, or on your person were acceptable compared to the harm that the limit is intending to prevent, because usually, when we go to court, we have some understanding of the rule of law and how it might apply.

So if a Government organisation or a council is going to set a limit or a parcel regulation or a by-law based on certain facts or evidence, that should be contestable—it always is—yet if what the Minister is saying is that we might just decide to limit something, even though we don’t have all the facts and the evidence, but we’ve heard that a population might be at risk, so we’re going to set a limit—well, imagine that that applied to, say, the Archey’s frog in the Coromandel. Now, the Archey’s frog is a tiny little frog. In fact, I say to the Hon Eugenie Sage that you might have even seen one in the flesh. I understand that it’s about as big as your thumbnail.

There is some concern amongst people who are passionate about the environment in Coromandel in the North Island that the population of Archey’s frog may be quite small. In fact, it may be almost on the verge of extinction or at least an endangered species, and yet there’s a mining company called OceanaGold, which proposes to carry out some activity in the Coromandel and they have undertaken surveys of the Archey’s frog population to provide some evidence about the population. What they’ve found from setting out some transects and from staking out some test and evaluation areas is that, potentially, the number of Archey’s frogs is tens or a hundred times more than was originally estimated in those areas.

So, Minister, if there was a case where a Government department or one of the people or entities that has power to set these limits was to set a limit, say, about a frog—they had heard anecdotally or from a lobby group or an activist group or a local environmental group that they were concerned about it—and yet there were actually businesses who wanted to undertake activities that employ hundreds and hundreds of people; potentially generate hundreds of millions of dollars in export earnings for New Zealand; and pay a royalty to the Crown for the minerals that they that they earn, their business and their opportunity could be extinguished on the whim of a decision maker who decides in the absence of scientific certainty that they will set a limit on, say, how much land can be disturbed or how many trees can be cleared in order to protect a nominal population of frogs.

I’m sure the member for Coromandel, the Hon Scott Simpson, who’s also very passionate about the frogs, as is the Hon Eugenie Sage, a former Minister of Conservation—I’m sure that if they were to stand up and say, “We’re worried about the frogs.”, a future Minister for the Environment might just say, “Well, we’re just going to stop whatever’s happening there.” Imagine how difficult that would be to contest if you were involved in resource development, if you had hundreds and hundreds of people’s employment at risk, and if you’d also proposed foreign direct investment in the order of hundreds of millions of dollars to drill a tunnel under private land to access the gold reserve under Department of Conservation - managed land so that you could get the resource out without even harming a frog—but somebody could still set a limit about how much soil or land you’re allowed to clear, in order to protect the frogs in the absence of any evidence.

Minister, would you care to explain how this might work in practice, how this could be contestable, and what opportunities there are for those affected by such a limit to challenge this?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): The clause doesn’t say that the decision maker is entitled to ignore relevant evidence. In that sort of situation, I would have thought that if a limit was set ignoring that evidence, the decision maker would be at risk of that decision being struck down to judicial review. So that’s not what the clause says.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ve followed the contribution of my colleague Simon Court with great interest, particularly his references to Archey’s frogs, which are prevalent in debatable numbers in the Coromandel. Some say they are endangered and some say they are in a larger number. But while he was talking, I particularly was thinking of Thames-Coromandel district councillor Robyn Sinclair, who often refers to the skull of a duck being an issue that she is most often conscious of.

But I want to come back to the actual legislation. There is a provision under clause 40B(3) which relates to the determination of a time frame for the responsible Minister or regional planning committee to “consider any relevant matter,”. Now, in the original bill, that clause went on to say “including any cultural, social, wellbeing, or economic considerations.” Under the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 389, the words “cultural, social, wellbeing, or economic” appear to have been dropped and simply replaced with the wrap-all word “well-being”.

What I’m keen to know from the Minister is why that change has been made, and particularly why the word “economic” has been dropped when determining time frames. I would have thought that that was a factor that should have been included—and, yes, wellbeing may well include that. But I think the clause actually had far better meaning and was more useful when the longer form matters, including cultural, social, wellbeing, or economic considerations, were included. So if the Minister could advise why that truncation has been included and why particularly the word “economic” has been dropped from clause 40B(3), please?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): It’s because on page 65 of the bill, “well-being” is defined to mean “the social, economic, environmental, and cultural well-being of people and communities, and includes their health and safety”. So it’s, effectively, just a technical correction.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. Minister, I want to come to clause 52A, “Protected customary rights may be exercised despite a limit or target”. The ACT Party absolutely supports the right of iwi Māori and hapū to exercise their protected customary rights, particularly those that have been recognised through Treaty settlements and where they have a role in managing the natural environment or in making decisions about natural resources, because that has been agreed by Parliament as a solution to past historical wrongs, grievances, loss of land, and loss of access to resources.

But this is really interesting, because this says that those rights may be exercised despite a limit or a target—I mean, when you’re trying to imagine how this piece of legislation might work in practice, which many, many people are, many organisations are wondering “How on earth are we meant to operate under this new legislation after it may be passed in this term of Government?” Thinking about when it comes to the marine and coastal area, what are those resources that might be covered by a limit or target, Minister, and how is a decision maker supposed to balance the needs of all of those people or organisations who might have themselves a right to access those resources which are covered under the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act? How are they supposed to have their rights for access protected, for example, where, potentially, they have a wharf or a port or a jetty or a boat ramp or some other feature in the coastal marine area which is impacted by the provisions of the Takutai Moana Act?

So what the ACT Party is interested in is how would a decision maker be expected to balance where limits and targets are set that might unintentionally but excessively impact one group of resource users over another, whose customary rights are protected?

Isn’t it the case that all humans exist on this planet Earth? Even in this bill, at clause 13, we discussed previously, in fact, with the Minister in the chair at the time, the Hon Rachel Brooking, that all people have an obligation to protect the health of the environment. So how is it that when protecting the environment and expecting to uphold te Oranga o te Taiao, there’s one group of people whose customary rights are protected, and another group of people who, when a limit is set, have to bear the weight of all the imposition of that limit? Minister, would you describe how that is supposed to work in practice?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): I can confirm that all humans exist on this planet Earth. There is the occasional space cadet, but they generally come back after a short period of time.

In respect of the issue of customary rights under the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011, there is a narrow set of unexpired customary rights and interests under that Act that are a pre-existing property right. They’re not a resource consent; they are a communal property right. They’re generally very narrow. For things like an area where you’re entitled to launch a waka or collect tangi stones, these are pretty narrow, and those are not affected by either the Resource Management Act or the new Act.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): I move, That the question be now put.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I want to focus in on clause 44, on exemptions. Clause 44, “Exemptions from environmental limits or minimum acceptable limits may be directed”, provides for: “(1) The responsible Minister may, on request, direct in the national planning framework an exemption from—(a) an environmental limit relating to ecological integrity; or (b) a minimum acceptable target that has been achieved.” Now, my question to the Minister, primarily, around exemptions is: what will be the parameters of the granting of an exemption, and, as Minister, what are the sorts of things that he will be looking for in a practical sense that might embolden him to—if he is requested—agree to an exemption on the basis of the other parts of clause 44?

It strikes me that there is a reasonable likelihood that there will be requests for exemptions. It’s obviously a clause that has been put into the legislation for practical reasons, but I’m keen to know what the sweet point will be for the granting of an exemption once one has been requested, what sorts of things will he as Minister, for instance, take into account, and what assurances can he give that a future Minister might respond in the same manner or style that he might consider appropriate?

It strikes me that as we’ve discussed in the previous parts in the bill, the Minister has very wide powers under this legislation, and this is another area where a framework has been put in place, a set of time frames and other limits have been put in place, and there are some targets and there are some mandatory minimums and so forth, and yet here is an immediate out where, if the request is made, the Minister can create an exemption. So, Minister, if you could please just explain a little bit about how you see clause 44 working and what the considerations might be, and that will include, perhaps, a discussion about clauses 45 and 46 as well. Thank you.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): The member is correct that the essential features of an exemption are set out in clause 45. An exemption from a minimum limit must be designed with the least possible loss of ecological integrity, and there are areas where an exemption can’t be granted. When it is, the Schedule 6 process for changing national direction must be followed.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. Minister, I want to come to clause 58, “National planning framework must provide direction on certain matters”. Now, you’ve mentioned earlier that there are provisions under this part of the bill which, essentially, translate the concerns of the Infrastructure Commission into a set of provisions which enable infrastructure to be built in a quicker way and delivered in a more efficient way. I think, Minister, if I’m not misquoting you, you might have stated at one point that this bill will enable infrastructure to be delivered quicker, faster, and cheaper, or something along those lines. Well, the Infrastructure Commission has pointed out that under the current consenting system, it is costing $1.3 billion just to consent infrastructure in New Zealand every year. That’s without building it or even putting up the silt fence or establishing the temporary sediment control pond.

So, Minister, I’m interested in what clause 58, on the national planning framework—what direction would enable infrastructure and development corridors to be provided for? What direction would enable renewable electricity generation and its transmission to be provided for?

Minister, I want to ask you that in the context of the amendment that ACT proposed to clause 7—actually, I’m just going to grab it here—of the bill, which—in fact, that’s the wrong bill. We’ve got so many bills here—we’ve got so many bills here, Minister.

Basically, if I was to paraphrase it, the amendment that ACT proposed to clause 7 would allow for connection to the grid for smaller renewable generation to the local transmission network or the grid without having to go through all of the consenting frameworks. So, Minister, given that the national planning framework must provide direction on certain matters, could you just enlighten us as to how that might work when it comes to enabling infrastructure and development corridors and enabling renewable electricity generation and its transmission, so that the members here and those watching at home can watch Parliament suspend tonight at least having felt that we’ve achieved something.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): I can confirm that the existing national direction in respect of transmission and renewable generation will be transitioned into the national planning framework, as will the updated form of the national policy statement on renewable generation, which is currently being consulted upon. In addition to that, there are provisions relating to the encouragement of renewable electricity.

In respect of the member’s point as to electricity connected to local lines distribution rather than to the national grid, there is a Minister’s amendment to similar effect. We agree with the member on that point.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members, the time has come for me to leave the Chair. This sitting is suspended and we will resume the committee stage at 9 a.m. tomorrow morning. Pō mārie.

Sitting suspended from 10 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Wednesday)

TUESDAY, 25 JULY 2023

(continued on Wednesday, 26 July 2023)

Bills

Natural and Built Environment Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed.

Part 3 National planning framework (continued)

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Good morning, members. Welcome back to the discussion on Part 3 of the bill.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you, Mr Chair. Well, it’s good to be back here in extended sitting hours at 9 o’clock in the morning. For those people who may be watching at home or listening on the radio, we are debating in the committee of the whole House Supplementary Order Paper 389 on the Natural and Built Environment Bill, in the name of the Minister for the Environment. We’re up to Part 3 of the legislation. It’s the area that involves environmental limits, the national planning framework and the various requirements for the framework, how the framework is to operate, what the purpose of the environmental limits are, the purpose of targets, for instance, and how environmental limits are to be set.

I want to, at the outset of this first call, just remind the committee of the whole House, and, indeed, as I say, anybody else that is listening or tuned in this morning, that the National Party opposes this legislation in its entirety. So when we go through the particular clauses of the bill—all nearly 900 pages of it—we are doing so knowing full well that if we have the opportunity and the privilege to lead a new Government in October this year, this legislation in its entirety will be repealed before Christmas.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Bearing in mind, we are on Part 3, Mr Simpson.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: That’s a commitment we have made and that’s a commitment we will stick to. So when we debate clause by clause—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Mr Simpson.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: Yes, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): We are on Part 3. Let’s stick with it, please.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: Well, I thought, Mr Chair, it was worthwhile picking up on where we were at—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Well, no, this is the whole idea. We are hearing this part by part. So let’s stick with the part, please.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: Sure, OK. So I want to particularly refer to Part 3 and clause 48, “Form of targets”. Clause 48(1) says that “A target is a directive made in the national planning framework or in a plan.” “A target—(a) must”—it says in clause 48(2)—“be able to be assessed; and (b) must be achieved by a specified time; and (c) may be expressed as a series of steps, each with a time limit, designed to achieve progressive improvement over time.”

Now, I’m keen to know from the Minister in the chair a bit more about exactly how it is going to be that the assessments are made as to time and what those steps will be. I know that there was quite a bit of discussion at select committee. There were a number of submitters who were interested in this area. We got a range of answers from officials at the time, none of which were, in my view, anyway, particularly compelling in terms of the detail about the actual form and shape of the targets. So if the Minister wouldn’t mind perhaps enlightening the committee of the whole House as to particularly how the form of targets will be assessed, what measures will be used, what methodology, what science, what technology, and who’s going to do it, that would be helpful. Thank you.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): The purpose of mandatory targets is set out at clause 37B, which is to drive improvements where things are not in a satisfactory state. The time frames to meet those targets could be set out in national direction. For example, the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management does, effectively, have limits and targets where water bodies are below those desired attributes or below the limit set for those desired attributes. And there’s a period that is expressed somewhat loosely as being a generation for councils to bring things back to a decent state, and then it’s up to regional councils how they progress towards that.

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki-King Country): Thank you, Mr Chair. With a piece of legislation like this, there’s a lot of words in it. You’re more skilled than I am in terms of background on this sort of thing but I’m doing a bit of testing around what’s likely to get tested, and I’m looking at Subpart 10 in Part 3, where the framework rules prevail unless exceptions apply.

When you talk about when a plan rule is more stringent or when a plan rule is more lenient, there is quite a good description in there but I just have some concerns around some of those sentences being able to be debated in terms of a legal structure around whether it is in fact in some people’s eyes or in legal cases more stringent or more lenient than what might be prescribed in the legislation. So I’m just wondering if we could have a comment around how the Minister sees that particular piece of legislation being managed in a tested process. Thank you.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Thank you for the question. Clause 89 of Subpart 10 talks about how you can have rules. There are two sorts of rules that come through the national planning framework for existing national direction. One is rules that are permissive to help enable things, and an example of that is rules that allow telecommunication towers as a permitted activity. Now, a permissive rule like that sets a minimum level of permissibility but there are areas, and the Canterbury region is an example of this, where because it’s so flat, you need higher cellphone towers, because otherwise the signal can’t get through to people using their cellphones or working on farms who need to get an internet connection. So a rule and a plan for Canterbury can be more permissive than the background level of permission everywhere.

If on the other hand, it is a restrictive measure—so we say that the baseline for water quality is X, that’s not set at a level that would be appropriate for every water body. It’s a minimum. But there are some spring-fed creeks that are actually gin clear that we do want to have actually cleaner than that baseline. So, in that case, a regional council or a future planning committee can have a rule that is stricter than the minimum standard, and so that’s what clause 89(1)(a) and (b) do.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. Last night, the Minister explained the national planning framework, and I want to go to clause 58, because urban trees have been a major point of public concern with this legislation. In the inquiry on the Natural and Built Environment Bill that the Environment Committee undertook, we got thousands of submissions seeking the protection of urban trees, and then the bill as introduced included a clause which was very limited and caused quite a lot of opposition amongst submitters because it was really restricting the rules to specifying single trees and groups of trees. And through the select committee process and taking account of those submissions, the select committee—and the Green Party—was very pleased that the committee agreed to include another matter which should be included in the national planning framework so that you get that national direction, and that is urban trees. And then, in the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper (SOP), green spaces have been added to that, which we hope will also increase the direction on how green spaces are used for stormwater retention. We saw in the Auckland floods the value of wetlands and green spaces in reducing flooding.

Urban trees have got so many benefits, particularly as urban heat islands, for reducing the temperatures, providing shade, providing amenity, providing a place for children to play, harvesting rainwater, reducing those stormwater flows, and preventing erosion. So now we have the national planning framework providing direction on urban trees and green spaces, but there’s a Supplementary Order Paper in my name, SOP 393, and I just ask if the Minister can confirm that his Supplementary Order Paper dated 25 July, at 3.56 p.m., which makes a change to Schedule 6 and ensures—because there was a provision in Schedule 6, clause 30B(3), which meant that the transitional national planning framework would not include direction on urban trees.

Is the intent, could he confirm, of his Supplementary Order Paper—which makes that change in Schedule 6, in clause 30B(3)—to ensure, like my Supplementary Order Paper 393, that the transitional national planning framework will indeed provide direction on the urban trees and green spaces? Because, being in Auckland recently, I walked around a suburb where I grew up, and two large pōhutukawa that I remember from my childhood and a huge camphor tree had just been completely felled. And there was probably no need for a consent for that because they weren’t in a special ecological area. That’s why we need protection for urban trees; that’s why this clause is so important. Could the Minister confirm that his Supplementary Order Paper, like mine, ensures that there will be direction on urban trees in the transitional national planning framework?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): In respect to the Minister’s question about the amendment to Schedule 6 deleting (f), yes, that will come up in the schedules, but the member is correct that that is in the Supplementary Order Paper tabled at 3.56 p.m. and that clause 58(f) includes urban trees and green spaces. That is not to say that every tree can be protected. If a city is intensifying as its population grows, trees do get cut down in order to build houses and that’s unavoidable sometimes. But it does mean that if you have a loss of tree canopy on private land, you actually have to do better in respect of public land sometime and make sure that you have a good plan for the urban tree canopy and open green spaces.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to focus on clause 55, “Matters relevant to setting management units”, and in clause 55(1)(a) it says “sufficient to enable environmental limits and their mandatory targets to meet the purposes set out in section 37 and 47 respectively”, and in clause 55(1)(b), “are determined by reference to scientific knowledge and mātauranga Māori.”

I would like to say that if a particular iwi or hapū are in their area, is it their view of mātauranga Māori or is it a view of someone else? So it goes back to some areas we traversed a little yesterday about secret knowledge, and the view of a constitutional lawyer that these things are often untestable, but just saying “mātauranga Māori” doesn’t actually define whose view that could be based on. I think, as we go back to the principle in the law that the law should be able to be known by everyone—and I know the Minister is a legal professional as well as now a legislator. Is it his view that this can be known and meet that principle of being able to know the law? Because I seriously doubt that that could be the case.

So, therefore, in, say, a resource consent application in Marlborough, for example, it wouldn’t be that appropriate, you would think, to have a view from a cultural expert who doesn’t whakapapa back to that area, but that’s not defined here. As we heard in the Environment Committee last week, that isn’t good law, and so that actually offends the principle of being able to know the law, unless the Minister has got contrary evidence, which I’d really like to hear, because we don’t want to be in a position where we’ve already got a very complicated—and just even looking at the size of this bill says it all, really. There’s a lot in here. And if it’s not clear, given that it’s over 900 pages, you’d think that all these things would be nailed down, but to me, this is not nailed down, and so I’d really like the Minister’s view on that, please.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): I’ve gone through some details on how this new system, overall, is faster, cheaper, and better than the status quo: 100 plans down to 16; instead of 10 years, to take a plan down to four; a lot more permitted activities; clearer delineation between what we are actually trying to protect, which is natural environment values, not nimbyism supported by matters of personal taste—within those limits, enabling development.

Now, in respect to the specific question that the member raises in respect of clause 55, the management unit is set by the Minister or a regional planning committee. They’ve got to listen to evidence, including Māori knowledge, as well as science. Some Māori knowledge meets the definition of science; some doesn’t. It’s also true of non-Māori knowledge.

In respect of the things that have to be taken into account to satisfy the Minister or the planning committee, they’re set out in subclause (2). It says there that you focus on the biophysical state of the natural environment, the pressures on the environment, and the losses or gains of health in the natural environment.

Then I would draw the committee’s attention to subclause (3), which is the most important subclause there: “the size and location of a management unit should be set to provide flexibility and to maximise opportunities for offsetting and other management approaches to be applied.” That was a concern of the Treasury. They said that if you set management units too narrowly, you actually do not have enough flexibility in the system. That interacts with the provision that says that not all outcomes that are prescribed by the legislation can be met in any one place. If you have too narrow a management unit, then, effectively, you can’t achieve that broader purpose of the Act.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to spend a minute or two just on Supplementary Order Paper 389, clauses 52 and 52A. Clause 52 is titled “Considerations relating to customary marine title area” and indicates that the responsible Minister must, amongst other things, “consider whether the limit or target would directly affect a customary marine title group and (if they agree that it would) consider that as a factor in favour of setting the limit or target regionally”. Now, that, on the face of it, appears to be understandable and potentially reasonable, but there looks, to me, to have been inserted in the Supplementary Order Paper a new clause 52A, which is titled “Protected customary rights may be exercised despite limit or target”. It goes on to read: “A protected customary right may be exercised or continue to be exercised under the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 despite”—despite—“any environmental limit or target set in the national planning framework or a plan.”

So my question to the Minister is: why did he and his officials consider it necessary to strengthen clause 52 by the insertion of clause 52A, and what, essentially, is the effect and impact of carving out a protection that would provide for an exemption that was despite a limit or target having been set? It strikes me that that is contrary to the overall environmental good that the legislation seeks to put in place by carving out an exception that is so specifically described and proscribed in the statute. So if the Minister could give some insight into the reason for the specific inclusion of clause 52A, I would appreciate this opinion and view.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): I did so last night, but I am happy to repeat it: that was inserted on the advice of officials because neither the Resource Management Act nor the Natural and Built Environment Act, when passed, cut across Takutai Moana rights, which are narrow—they are unextinguished customary rights of Māori that predate the Treaty, actually. They are a common-law right, not a Treaty-based right. They are generally very limited to things like collecting hāngī stones or the right to launch a waka. This House has been through many debates on those issues, and the provisions that have been protected there is the legislation that was passed by the last National-ACT Government, with the support of [Inaudible].

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Junior Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Good morning, Mr Chair, and good morning Minister—and thank you, officials, for joining us in the Chamber again. I want to come now to Subpart 7, Resource consents”, because I feel we’re not going to get much further in questions to the Minister on the preceding clauses. Resource consents; Clause 75AAA, “How activities are categorised”. Now, this cuts to the chase of what the purpose of the resource management reforms are: how we define the way people use their land and the activities they propose that people do on that land. Are they to be “Permitted” activities, which is provided for in the Resource Management Act—very few of those. Are they to be “Anticipated” activities, which the bill describes as “Activities that require a resource consent which the authority may grant (with or without conditions) or decline in accordance with the relevant provisions of the national planning framework or plan (whichever applies) and the limited discretion conferred by those provisions.” May these activities be “Discretionary”—“Activities that require a resource consent, which the consent authority may grant (with or without conditions) or decline in accordance with the relevant provisions of the national planning framework or plan (whichever applies).” And, of course, there are “Prohibited” activities: “No person is entitled to apply for a resource consent for the activity, and no consent authority has power to grant a consent for the activity.”

So I would like to explore, Minister, with you—and potentially seeking advice from officials—as to how this might work in practice. Because what we understand with the problem statement identified by ACT and National and Labour over many years, is that the Resource Management Act made it too hard to get consents for things that we do every day that we know how to do well: whether they’re land developments that involve excavation, earthworks, land clearing, building things near watercourses that require diverting watercourses—potentially disturbing places like wetlands and having to reconstruct wetlands in order to manage our stormwater in an environmentally friendly way.

So, Minister, when we think about permitted activities, we come to clause 75AAB, “How to decide which activity category applies”. Now this is absolutely vital if we’re actually going to get “New Zealand Inc.” to go faster, if we’re going to make it easier for people to develop their land and to be able to propose an investment to a commercial board, for example. Imagine you want to build a distribution centre; a warehouse; if you want to stand up a manufacturing operation—you want to know that when you make that commercial proposal to your board, you can give some certainty about the time it will take to go through the regulatory planning process. ACT has identified that process as a barrier to building new road infrastructure, for example, which is why, on Sunday, we released a policy which actually sets out how we could build more roads using tolling. But one of the barriers to that is the lack of regulatory certainty for investors who wish to pay for New Zealanders to have better roads and are happy to do so and recover the cost over time—the regulatory uncertainty of seeking consents for that is a barrier that needs to be overcome.

So, Minister, clause 75AAB: How do we decide whether an activity is permitted, anticipated, discretionary, or prohibited? Because I note when it comes to prohibited activities, it wasn’t that long ago that the Minister and the Ministry for the Environment released a national policy statement for freshwater management—or was it a national environmental standard for freshwater? Forgive me: there’s so many policies, rules, regulations, and red tape when it comes to doing things in New Zealand with your land, particularly if you happen to be near a watercourse, which it turns out most of New Zealand is—which prohibited, either accidentally or on purpose, we weren’t quite sure—activities in a wetland. And the definition of that wetland, that calls activities like quarries and land development to be prohibited on that land, included, somehow—what was interpreted to be—three bulrushes in the middle of a paddock, because bulrushes are a species of reeds which indicate that the ground is damp most of the year round, and so that somehow got captured in the definition of wetlands. So Minister, what I’m interested in is, and with your permission Mr Chair, I’ll just continue to expand on the question—[Time expired]

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Junior Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

NICOLA GRIGG (National—Selwyn): Thank you, Mr Chair. I too, actually, want to turn the Minister’s mind to the same section that Simon Court has been speaking about, but I also want to speak about clause 75AAD. I’m sure the Minister would have seen over the weekend that, once again, Canterbury has been inundated with a wet weather event and our rivers are absolutely choked and have once again flooded much of Canterbury. Rural land, farmland, rural towns, council roads, culverts, and bridges have all been damaged. We saw this obviously in 2021, and, again, we see it just two years later, though, I have to say, not to the same extent.

The Minister will be aware that regional councils have asked the Government for a contribution towards clearing out and managing rivers around the country. However, this has been declined. Most councils will tell you, particularly the Canterbury Regional Council, that they are unable to carry out this work, given the current planning and permitted regulatory environment.

So, with regard to clause 75AAD, and activities that may be permitted with or without requirements, could the Minister please explain how regional councils, and/or landowners, can interpret this legislation so that they are able to carry out flood mitigation work on rivers around the district so that infrastructure, human habitat, farmland that is currently being regularly flooded and causing millions of dollars’ worth of damage can actually be protected. And, notwithstanding subclause (2) in clause 20, I have quickly read through that.

Can the Minister please explain the overlay of the proposed rules, regulations, and, of course, the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management with regard to statements like Te Mana o Te Wai, and how, under these rules and proposed new rules, our councils, our landowners, and our homeowners can carry out flood mitigation works to protect their valuable infrastructure?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Although the detail of consents is dealt with in Part 5 of the bill, not here, it is correct that national direction under the new system, as it can now under the Resource Management Act, could say all flood schemes are permitted activities. It could do. I don’t think it would be likely to, but it could do if a future Government wanted to. The rules relating to where you can put up flood banks and what work you can do on tree control are unchanged by the passage of this Act, but could be modified by a future Government in either a permissive or restrictive way in the future were that in the national interest.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you, Mr Chair. Clause 82 relates to and deals with the national planning framework provisions for transitional provisions. It says that it “may include transitional provisions for any matter, including its effect on existing matters or proceedings.” Minister, could you explain how you see that as working in practice, please—in what situations may a transitional provision apply?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): As is set out in the footnote to that particular clause, that’s the carry-over of section 45A of the Resource Management Act. What that could mean in practice is that national direction could say that it doesn’t apply to resource consents that have already been lodged.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you, Mr Chair, and I apologise to the Minister and members if this matter has already been canvased. I want to ask the Minister about clause 51, which is about discretionary targets that may be set for any matter for which a mandatory target is required. Clause 51 outlines that discretionary targets can be set for a system outcome, a framework outcome, or a plan outcome. Now, this bill gives quite big powers to central government in relation to the setting of targets, and that was subject to quite a bit of debate in the select committee. I am not someone who thinks that central government doesn’t have a role; in fact, I think we need to strengthen the national direction provided through the system from the centre down in order to achieve a whole variety of different outcomes. But concerns have been expressed about the level of ministerial and central government control and direction. And so I wonder if the Minister could ventilate to the House how he expects the discretionary targets regime to be used in contradistinction to the mandatory targets regime: when would one be used and when would another be used?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): With respect to the member, I think he’s misread the clause: “Discretionary targets may be set for any matter that is not a matter for … a mandatory target”. It’s that way; not the other way round, which is just how the member read it out. It may have just been a slip of the tongue.

Chris Bishop: Is that what I said? Oh, sorry.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Yeah, but I’ll assume that that was just a slip of the tongue. All national direction currently under the Resource Management Act is discretionary, so there’s no mandatory national direction. What this does is respond to the issues which are of concern to New Zealanders and says, “Look, these are areas that really the system does need a bit of national direction on.” They are listed, and I agree with the member that that’s been one of the failures of the existing system: that we haven’t had that.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Junior Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.

Ayes 72

New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.

Noes 47

New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2; Whaitiri.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Minister’s tabled amendments to clauses 44 and 75AB of Supplementary Order Paper 389 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments to the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 72

New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.

Noes 44

New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.

Amendments to the amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Simon Court’s amendments to Part 3 of Supplementary Order Paper 389 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 392 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments to the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 44

New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 72

New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.

Amendments to the amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 3 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 389 as amended be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 72

New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.

Noes 44

New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.

Amendments as amended agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 3 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 74

New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 2; Whaitiri.

Noes 44

New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.

Part 3 as amended agreed to.

Part 4 Natural and built environment plans

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Members, we come now to Part 4. This is the debate on clauses 95 to 151, “Natural and built environment plans”, including Schedules 7, 8, 9, 11, and 12. The question is that Part 4 stand part.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to come to clause 95, “Natural and built environment plans”, and 95(2), “In the case of the Nelson and Tasman unitary authorities, there must be 1 plan that applies to both the region over which the Nelson City Council has control and the region over which the Tasman District Council has control (together the Nelson and Tasman unitary authorities).”—well, that’s what they are now. Just like Auckland is a unitary authority which includes the functions of the former Auckland Regional Council, and the district and city councils within the Auckland region. A unitary authority makes a lot of sense for some regions, just like the East Coast—Tairāwhiti, to manage the functions of the district council and the regional council when it comes to land use, planning, and environmental management, particularly around freshwater resources, for example.

But it’s remarkable how different this is to the provisions in another bill that Labour is trying to push through the House right now. The Water Services Entities Amendment Bill, which, when tabled in the House, when it came to select committee—the Governance and Administration Committee—actually provides for the Ngāi Tahu takiwā, which extends into Nelson and Tasman district to take the Seddon and Murchison water infrastructure assets and manage them separately under what is a quite different regional grouping. Even though Seddon and Murchison live within the Nelson and Tasman entity.

So, Minister, I’m interested as to how the Natural and Built Environment Bill, and natural and built environment plans made under this legislation, how it is that if you live in Seddon and Murchison right now, and if this legislation is passed—which it may still do, even though Labour is struggling to pass cars at the moment, let alone bills. It may well be, if you live in Seddon and Murchison, that you’ll be under a natural and built environment plan under this bill, but your water services will be managed from Christchurch under a separate water service entity because Seddon and Murchison fall under the Ngāi Tahu takiwā. So, Minister, would you explain why it is that these two separate bits of legislation treat Seddon and Murchison in the Nelson and Tasman district in a different way? Question one.

Second question, Minister: when it comes to clause 96, the “Purpose and scope of plans”—“A plan must—(a) give effect in the region to the national planning framework, as directed by that framework; and … (c) be consistent with the relevant regional spatial strategy”—which I’m sure we’ll get to next. Minister, when we think about those national instruments, national policy statements for fresh water, urban development, most recently indigenous biodiversity, which applies significant natural areas, planning overlays onto private property.

If these natural and built environment plans must give effect to these planning instruments, how is it that local communities, who might decide to use their land—say for farming, they want to use irrigation, they want to be able to develop land in a way that their community agrees is appropriate for the development they’re undertaking, whether it’s the wine-growing industry in Nelson Marlborough, or it’s dairy farming in Southland, or, who knows, solar farming in Northland. How is it that if there are national instruments—national policy instruments like for fresh water, indigenous biodiversity, how are they to be reconciled with the aspirations of a local community to develop in a way that they see as benefiting the people of their region when that’s at odds?

A natural and built environment plan will have to incorporate all of those instruments, whether it’s the freshwater rules, indigenous biodiversity requirements, which actually put limits on how people will use their private property if it happens to have a stand of bush or some wetland plants on it that a planner identifies as significant.

So, Minister, do you want to describe, firstly, how do you reconcile the natural and built environments plans with the water service entities approach, and would you tell us how are local communities supposed to get ahead with these plans on top of them?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): In respect of the first question, this has never been about local government reorganisation. I don’t have a view on that; it’s not within the purview of this legislation. It is applying to existing district council and regional council boundaries as they currently are, to generally set around catchments in respect to the case of regional councils.

In terms of the point made in Nelson and Tasman, it’s interesting that the Nelson Mayor, the Hon Dr Nick Smith, a former Minister for the Environment in this place, favours this approach to having a regional plan in that area. I’ve heard him make the point that it’s silly that in respect of Richmond, which is, effectively, a suburb of Nelson City, but it is in the Tasman district, not the Nelson City boundary area—you’ve got different rules relating to subdivision and other issues that should really be similar between the two areas.

In respect of the question as to the scope of plans under clause 96 and how you work issues out such as the member raised, well of course those issues already rose. Of course you can farm on a dairy farm, but if you’re going to pollute the adjacent waterway to a degree that it’s no longer fit to swim in, the national planning framework cuts in and says, “Well, the regional council should do something about that.” It doesn’t say that you can’t have a dairy farm, but it means that you’ve got to do it carefully in relation to an adjacent waterway.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you, Mr Chair. Picking up on the comment that the Minister just made, which is that this is not about local government reform, well, that’s true in one sense, but that’s not what many people think. Certainly, I sat through many of the submissions from local government representatives to the Environment Committee, and I think my colleagues Scott Simpson and Barbara Kuriger would agree that one of the recurrent themes from local government—Local Government New Zealand, the peak body, and a whole range of other councils—was that this is a surreptitious, stealthy way—those are my words, not theirs—of reorganising local government.

We’re now going to have these regional planning committee superimposed over the top of councils. Contemporaneously, or at least simultaneously, we have the Government’s plans around three waters, which Simon Court has just referred to. Interestingly, when the bills were introduced, it was three waters across the big four mega entities, and literally whilst the current bills we’re talking about were at the select committee that got changed to 10. We’ve had this quite absurd scenario in which Parliament has legislated for a bunch of different things and, barely before the bills were even signed into law, the Government has had to introduce more bills to Parliament to fix up the three waters reform process, and we’ve gone to 10.

We’ve got that going on at the same time that this is happening, and to make matters worse—another layer—we’ve got the future of local government reform—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Just let’s stick with Part 4. You are contextualising, but let’s just move towards Part 4.

CHRIS BISHOP: It’s very material, Mr Chair, because it goes to the point that Simon Court made but also the Minister’s response, in relation to how this is not around reorganising local government. I just put it to the Minister that all of these reforms are disconnected from each other, and that’s actually what the select committee heard right the way through. I’ll just give you an example: we had the Mayor of Selwyn, who said what I just said. Plus, you’ve got Kāinga Ora, which has its own regions. It’s a mess—it’s a mess.

So I put it to the Minister: can we be confident that the 15 bodies established here are actually going to be the final group of bodies that we end up with? It does seem to many people—including, I think, many people on this side of the Chamber—that we have a very discombobulating reform process here. Actually, there’s an argument that it would be better to do all of it at the same time rather than in bits and bobs and create enormous problems along the way.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): There are mixed views within local government on this. As I’ve already quoted you, the former Minister for the Environment says this is a good idea in respect of the region that he’s in and is the mayor of part of. There are many other mayors and councillors in different parts of the country also supportive. The local government steering group have been supportive. They’ve put additional protections relating to statements of community expectation, which we’ve already covered.

But it’s not just the councils that support it; I quote from the submission from the Property Council: “The Property Council has long championed the need for resource reform and supports the action taken by the Government to reduce the number of plans from 100 to 15 and introduce regional spatial strategies which seek to plan for 30-plus years. We commend the Government and officials for producing the Natural and Built Environment Bill and the Spatial Planning Bill.” The numbers changed from 15 to 16, but you can see that there are development interests as well that support the move down to 15 plans. There is no hidden agenda here in respect of local government reform.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Mr Chair. Minister, I want to come now to Subpart 2, if we’re on that—I assume we are—which is the “Content of plans” and what plans must include. It’s great to see that plans will have a strategic content and strategic outcomes and policies to identify the issues that are important to each region and that they will deal with matters necessary to ensure consistency with the relevant spatial strategy.

Now, I’m a big fan of spatial plans—which we’ll get to in the following bill—because they identify where people should live, where hazards might be, and where it’s not appropriate to build infrastructure or homes, for example. One of the challenges of this planning process, though—and it was actually raised by representatives from Taituarā, or representatives of Local Government Professionals, at the select committee hearing on this bill—is that in order for the planning function to be carried out according to the intent of this legislation, it will require the planners in local councils and regional councils to be sent over to a new regional planning committee.

Local councils will continue to have to pay the salaries of planners, technical support staff, people who specialise in geospatial information systems—people who have all the technical competencies required to carry out those planning investigations and planning coordination—who are actually putting together the documents and the maps that underpin regional or district plans, which will now be natural and built environment plans.

When you look at the responsibilities of regional councils and territorial authorities to contribute to these plans, what they said was, “Once you’ve co-opted all of our staff and required us to pay for them, but we don’t get anything for it—you’re not compensating us for the loss of these staff—you don’t recognise that we’re still processing consents and planning applications under the existing Resource Management Act”—or whatever the transitional provisions are—“while you’re taking our staff. Why don’t you just set up a local office of the Ministry for the Environment in, say, Ngātea”—or, I don’t know—

Hon Scott Simpson: A good town.

SIMON COURT: —that’s right, Ngātea in the Hon Scott Simpson’s electorate, or maybe in Te Atatū or Henderson in West Auckland, where I live, or anywhere in the country that’s going to have to put these plans together, because it’s going to require a significant amount of staffing and resources that the legislation proposes, I assume, to take from regional councils and territorial authorities, or what we’d call district council.

Then, Minister, not only is it this enormous resource drag on the sector, which doesn’t appear to be funded in any way—it’s another one of these unfunded obligations that central government imposes on local government—but it also creates this problem. There are all of the conflicts between resource allocation, whether it’s fresh water, soils for highly productive food production, soils of land for housing, or whether it’s asking, “Should we be allowed to develop a quarry on our land, because that aggregate is needed for construction and infrastructure and homes?” or, “Is the traffic going to cause a problem for our neighbours, with truck movements, hours of operation, dust and noise?”—all of those other matters that need to be resolved between neighbours, between private property owners, and between private property owners and those who have responsibility for administering the commons on behalf of all people.

Well, currently, regional councils administer the allocation of fresh water and issue consents for discharges into fresh water, but all of these conflicts are apparently going to be resolved in these natural and built environment plans. So, Minister, two questions: how are local councils and regional councils meant to deal with this massive drag on their resource that establishing these plans will cause, and how are planners remote from their supervisors, their elected members in councils, supposed to reconcile all of these conflicts between land use and resource allocation in a separate room from those entities, those councils, that are meant to administer all of these rules—Minister.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Only the ACT Party seems to think that by reducing from over 100 plans to 16, the system will be less efficient—it’s just wrong.

Simon Court: Well, who said that?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Well, that seems to be the implication—that you don’t want to have the system changed that comes down from 100 plans to 16. I’ve read out the likes of the Property Council. They think it’s going to be more efficient. The cost-benefit analysis done independently of me says that for every dollar spent in the system, $4.50 will be saved by system users.

There’s enormous amounts of money going to be saved. One of the reasons is that there’ll be a lot more permitted activities, which seems to be what the member is worried about. That is achieved in part through the procedural principles set out in clause 6A, which we’ve already passed, but which says that you’ve got to reduce reliance on resource consenting processes. Now, plans will be put together by a regional planning committee, with the staff drawn from the local planning committees, who will be putting together 16 plans across the country instead of over 100 individually. This will be more efficient and is going to save the country hundreds of millions of dollars every year.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Just before I go on, just to the member Simon Court, I note that the member, when he sat down, asked about three questions across the floor. The intention of the committee stage is that we have a question and answer to actually advance things, rather than making—so I’ll invite the member, and the member is entitled to stand for as long as he likes to speak. However, I will invite him to consider the way of doing business which may be more productive and give him the answers which he requires, and save him from calling the questions across the Chamber once he sits down.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to—

Simon Court: Point of order, Mr Chair. Apologies, Mr Scott Simpson. I’ll just seek clarification from the Chair: there were three questions I asked, the Minister has not answered them—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): No, that’s not a point of order, the member can sit down. I’m just making an observation to the member, he can choose to take heed of it or not. He can continue the way he does, that’s his prerogative; however, I’m just indicating to him the way that the committee stage has been intended to be conducted to be most conducive to ensuring that the members get the information they need. It is entirely in the member’s hands how he continues. The Hon Scott Simpson, time will start again.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I want to pick up on some of the comments from the Minister, from Mr Court, and particularly from my colleague Chris Bishop, because Part 4 on page 148 at clause 95 has the relatively benign first subclause that says, “There must at all times be a natural and built environment plan (a plan) for each region”. That, on the face of it, sounds perfectly reasonable. As the Minister has said, the plan of the legislation is to have far fewer plans, full stop, across the nation, and that would almost inevitably result in less planning from districts, for instance, like mine in the Thames-Coromandel area.

But the risk, I suspect, is that the devil will be in the detail. So Part 4 then goes on through the next more than 20—nearly 30—clauses to describe the rules, the processes, the exceptions, all the matters relating to things like aquaculture activity, protection of customary marine titles, charges for coastal occupation, environmental contributions. There are a myriad of rules and, in fact, most of the clauses that follow clause 95 relate to rules for the planning committees.

Then there is Schedule 7. Schedule 7 goes into even more detail about the preparation, change, and review of the natural and built environment plans. It is a mind-numbingly complicated and detailed schedule. Therein, I think, lies the challenge for the Minister, because notwithstanding what he said about this not being an additional layer of “local government by stealth” being inserted into the whole local government environment, that’s not the perception out there in the real world. Out there in the real world, there is real concern about the way these committees are going to be formed, what their role will be, what influence and what power they will wield over the lives and property rights of citizens.

There can be no doubt that these committees are going to be extremely powerful. The scope and breadth of the material and considerations that they will be tasked with making decisions upon are truly mind-boggling. This goes to the root cause of criticism from a number of submitters about property rights, about access to democracy, about democratic accountability, and about regional representation.

So my question to the Minister is relating to how does he see the evolution of these committees going from what I’m sure he thinks is a laudable, principled approach to morphing into hugely powerful, expensive, administratively cumbersome red-tape bureaucracies in their own right. I’m very concerned that the potential here is that the intent that the Minister seeks to achieve from the creation of these regional planning committees and the work and breadth that they are required to do will actually, over a period of time, become self-fulfilling bureaucracies in their own way. They will employ staff, they will have chief executives, they will have secretariats, they’ll have legal advisers, they’ll have consultants, and the opportunity for endless extra cost on and burdens on ratepayers will be, in my view, very large.

The second point I want to make relates to regional representation, and I’ll use an example from my own electorate in the Coromandel. Now, we’re told that there are going to be 16 of these committees, and my part of the world, the Coromandel, is always usually aligned with the Waikato region, although parts of it fall into the Bay of Plenty Regional Council area as well. We already feel, in the Coromandel, that our decisions and life impacts are already too Hamilton-centric by way of these things. We already feel—notwithstanding the good people of Hamilton—that often decisions that are made in Hamilton bear very little real relevance to what occurs on the Coromandel. We’ve seen instances of that most recently as a result of weather events that have occurred this year, where we get regional decisions made in Hamilton or even Tauranga, Bay of Plenty, that have a direct impact on the peninsula that bear little or no relevance to the physical situation that people of the Coromandel Peninsula find themselves in.

So my questions to the Minister relate to how can he be sure that there will be adequate and proper regional representation; how can he be sure that these committees are not going to morph into bureaucratic monsters of their own making that have little or no democratic accountability; and how is he going to make sure that the vast array of rules, regulations, and materials that must be taken into account are actually going to be achieved and fulfilled?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): In the same way as the Auckland Unitary Plan involved the bringing together of the plans of all of the prior cities including Auckland Central, Waitakere, Manukau, and the North Shore and other cities in Auckland, which was, essentially, left within the control of local government to do with an independent hearings panel hearing public submissions—that’s what will happen in the new process.

Simon Court asked the question as to why we didn’t just put this in the charge of the Ministry for the Environment. Well, that would be central government taking over local government processes. We’re not doing that. We’re still leaving it to local government, and I believe it will work. The key is that the first plans need to be well supported with some support from central government, not taking over the process but providing some monetary support for those that go first so that the ones that go first do it well and create good precedents for those that follow.

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki-King Country): Thank you, Madam Chair. Minister, I’d just like to ask you a question around clause 102, “What the plans must include”. We know there’s identifying the issues of importance to the region and national planning frameworks.

In the select committee, we talked a lot about vegetables, and fruit also came into the conversation. I’m trying to tie together the purpose of the bill, te Oranga o te Taiao, which we were told and explained how it leads to the wellbeing of the people. The discussions we had, for the Minister’s reference, was that if we’re going to put a planning regime in place where the land and the people are all going to be healthy, we’re going to have to identify what we’re going to be able to do with vegetables. We accept that there are environmental limits around agriculture and horticulture. I remember saying in committee one day that “you can’t compare the vast amount of dairy farming country to the small about of vegetable-growing land that sits around the country.”

We’re all a bit concerned, in the committee, that we weren’t going to have the ability to provide our people with cost-effective vegetables with the amount of, I guess, regulation and red tape and limits that we put on our vegetable growers for a very small area of New Zealand—and so I’m thinking that some things may have to give in respect of others. So I’m trying to tie the purpose around the health of the environment and the people down to how this will work in reality in these communities, because vegetables have been identified by the committee as something that’s critically important to the wellbeing of New Zealanders.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): I agree with the member. The Government, of course, in the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management gave some exceptions to that regime for vegetable growing. So that’s evidence that this Government agrees with that principle. That is given effect to—higher in the planning hierarchy through clause 58(g), which says “The national planning framework must … [enable a] supply of fresh fruit and vegetables.” So we’ve already covered that part in an earlier part of the debate.

TAMA POTAKA (National—Hamilton West): Madam Chair, thank you for allowing me to take this call on the Natural and Built Environment Bill. One of the items that we talked about last night was the reconciliation of iwi and hapū with the plethora—full of waka groups in the Māori political space. The Minister referred to the Federation of Māori Authorities and incorporations and trusts and other things.

I just was mindful of clause 107, which are matters to which regional planning committees must have particular regard to any statement prepared by an iwi authority or groups that represent hapū in a region. I wonder how that can be reconciled, on one hand, through the National Māori Entity provisions the Minister talked about, including a whole bunch of other groups that aren’t iwi and hapū, groups that don’t have the ancestral responsibilities of upholding the kawa and tikanga, unlike iwi members, and making sure that those groups have participation representation; but, on the other hand, with clause 107(1)(d), actually we don’t have any care or concern for those groups at all.

So, on one hand, we’ve got iwi and hapū at the apex of the consideration—these would be clause 5, clause 6, clause 4, and then the National Māori Entity, which seems to account for every man and his Māori—and then, on the other side, comes clause 107(1)(d). Actually, those people—federation Māori authorities, incorporations and trusts—that hold the ownership interests in these lands are again shunted and invisibilised.

The other item that I thought I’d draw attention to is the various materials and provisions around customary marine titles and customary rights. We won’t forget that mass confiscation that took place with the foreshore and seabed legislation many years ago, but what we can say is that right now the assertion of the customary marine rights, or customary marine titles, has not necessarily been sealed through an award. So these provisions around customary marine titles, marine rights, are actually very premature to the assertion of those rights and the actual sealing or award of those rights through the Māori Land Court process.

The last thing I heard, in my former occupation, when I came here, was that some of those customary marine title, marine rights, applications would not be heard until 2045. I would like to know how we can reconcile that, from the Minister. Thank you very much. Kia ora.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): In respect of the first point, under clause 107(1), iwi management plans or statements prepared by iwi authorities or groups that express their view is how te Oranga o te Taiao can be upheld. They, effectively, have to be in writing. This will actually improve the efficiency of the system. It is an outlet. It is one of the matters that needs to be taken into account. Iwi management plans are currently prepared and have some weight under the existing system as well.

In respect of the issue about a marine and coastal area, takutai moana Act rights, I covered that in relation to the last part. The principle is the same here and that is that those rights prevail. Those rights already exist, even if they sometimes have not already been elucidated.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. Last night, the Minister referred to the fact that the bill significantly improves the provisions around notification providing clearer direction. If I could just ask the Minister, in terms of the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) in his name, it makes a number of changes around how plans deal with notification of activities. In the bill, as recommended by the Environment Committee, there were criteria in clause 108E on pages 153 and 154 about what the regional planning committee must take into account when deciding whether certain activities should be non-notified—i.e., the public doesn’t get an opportunity to make submissions.

In the Minister’s SOP, those provisions appear to have gone, and clauses 108E and 108F have been significantly changed. So I just wonder if the Minister could provide some comment on that and whether it reduces the scope for notification by removing those criteria for non-notification, or whether this is simply improving and clarifying these provisions.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): I’m advised by officials that the provisions have just been moved; they haven’t been deleted, so they’re still in the Act.

Dr Tracey McLellan: Madam Chair. Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): No, not yet, but I am mindful of—I’m listening for new material.

TAMA POTAKA (National—Hamilton West): Thank you, Madam Chair. This is a just a note, an observation. There was a comment made two minutes ago that those customary rights exist, but unless they are in a marine space, unless they are recognised and the subject of a declaration by the Māori Land Court, I find it very irreconcilable if those rights can actually be accounted for by way of the legislation and the decision makers’ actions in making decisions under the legislation.

If it is expected that decision makers have to be aware that those customary rights exist and build them into their decision-making processes even though they have not been declared through the Maori Land Court or through the High Court by way of another judicial pathway, then how can a decision maker under this legislation actually take account of those or implement those?

I find that very inconsistent, and I’d like to know from the Minister how a decision maker can implement or take account of a right that hasn’t been declared through the judicial process. Otherwise, we get into a very difficult space, à la the Nelson Tenths litigation, where there has been an assertion of rights but people do not want to recognise them.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): That’s not what I said. What I said was that for a customary right to be found to exist under takutai moana legislation, it must be found by the court to exist. It’s not creating new rights; it’s actually recognising rights that the courts find have not been extinguished and therefore will be recognised and carried forward. At the point they are elucidated, the system protects them. But the member is quite right—you can’t know what you don’t know, and this legislation doesn’t say anything to the contrary.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. Minister, I want to come to Subpart 3, “Rules in plans”. That’s on page 160, clause 117, “Purpose and effect of rules”: “(1) The purpose of including rules in a plan is to enable a local authority—(a) to carry out its functions under [this] Act;”. So as the member, Chris Bishop, rightly pointed out before, this legislation is intimately related to the functions of local authorities and “(b) to provide for … directions given by … [the] national planning framework; and (c) … [for] policies specified in the plan to be achieved.”

Now, Minister, if we can come to clause 117(6), the plan has to identify activities as permitted, anticipated, discretionary, or prohibited. And what we saw, Minister, with the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management that was originally proposed—or was it the National Environmental Standards for Freshwater management? It’s all very confusing, all of this red tape and regulation, particularly as it applies to farmers and particularly as it applies to resource developers and those organisations wanting to stand up quarries to provide building materials for construction.

If a national policy statement or some kind of national direction prohibits an activity on certain land, whether it’s by applying a significant natural area overlay based on an aerial photographs of somebody’s back paddock, which someone somewhere sees might have some kind of significant indigenous biodiversity on it, or whether it’s three bulrushes in a paddock, which was the issue that tripped up so many organisations and property owners looking to develop quarries or develop land for housing when the freshwater rules were first put out because three bulrushes in a paddock pretty much amounted to a wetland. So, Minister, how are communities, businesses, and property owners meant to get ahead in their area, in their district, if a national instrument that’s then incorporated in a natural and built environment plan actually prohibits something that they need to do for the economic benefit of their community?

Now, I heard yesterday, from a contractor, that in the Wellington region there is no suitable place for contractors to dump clean fill. That is, soil material that comes from a construction project, and in winter it’s more than likely that it’s saturated material. You can’t recycle it and take it somewhere and use it for another development; you’ve just got to get rid of it. In construction, we call it “cut to waste”, and that material is defined as engineering-unsuitable. Well, it certainly was in Transit New Zealand’s definitions when I studied highway engineering. But in the Wellington region, there are no clean-fill sites, so contractors are hauling to Marton to tip at a landfill there. That’s because even though clean fills aren’t prohibited in the Wellington region, it’s become very, very difficult to consent things under the current regional council because of the freshwater rules and the prohibition on disturbing these things called wetlands, which, you know, was corrected by the Ministry for the Environment (MFE) with three bulrushes in a paddock.

Minister, how are communities, how are businesses, how are infrastructure operators supposed to actually get on with building and building in a cost-effective way when activities that might be prohibited mean that you can’t even apply for a consent for it. We know that happened in Auckland. There was a clean-fill operator north of Auckland, in the East Coast Bays, that sought to extend their clean-fill operation for a period of additional years and additional hectares on their existing site, and when those freshwater rules prohibiting disturbing any wetlands came in, they were told, “You can’t do it.” They were told by the Auckland Council, “Don’t apply, because it’s prohibited now and we can’t even accept your application across the counter.” That was clearly wrong because MFE came back and changed that, to modify that rule to allow for some developments—extremely limited developments—where they might impact a wetland, even though the wetland, in that property owner’s case, was a constructed wetland by a former landowner. Of course, we know that every time you build a new road, a new motorway, there are wetlands built all along the corridor.

Minister, how are we supposed to get ahead when if an activity is defined as prohibited at a national level, but it turns out we need to do it at a local level, we won’t be able to do it?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): I agree that there is a level of discretion required in respect of those activities. The member will be aware that I was responsible for the regulation intended to protect wetlands from desecration because we’ve already lost more than 90 percent of our wetlands, even including those in national parks. We introduced strict rules to stop the balance of 10 percent being lost because, in the prior 10 years, a 20th of the remaining 10 percent had been lost. We went a bit far and therefore we did have to modify the rule to make it permissible for quarries and landfills.

So the member is right that care is necessary around those issues. How does the new system guard against those sorts of mistakes being made again? In part, through the spatial planning legislation requiring spatial plans to identify where infrastructure is likely to be needed. It could be partly achieved through that, and in part through the pro-infrastructure provisions of the national planning framework, and in part through the provisions of the Act that give a leg up to necessary infrastructure.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. Minister, I want to come now to clause 118, “Rules about discharges”. Now, there are already existing provisions in the Resource Management Act around discharges. For those listening on 882 AM or watching on Parliament TV, what we’re talking about is when a business or undertaking, whether it be a manufacturing operation, say, turning tomatoes from the tomato orchard into canned goods, or whether it’s a business that is manufacturing, say, concrete products from cement and aggregate—a discharge from that activity, to land or into water, is already regulated and already requires consents.

The last thing we want in New Zealand is for businesses or people using their land to use it in a way that pollutes the natural environment, the commons—the common resource that our Government and that our local authorities should be protecting for all of our benefits. Discharges to land, private land, and to waterways actually have an impact on people downstream.

But, Minister, I’m interested in some of the text here, and particularly on page 161, clause 118(2). It talks about none of these effects should arise when a plan includes provision for discharges. We must accept that every business or undertaking that makes something has some kind of output that either comes out the factory gate as a finished good or that goes out of a pipe or into a pond to treat any contaminants that come out at the back end of the process. That’s normal manufacturing process in New Zealand. But if we look at clause 118(2)(b), “a conspicuous change in the colour or visual clarity:”, then the requirement is that none of these effects are likely to arise—and that’s really interesting.

I want to give an example, Minister. Maybe if we can contrast what happens naturally with what happens as a result of human activity, and how is it that a council or a planner is supposed to evaluate which one is OK and which one is isn’t?

Now, if you travel through the Waikato, which I regularly do, you will see the great Waipā River. The Waipā River drains a catchment of highly erodible soils, which means that the Waipā River naturally has a much higher sediment load than the Waikato River, which it discharges to. What that means is where you see the Waikato River and the Waipā River meet—I think that’s at Ngāruawāhia nearby—you see a very turbid, sediment-laden water body entering the Waikato River and mixing, and downstream of that the natural colour is significantly changed. There is a “conspicuous change in colour” and a “conspicuous change in visual clarity” of the Waikato River downstream of where the Waipā River enters it.

Minister, again we saw, during the floods and storms of earlier this year, in January and February 2023, enormous volumes of sediment eroded from all types of land uses, whether it was forestry or farming, or, of course, if you drive up the Napier-Taupo Highway, you will see, even in areas of what looked like untouched indigenous forest, very large slips—very, very large slips—because the underlying geology of those soils and of those rock types is very unstable. Enormous quantities of sediment being discharged to waterways and then to the coastal area. Of course, it reached all the way up to the continental shelf, where those sediments build up as a layer—a thick, thick, thick layer—that in the future, maybe tens or hundreds of millions of years from now, will be hard rock and uplifted.

So, Minister, I want to know how a plan is supposed to account for rules about discharges, where many of the things that they propose to regulate are already happening at a much greater scale in the natural environment. If all of these things are decided in a plan, and you can’t bring your evidence to court and say, “Hey, actually, our discharge is not too different from a natural discharge.”, how on earth are businesses supposed to get ahead and prove they can operate?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): As I think the member well knows, that’s not what this rule is about. It’s about discharges to water, not the mixing of existing waters, which, as the member records, is a common occurrence, whether it’s the rivers he talks about or the Clutha River or the Kawarau River down south. This is about contaminants being discharged by human activity or practices, and after a reasonable mixing zone, is there conspicuous oil or grease, and is there a conspicuous change in colour caused by those discharges?

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Junior Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the question be now put.

Tama Potaka: Madam Chair!

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The member will not interrupt the Chair when I am ruling. Tama Potaka will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Tama Potaka: I withdraw and apologise.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): I’ll put it again: the question is that the question be now put.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.

Ayes 72

New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.

Noes 44

New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 4 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 389 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 72

New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.

Noes 44

New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.

Amendments agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 4 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 72

New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.

Noes 47

New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2; Whaitiri.

Part 4 as amended agreed to.

Part 5 Resource consenting and proposals of national significance

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, we come now to Part 5, the debate on clauses 152AAA to 303, “Resource consenting and proposals of national significance”, including Schedules 10 and 10A. The question is that Part 5 stand part.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s good to get back into the Chamber after a brief interlude, but I want to—

Simon Court: Welcome back, Stuart.

STUART SMITH: —focus—oh, thank you very much. I want to focus on clause 157, “Consent authority may permit activity by waiving compliance with certain requirements, conditions, or permissions”. So in clause 157(1), it says “An activity is a permitted activity if (a) the activity would be a permitted activity except for a marginal or temporary non-compliance with requirements, conditions, and permissions specified in this Act, the national planning framework, or a plan; and (b) any adverse environmental effects of the activity are no different in character, intensity, or scale than they would be in the absence of the marginal or temporary non-compliance referred to in paragraph (a)”.

So what is “temporary”? That’s not defined, as far as I can see. If we’re talking about geological time, you know, our time on earth is less than a second. If we’re talking about, you know, of course, the time for an insect, well, a second is half a lifetime almost. So we need to know what that marginal or temporary non-compliance is. We understand what non-compliance is, but we want to know what the temporary or marginal means in this context, because it’s quite important for many activities, actually. Water takes, for example, only have a marginal effect on a river, or, indeed, an aquifer. It’s only a marginal effect. That’s probably been the biggest issue with allocating resources on a first come, first served basis, where one straw has very little impact on the camel’s back, but the last one causes a problem, and then you’ve got to go back and assess how that matter can be mitigated.

Hon Scott Simpson: A bit like the Labour Cabinet.

STUART SMITH: The straws are falling, though. They’re not going on the back; they’re falling. Yes.

So it is important that we know what marginal and temporary non-compliance is. So I’m hoping that that is referred to somewhere else within the Act, and I’m sure the Minister’s looking it up, so I look forward to his answer. Thank you.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): I’m advised by officials that this is a carry-over of section 87BB in the Resource Management Act, and it covers the situation where there is some temporary event that, if it were long term, would require a consent. But this provision allows the council to exercise their discretion and actually treat it as a part of the permitted activity.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Well, that’s helpful, but the council’s discretion still doesn’t actually define what “temporary” is. Is that one year, one week, 10 years, or 10 weeks? I know that 10 years is ridiculous, but there’s nothing to define that as far as your explanation that you gave. It didn’t enlighten us on that. So if you could be a bit more specific about that. Why isn’t it actually in the legislation to more tightly define what marginal or temporary is?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): It relies upon a factual assessment by the council, as it does under the current legislation. To set that in a specific way would be rigid and could either be too onerous in respect of some less consequential entities and not onerous enough in respect of some more contentious activities, so the issue is left to a factual assessment by the councils to do practically as it is under section 87BB in the existing Resource Management Act.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you, Madam Chair. Part 5 is quite an important part because, amongst other things, it sets in place what is the fast-track consenting process—that’s in clause 152AAA(1), but it then goes on to refer to Schedule 10A, and 10A is quite a long schedule: Part 2 of Schedule 10A describes in significant detail the fast-track consenting process, and I’ve got to say that if there is one part of this proposed legislation that we think is a good idea, then it’s this. But my concern is that, notwithstanding the provision for a fast-tracked consenting process, if members of the public were to take a look at the Schedule 10A, it still looks like a really complicated process with lots of hoops to jump through, lots of things to take into account, and an awful lot of rules that surround that process. So my question to the Minister is: how can he be sure that this concept of a fast-track consenting process that is set out in Part 2 of Schedule 10A is going to be as effective as he might hope it would be, and given the rules and red tape and prescriptive nature of Schedule 10A, how can he be sure that “fast” actually means fast; that the process of consenting can be quick and efficient, not too costly, and available when is necessary?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Because the public can rely upon the record of the Labour Party as being the infrastructure party that have not just funded infrastructure. We’ve consented infrastructure up and down the country in a way that the prior Government could never achieve, including, through the passage through this Parliament, the fast-track legislation in response to COVID—which this is based on—through which we have proven that fast track has, on average, taken 15 months out of the consenting process, sped up consents, and saved money. Now, how do you do that? You actually do need to have some parameters around when you can and can’t use it, and if you do use it, how you deal with the matter. Essentially, those matters are normally dealt with on the papers, therefore you have to prescribe what papers have to be presented to the panel that takes the consent decision and who has a right of input to make sure that you are changing the process rather than the underlying environmental test, because fast track, under this Government, has not changed the environmental test—it’s just made their process more efficient. That carries on into the new system.

At the moment, fast track under the COVID legislation has expired. Interesting to hear from ACT and National parties saying that they’re going to repeal this legislation, because fast track goes with it, too. The only additional suggestions I’ve had in respect of fast track from the National Party are to put everything through fast track; that would make it slow track because the system would gum up, and additionally, fast track is not appropriate for every proposal—there are some things that are so contentious that actually public rights of input, including at public hearings through normal processes, should be preserved. There are other process tracks for those sorts of things, including direct referral to the Environment Court or to the Environmental Protection Agency, where public hearings are held.

SIMON COURT (ACT): The Minister makes a great point: wouldn’t it be great if we could fast track every consent application? But, of course, it is important to balance the rights of neighbours and communities affected by, say, traffic movements, dust, and noise from a development, or overlooking—if someone wants to build three storeys of three units one metre from your boundary, the ACT Party thinks that it is helpful to have a process to engage with your neighbours. That’s why ACT has actually proposed an alternative, in our solutions for building New Zealand and conserving nature, which would provide for just that. But, Minister, I just want to ask you a few questions about the fast track and how it will work—the proposals of national significance.

A couple of years ago, Port of Tauranga applied for their wharf extension to go into the fast-track process, and a decision was taken to decline their application to participate in the fast-track process even though their wharf extension was not out into the harbour but actually alongside an existing peninsular of land that they already occupied. Port of Tauranga made the point that they will be very soon constrained in the number of containers they can process. They are currently New Zealand’s largest export port, particularly supporting the fruit-growing, dairy, and sheep and beef sectors, and all of the high-tech manufacturing that goes on in the Bay of Plenty and the Waikato region—and Auckland to a certain extent; that exports through Port of Tauranga. But their application to enter the fast-track process was declined, Minister.

I know you’re aware of this, because in the decision making—and I think you replied to a written question that I put to you in relation to this, and I’ll just have to paraphrase because it was some time ago—the consideration was to exclude them even though the environmental effects could be acceptable, given that, essentially, they’re just building a concrete dock alongside their existing land, as opposed to out into the harbour, to allow for the largest containerships that will soon be coming, with 10,000 twenty-foot equivalent unit vessels, double the size of the containerships currently coming to New Zealand. They need the capacity. But there is a marae across the harbour, which looks at the port and which in previous years has been surrounded by industrial activities, including fertiliser manufacturing, hydrocarbons, petrochemicals—manufacturing of all kinds—and that marae now sits almost isolated, surrounded by industrial activities with major roads going around it, with their view of the port and its activities as their primary outlook.

I understand, from looking into it, Minister, that that marae has felt that their interests haven’t been addressed, or past wrongs haven’t been addressed through the Treaty settlement process, and that they feel they have to object to Port of Tauranga’s proposal because they don’t see any other way of getting redress for the way that their marae and the papa kāinga housing on that marae has been impacted by industrial activities next door and, of course, the port, which is a vital piece of infrastructure in operation. So, while the people who live in the papa kāinga housing in the marae and the hapū who are responsible for it have a genuine issue with the quality of the environment that they are forced to endure and all of the development that’s gone on around them, that doesn’t change the fact it’s happened and that the port needs to expand. So, by rejecting Port of Tauranga from the COVID-19 fast-track application process, that actually indicated that some of these primary hurdles to infrastructure development, namely the veto of a group of people who might have a legitimate concern but which can’t possibly be addressed through this resource management process, will still continue to have a right of veto over major infrastructure projects.

Minister, would you care to explain to the committee and to people listening how that might be resolved through this process?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Yes, I’m happy to. For a start, I would say there are some things that shouldn’t be able to go through fast track. People with an understanding of the history of New Zealand would, I think, understand that raising Lake Manapōuri, as happened historically, shouldn’t go through fast track, nor should the high dam at Clyde—nor, in my opinion, should other hydro projects go through fast track. And that’s why the fast-track system here actually says you can—

Stuart Smith: Lake Onslow!

Hon DAVID PARKER: No, Lake Onslow shouldn’t be able to go through fast track either. It should be able to go through a direct referral to the Environment Court through some other process, but—

Chris Bishop: You legislated for it!

Hon DAVID PARKER: No—no. The legislation says there are some things that shouldn’t be able to access the fast track, because people have got a right to a say. And we don’t actually need a lot more hydro, so we shouldn’t be putting that through under a fast-track process. All other infrastructure can apply to go through fast track, including renewable electricity for geothermal, wind, and solar, and including port structures such as the member Simon Court mentioned. There is still a right of a decision maker to say some of these things ought not to go through the fast track. I’ve been the decision maker in respect of that under the COVID response fast track, but similar provisions are carried forward under the new fast-track provision in this legislation.

How have I exercised those discretions? Well, that’s been a matter for me as Minister, as it will be a future Minister, but one of the things I’ve done is protect the reputation of the fast track by not using it unwisely. And that does rely upon a degree of political judgment as to when events ought to go through with a public hearing. I’ve only done that on a few occasions. The Tauranga port was one of them. The Mount Crawford developments were another here, where there were gondola and commercial developments proposed for a peninsular that I thought people should have a right of participation in in the normal manner. It doesn’t happen all that often; it does happen some times. How else do you remedy these issues for the longer term through the country, or in the medium term through the country? You do it through the Spatial Planning Act. The Spatial Planning Act could say, “Look, when traffic volumes and freight volumes increase in New Zealand, we need to expand the port capacity in Tauranga.” That could be foreshadowed in a regional spatial strategy and could actually flow through to a district and regional plan as actually a permitted activity.

So, in the future, that port extension could well actually become a permitted activity. It may not do, but it might do—it might do. It might be a trigger. Those are issues for the future; they can be worked through through local communities, because there would be people at that marae who would no doubt, in respect of the plan change, come along and says, “We don’t think it should be a permitted activity.” They’d have the right to do that, and that would be for the regional planning committee to decide.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): Madam Chair, I was indicating interest but I thought you were going to call my colleague, but I’ll just make a brief contribution. The first point is to say—well, we welcome the Minister’s reassurance that Lake Onslow is not going to go through the fast track. [Interruption] Well, the Minister’s saying we can’t. I think the key point is it will never get consented, Minister. There’s not a person in the country who thinks Lake Onslow is consentable, other than, maybe, Megan Woods, I think. No, the Minister doesn’t think it’s contestable. Oh, David Parker is saying he thinks it’s consentable. Having railed against the Clyde Dam and having spent—and I’ve heard the Minister waxing lyrical on many occasions about the injustice of the empowering Act and the constitutional outrage and the environmental effects and all the rest of, with some degree of justification, and having spent a fair degree of his political career raging against that, he’s now saying to the House, alongside Megan Woods, that Lake Onslow, the biggest white elephant boondoggle ever known in New Zealand political history, is consentable. I think that’s fanciful. The reality is the project will never happen. It will never happen. It is never going to get built, and if it does happen, it will have to be direct-legislated by Parliament. Anyway, that’s not really the point.

The point I wanted to make—

Dr Tracey McLellan: Yeah, find a point.

CHRIS BISHOP: Yeah, well, it’s important. You are going to spend 30 billion bucks apparently, so let’s maybe have a few minutes’ discussion around it.

The point I wanted to make was in relation to the national significance pathway. Has the Government considered giving the power to call in matters that are part of national proposal or referring the matters to a court of inquiry—the Environment Court? Has the Government considered making the Minister for Infrastructure the relevant Minister for proposals? I think people are worried that the Minister for the Environment is conflicted, and, look, this is a debate that could go both ways. But I just want to know from the Minister what advice or consideration the Government gave to making the Minister for Infrastructure or, potentially, in some cases, the Minister of Transport, actually, the relevant Minister for that decision-making.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Although it hasn’t been reconsidered recently in respect of the Natural and Built Environment Bill, we did actually consider who should be the relevant Minister when the original COVID powers fast-tracked legislation was passed—the COVID response fast track. We also considered whether it should be Cabinet, and in the end, Cabinet thought that you need to give it to a Minister who will do it efficiently, and the Minister for the Environment supported by the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA), and the Ministry for the Environment, I think, has done that efficiently. If you gave it across to another ministry you’d have multiple ministries having responsibilities for these things, to administer it. Actually, it’s worked well with the Ministry for the Environment and the EPA and in future the EPA doing this.

The process already requires other Ministers’ opinions to be sought as to whether it should go fast track, so those opinions aren’t brought to bear and are outed and the record is also clear in the Cabinet paper that, as associated at least under the current process with an Order in Council, those matters are clear from the public record and so there’s political accountability. So I would recommend against having more than one department or agency responsible for fast track, although, obviously, more than one Minister or ministry has an interest in decisions made pursuant to that pathway.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you, Madam Chair. It is indeed good news that Lake Onslow won’t go ahead. Mr Parker, the Minister, said it wouldn’t go through fast-track, anyway. Well, it seems that he hasn’t been talking to the Minister of Conservation, because when I asked through written questions about why the permits for the groundwork to be done on it, which had to be received from the Department of Conservation, were done in what was world record time—world record time for those consents to go through—and when I asked further why that was, it was because it was seen as national significance, this project. I asked how that was assessed, but all I got was a fair bit of duck-shoving around and no answer. So, clearly, one part of the Government doesn’t share the same view as the Minister.

Hon Scott Simpson: The left hand doesn’t know what the left hand’s doing.

STUART SMITH: That’s correct. But I want to go on to clause 158A, “Specified prohibited activities”. It says the following activities are prohibited activities: “(a) prospecting, exploring, or mining for Crown owned minerals in the internal waters of the Coromandel Peninsula;”—fair enough; “(b) mining of which the main purpose is to mine mercury.” That’s fair enough as well. But then under subclause (2): “Subsection (1)(a) does not apply to prospecting, exploring, or mining activities set out in section 61(1A) of the Crown Minerals Act 1991.”. That particular section 61 is access arrangements in respect of Crown land and land in common marine and coastal areas, and (1A) is in initial access arrangement in relation to tier 2 permits. Now, tier 2 permits, I’m sure you’d be interested to know, is in section 2B of the Crown Minerals Act. In this Act, tier 2 means a permit that is not a tier 1 permit. If you look at the tier 1 permit, it’s all laid out in the parts above.

There seems to be a sort of a circular argument here. You can’t have a tier 1 permit—a tier 2 permit is just on a tier 1 permit. There’s no real definition of that. So that seems to be somewhat circular. Can the Minister enlighten us on that please?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Yes, I can. It’s a straight carryover of section 87B of the Resource Management Act, which sets out some areas where around the Coromandel prospecting and mining is not allowed.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Well, it’s a carryover from an Act that doesn’t work very well, into a bill that’s going to be even worse. That’s not really an explanation as to why it is there. Just because it was there before doesn’t mean it was the right thing. It seems circular. It says a tier 2 permit is anything that is not in tier 1. So what is that?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): It is not circular. It does work, as evidenced by the fact that the prior Government didn’t change that provision in the nine years they were in Government.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Junior Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.

Ayes 72

New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.

Noes 44

New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the Minister’s tabled amendments to clauses 164, 223, and 276 of Supplementary Order Paper 389 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments to the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 72

New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.

Noes 44

New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.

Amendments to the amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 5 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 389 as amended be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 72

New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.

Noes 44

New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.

Amendments as amended agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Simon Court’s amendment to clause 276(3)(b)(vi) set out on Supplementary Order Paper 387 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that Simon Court’s amendment to clause 276(3)(c) set out on Supplementary Order Paper 388 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 44

New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 72

New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.

Amendment not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 5 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 72

New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.

Noes 47

New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2; Whaitiri.

Part 5 as amended agreed to.

Part 6 Management of particular resources and areas

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, we come now to Part 6. This is the debate on clauses 378 to 427Y, “Management of particular resources and areas”, including Schedules 3 and 5. The question is that Part 6 stand part.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you, Madam Chair. Well, this is another part of the proposed legislation that has quite a lot of meat and detail in it. Subpart 1 relates to water conservation orders, and there’s quite a bit of detail in there. Much of it is carried over from existing legislation.

But when we come to clause 402, the requirement for farms to have a certified freshwater farm plan if it meets land threshold use, there are a range of matters there. It has to be 20 or more hectares, 5 or more hectares of the land is under horticulture, 20 or more hectares of the farm is under pastoral land use, a prescribed area of the farm under agricultural use prescribed in regulations made under section 411, or 20 or more hectares of the farm is under a combination of any two or more of the land uses described above.

So this requirement to have, essentially, freshwater farm plans is one of the issues that is foremost in the minds of many farmers up and down the countryside. Farming is an area that has been the focus of an awful lot of red tape, rules, and regulations under this current Government, and the requirement for freshwater farm plans is just another piece of red tape that farmers have to comply with under this.

Now, I don’t think that there are any farmers that would say they want worse fresh water in their catchment area, that they want the water quality to be worse, but it’s a question of balance. Much of this part, particularly in relation to freshwater farm plans, goes into the detail of what the plan must include. So clause 404, “Contents of freshwater farm plan (1) A freshwater farm plan must (a) identify any”—any—“adverse effects of activities carried out on the farm on freshwater and freshwater ecosystems”. And further, it must “specify requirements that (i) are appropriate for the purpose of avoiding, [minimising, or] remedying … adverse effects of those activities on freshwater and freshwater ecosystems; and (ii) are clear and measurable; and (c) demonstrate how any freshwater farm plan outcomes prescribed in the regulations are to be achieved; and (d) comply with any other requirements in the regulations [made under clause 411].”

So therein lies the rub, that those thresholds, in terms of identifying any adverse effects of activities carried out on the farm on fresh water; it’s actually a very high threshold. It’s arguable that just about any human activity and just about any farming activity will have an effect. It’s debateable whether that effect will be adverse and what the impact of the adverse effect will be in terms of quantum and what the cost and mitigating impacts will be, should that adverse effect have to be nullified, removed, or remediated.

So my question to the Minister in relation to freshwater farm plans is: is he confident that he has the settings right in terms of a sector that is already under intense regulatory control but has seen a massive increase in requirements for compliance in a whole range of areas, of which this is just another? What assurance can he give farmers that that the work, effort, and time associated with complying with freshwater farm plans is going to be commensurate with the environmental outcomes? I’m keen to know how the farm plans are going to be monitored. So if the Minister could address issues relating specifically to the freshwater farm plans, I’d appreciate his discussion on those matters, please.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Thank you, Madam Chair. In the process that the country has gone through to try and arrest the decline in our freshwater bodies, particularly our rivers and streams, the agricultural sector and councils came to central government and said, “Look, you can overregulate this space. Rules-based regulation through national policy statements and national environment standards can get too specific and unwieldy.” They said, “We would prefer a farm planning regime.”, which is why the amendments made to the Resource Management Act (RMA) to enable a freshwater farm plan regime are to, effectively, in the future be a substitute for some of the rules that you’d otherwise need in district plans or national direction. So that was inserted into the RMA about three years ago now, and this is largely a carry-over of it. It has, actually, broad support from regional councils and many agricultural bodies. The agricultural bodies like Fonterra, some of the industry, good organisations that work in the horticultural sector, and Beef + Lamb, for example, wanted to ensure that the existing freshwater farm plan components that they have in their plans—already required of their suppliers, in the case of Fonterra—could be transitioned into the new system, and they are being.

The only real change here in the Supplementary Order Paper is shown on page 278, to the clause that the member identified, clause 402, at new subclause (1)(a). That’s actually as a consequence of a request that Federated Farmers made of me. The arable sector came to me and said, “Look, the example where this is already working really well is in Canterbury.”, and this is largely modelled on what’s happening in Canterbury, where freshwater farm plans are already in place. He said that in Canterbury they started with the larger farms and then moved to the smaller ones, and that if they had started with all farms at once, they would have suffered a backlash against the system, and they would have also lacked capacity in the service sector to service the needs of all of the farmers.

So they recommended that further discretion be allowed in the system to change the land area thresholds pursuant to which you need to have a freshwater farm plan. So what that does is, effectively, allow regulations to be made by the Government to change those thresholds if a regional council, for example, comes to us and says, “Look, this is just going a bit fast. We actually want to start with the bigger ones first, like they did in Canterbury.” So this is actually a provision that has the support of Federated Farmers. Not a lot of this legislation does, but that particular provision is supported.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you, Madam Chair, and appreciate the Minister’s elucidation of those points because that’s very helpful. I’m keen to know whether the Minister sees whether a potential could develop over a period of time, where, because we have such a vast number of farms in the country, a range of different catchment areas, a range of different topographies, geology, farming practices, and such forth, it could develop that some kind of formulaic template emerges as a methodology for complying with the provisions of this part that would make it easier for farmers to comply with the requirements, but also more administratively efficient for the regional councils in terms of the records that they must keep in terms of clause 408. So I’m interested to know what the Minister thinks may develop in terms of process around these freshwater farm plans.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Another fair point. Yes, we don’t want this, on the one hand, to be so rigid that you drive everyone to a monopoly provider of services; we also don’t want to be so rigid as to impose the same rules unnecessarily everywhere, even though they are not apposite to some areas. So the purpose of farm plans is to be flexible enough to deal with the issues faced by each farmer. For example, if you’ve got a steep hill country and the problem of sediment eroding off steep faces that should be retired from heavy grazing pressure, that might be different to another area where the issues are nutrient flows from flat country intensive farming practices.

So the system has to be flexible enough to allow for both of those possibilities. But the member’s also right that you also want a degree of standardisation, so it’s not everything’s been done again, and I think the regulations allow for both of those things to be accommodated.

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki-King Country): Thank you, Madam Chair. I accept what the Minister is saying about the flexibility in and around it being that one size doesn’t fit all and so we need to have some flexibility, but just on this Part 6, “Management of particular resources and areas”, around water, it’s been drawn to my attention lately around particularly not just irrigation—and when people talk about irrigation or water storage, they often talk a lot about that being for dairy cows. I think we can assure the population that environmentally, that may have been a thing of the past, but it’s not going to be the thing of the future, because it will be for, I guess, resilience to do with climate change. It will be for some small hydro production, it will be for perhaps some horticulture, or it will be for leisure—there’s a whole range of things that water can be used for.

But the thing that’s being brought to my attention around spatial planning is that if we don’t get this right in our use of the water that we use, particularly for small mini-hydro plants that may service agricultural rural areas, those people in those areas might end up paying a lot of money for their electricity if it’s going into a local grid, rather than if it’s going into the grid and supplying the network. Therefore, the city dwellers may be better off than the rural dwellers when it comes to people spinning off small hydro schemes, and I guess—let’s face it—we’re past the days of Think Big, where we were going to have massive hydro schemes, and, hopefully, that includes Lake Onslow, so that we won’t have that, either. But there will be a lot of ability to put some small schemes in place; it just seems like the playing field isn’t even. So when we’re talking about water allocation, it’d be really good to put some thought into how that might become fair and equitable.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): I will, given that Project Onslow has been raised a lot of times, just respond to some of the criticisms there. Now, Onslow needs to be conceived of as a mechanism to cover dry your risk and provide a hedge against intermittency for new renewables in a way that encourages market competition in the provision of new generation in New Zealand. Those who believe in the project, including the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment and some very experienced people who have been involved in the electricity system for a long, long time—like Dr Keith Turner, the former head of Meridian and the former head of Electricorp Generation way back when, and currently head of Transpower—think that that is the greatest benefit. It will enable competition in renewable generation investments by international capital as well as New Zealand capital, because they will not be as reliant upon the tight four or five main generators at the moment to whom they have to look for a hedge against intermittency, and in a dry year, that’s, effectively, Huntly, which drives up the prices of electricity.

Anyway, I respond to that just to defend Onslow against some of the incorrect criticisms of it that are made here, even though it’s not directly affected by this part of the bill. But it’s been raised by others.

In respect of the issue of water storage: yes, there is a need for more water storage in New Zealand, on the dry East Coast, particularly. In the prior part of the legislation in respect of consents, there was reference through to the limitation on the length of new consents that can be given for the abstraction of water, and that’s because now that most water has been allocated, or over-allocated, in many catchments on the “first in, first served” basis, if you enable new consents to be given for 35 years or the renewal of all existing consents for 35 years, you’ve, effectively, put off the more efficient and reasonable allocation of water resources in New Zealand for up to 35 years, which would frustrate the purpose of the Act, which is for more fair as well as economically efficient and environmentally proper outcomes.

There were some exceptions made for large hydro projects. We’ve now made it clear that all existing hydro has the benefit of those exceptions to that limitation on the term of those consents. So you can get a 35-year renewal, but we haven’t applied that to all new water storage projects, although we have created a pathway for those sorts of projects to be given a longer-term consent in order for them to be banked.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. Minister, I just want to come to the matter of water conservation orders. Now, water conservation orders are already allowed under the existing Resource Management Act and they have been applied to a number of rivers—particularly the lower sections of rivers—where if water is abstracted for primary production in the upper parts of the catchment, or from, say, drawing on groundwater from bores, then there may not be sufficient water at certain times of the year and in certain climatic conditions to allow sufficient water to be in the river so that habitats are sustained so that recreation activities can be sustained, whether it’s jet boating, fly fishing, kayaking, or swimming.

But one of the problems with water conservation orders, as we’ve seen recently in Hawke’s Bay—and forgive me, I’m going to struggle to pronounce the name of the river—I think it’s Ngaruroro River, which has had a water conservation order applied to it. But one of the things that was proposed by some of the organisations representing farmers and growers, representing food processors was that, look, they can’t turn off their processors; they can’t tell their growers to stop growing the crop; they can’t tell the apples and the pears to stop growing. They need the water. When they make an investment in planting—and, of course, apple orchards, in particular, were absolutely smashed by Cyclone Gabrielle and other storm events recently—when they make a commitment to replant or to re-sow a crop, whether it be lettuces or tomatoes or corn, squash, whatever the vegetables are, they need to know they have access to water.

A water conservation order that only looks at the water in the river and says, “That’s all you can take, less what’s left for recreation and the environment.”, in the case of the order around the Ngaruroro River, ignores the fact there are options to build water storage higher up in the catchment to collect some of those enormous volumes of water which have come down the river during floods and storms, particularly in the last six months—enormous volumes of water.

So Minister, one of the concerns that the ACT Party has is that there is insufficient pathway to build water storage. That’s why ACT says, “If we want to adapt to climate change; if we want to leave water in the rivers for the fish, for trout and salmon, and for the banded kōkopu or the giant kōkopu”—or whatever those native fish are—“the eels, tuna; and we want to have water for production, then we should be allowing building water storage, water transfer between property owners, and irrigation as of right.” In other words, as long as you can demonstrate that you meet a code of practice and that your activities do not take away from the environment, then you should be able to build water storage as of right.

Sometimes, water storage developments require cooperation between regional councils, between central government, as well as between private sector funders like the Ruataniwha dam proposal in Hawke’s Bay. Yet, that was declined after Department of Conservation had to agree with some objectors from Forest & Bird that a piece of the land they wanted to swap—so it could be used for water storage—that they weren’t allowed to swap it.

So there was all kinds of things that stop us from actually developing water storage that underpins a better natural environment—that supports regional economic development—that is not addressed by this bill. So Minister, would you be able to provide the committee some assurance; people listening at home; and, of course, all of those growers and manufacturers and food producers who want to know that they can build water storage that can continue to operate in the regions, support our economy? They’re the backbone of our economy.

Minister, how will Part 6 and managing resources in areas, particularly water, sustain regional economy, primary production, and New Zealand’s prosperity?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): In respect of the issues relating to Ruataniwha, they are outside the scope of not only this Part; but they are outside the scope of this bill. As the member has rightly indicated, those matters were determined under the Conservation Act, not under the Resource Management Act nor its successor. So I won’t comment further upon that.

In respect of conservation orders, some conservation orders actually go from the headwaters to the sea—the Mataura River’s an example of one of those. Others are mainly in the headwaters, like the Wakatipu conservation order covers all of the rivers coming into Lake Wakatipu and the Kawarau River from the outflow from Lake Wakatipu down to the head of the Lake Dunstan at the Clyde Dam, but no further down. So that’s an example of where in the headwaters.

In respect of the Ngaruroro River and the Clive River—I have the same pronunciation inadequacies as the member does, to which I apologise to the committee—that was, in the end, not approved by the body to whom the application was sought in respect of the areas that did go through the lands that the member was concerned about, and was confined to the outer reaches of the river. So it’s actually an example of the system working towards the objectives that the member says he supports, rather than against.

In respect of water storage issues, I dealt with that with the answering the question from Barbara Kuriger.

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki-King Country): Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to talk about the areas of highly vulnerable biodiversity, and I just have a question because it talks about—there’s a criteria on page 299, clause 427P. Where does that—can I ask the Minister where does that leave the review into stewardship land, given that there’s a huge range of biodiversity classes on conservation land? There’s obviously a review going into it, will this particular piece of legislation define it more clearly? And if you could just explain to me what happens next from here?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): I addressed this to some extent under the first discussion we had on the first part of the bill, but the member’s quite right that this is further articulated in this part of the legislation. The scheme of the Act is to try and properly protect what is truly important, but not have that—and then really protect it with very, very limited exceptions as to some, for example, essential infrastructure that’s got no other place to go. But other than that, very, you know, very rare exception to the protection of highly valuable biodiversity areas. They are protected against development pressures, but in order for them to be of that status, they really do have to be nationally outstanding. It can’t be low.

Now, I know there are members in this House, and there is an amendment in the name of the Hon Eugenie Sage that wants to extend that to regionally significant areas of biodiversity. Within the view of the Government, yes, regionally significant, highly biodiverse areas can be protected by councils if they want to through their plans, and they go through a planning process and that’s a decision they take locally. But in respect of the highly protected areas where the scheme of the Act protects it, as opposed to rules in a plan, we think that should be limited to the nationally important, and that’s what this does.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank very much, Madam Chair. Minister, I just want to go back to freshwater farm plans. And my question is around the requirement for farm operators to prepare a freshwater farm plan, then submit the plan to a certifier for certification, and then arrange for the freshwater farm plan to be audited. So it’s quite a few steps involved there, and I think the Minister would accept that most farmers won’t have the ability to do this themselves and they’ll have to hire consultants to do the work. Certainly to prepare the freshwater farm plan, which some say could cost up to $10,000, and then obviously the next steps in terms of certifying and auditing it.

My question then goes to: what happens if there is a major adverse weather event which affects the relevant freshwater farm plan, and looking at clause 403(2), it says that “A farm operator must keep the certified freshwater farm plan fit for purpose by amending the plan as necessary to reflect any changes in the farm; and amending the plan as necessary to comply with this subpart and regulations.” So let’s take, for example, the events that have happened this year on the East Coast—Tairāwhiti, Gisborne, Hawke’s Bay—which would have a pretty significant impact on the operations of a farm and therefore would need quite significant changes to the operation of that farm. How is a farmer realistically going to update their farm plan, then get it certified, then get it audited and comply with the requirements here? And I know it’s not just unique to these guys—Tairāwhiti, Gisborne, Hawke’s Bay area; back in the beginning of 2020, a major adverse weather event happened in Southland, in which, again, the same scenario would have been faced by farmers.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): The first point I would make is that if you’re going to have farm plans as a substitute for regulation, they do need to have a degree of rigour about them. And there’s general agreement, I think, across the system that if it’s going to be a substitute for regulation, it actually has to be something that in practice people can be held to account for whether they do what they promised to do in order to limit their adverse effects on the environment. This is modelled on the Canterbury system and it’s working there.

In respect to the member’s question about what happens if events change, well, we’ve actually had the real example, as the member astutely points out, in respect of the Hawke’s Bay region. And the Government response to that has been to write, at the recuse of the regional council, and say “Taihoa, you’ve got a few more years to take care of it because you’re actually addressing other issues in response to the emergency.” So these things are practical and there are mechanisms to make sure that those sorts of events can be catered for, as evidenced by the fact that just in recent months that very occurrence has been dealt with.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to continue on this theme of freshwater farm plans. I’m pleased to hear from the Minister that there’s going to be a degree of pragmatism applied for unprecedented weather events and things of that nature. That’s good to know.

I particularly want to refer to clause 405, the requirement for the certification of a freshwater farm plan, and that the farm plan needs to be certified under clause 408 by a regional council. Councils must keep records of individual farms and their plans, and then, in clause 409, they must appoint certifiers and auditors. Now, that’s fine as well, but in clause 409A, there appears to be what is, effectively, an opportunity for regional councils to contract out that audit service. Clause 409A(1) says, “A regional council may give approval to an industry organisation that applies to the council to provide certification and audit services under this subpart if the council is satisfied that the organisation meets the standards issued under subsection (2).” I guess my concern is that some critics might see this as actually the fox in the hen house. The potential for sector groups to, effectively, do the auditing, in some eyes would potentially be seen as a conflict of interest and that they may have a range of motivations that might go to undermine the potential for the quality and scrutiny that they are taking up in their role as certifiers and auditors.

So, Minister, maybe you could give us some assurance about the kind of organisation that might be eligible. The clause says that it should be an approved industry organisation. I’m interested to know how “industry organisation” is defined, and could an industry organisation be a non-farming industry organisation? Could it potentially be, for instance, an environmental NGO or another entity or organisation that has interests in environmental matters and particular interests in the quality of freshwater and the impacts of farming and agriculture on freshwater that, potentially, could also be seen as a potential conflict situation? So, if the Minister could tease that out for me, I would appreciate it.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): I’m happy to, Madam Chair. As clause 409A sets out, the council may approve an industry organisation to carry out that role; “(2) The Minister [can], by notice in the Gazette, issue standards by which industry organisations must be assessed”; “(3) [The] Standards (can) … (a) set out the kind of organisation eligible”; and they can “(b) include content and processes”. There’s an example given at clause 409A(3)(b): “by requiring the industry to run training programmes and ensuring that conflicts are appropriately managed.” I agree with the member’s point that conflicts do need to be appropriately managed. I’ve never heard the term “industry organisation” to be applied to environmental NGOs. I don’t think that’s the intention. But there have been some industry organisations, like the horticulture sector, that have run their own industry assurance programmes. The viticulture sector has some as well. So we don’t want to—oh, actually, I should go back a step. Farmers don’t want to have a parade of lots of people doing similar things. They want it to be done once and be done well so that they can rely on it. Councils want the same thing because they want to be able to rely on it, and that’s why the system has been designed the way in which it has been.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. Dealing with “Places of national importance” and clause 427A “Interpretation”, as the Minister for the Environment noted, there’s a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) in my name, 394. What that seeks to do is put the Natural and Built Environment Bill (NBE) on a similar—to put outstanding landscapes and natural features on a similar footing in this bill to the Resource Management Act (RMA), where there has been a lot of work done by district councils and regional councils to identify and assess areas of outstanding natural landscape and natural features, and to have those included in plans.

So when the Minister noted that it’s optional that outstanding natural features and landscapes at that regional and local scale be identified, is it his expectation that the work that has been done to date by councils throughout the country will be used and put into natural built environment plans even though the much narrower definition in clause 427A means that these regionally and locally outstanding natural features and landscapes aren’t recognised as being of national importance, which under the RMA they are because there is no qualification that they just have to be outstanding at a national level. It is a fact that outstanding natural features and landscapes are a matter of national importance under the RMA.

The Green Party’s concern is that the change in the NBE bill really undermines the recognition of landscape values. It is often these are issues that are quite important in getting people to think about how we do land management in a way which respects natural systems, the soils, the features, and ensures that the landscape values of places like the Queenstown Lakes are protected from inappropriate development, such as houses and subdivisions that are very obvious and undermine that naturalness characteristic. So what happens to all of the existing information, can that be incorporated?

Then, I also have another question about clause 427Q, which is about the protection of high value biodiversity areas. The Minister’s SOP 389 makes, on page 299, some changes to clause 427Q around fishing, and it seems to me there are double negatives in there. But the protection for high value biodiversity areas is not as qualified in relation to fishing. Is there the risk that the provisions in the SOP will actually undermine the intent of the Motiti case? The Motiti case enabled councils, through their regional coastal plans, to protect areas against the effects of fishing, and that built on previous case law in Golden Bay. But, in the Minister’s SOP and the changes to 427Q, that appears to really, really narrow the ability of plans to protect against the effects of fishing by only being able to do that if these high value biodiversity areas are very clearly identified.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): I thank the member Eugenie Sage for her contribution. In respect of the highly vulnerable biodiversity areas and places of national importance, we are wanting to make that a rarefied group of high standard places of national importance, not regional importance. Once that is accorded to those sorts of places, then the protections are very, very high and they’re not easy to knock over. There are some very limited exceptions, but they are very limited.

In respect of other matters, we are actually leaving that to the local region, and the same high level of protection doesn’t automatically apply. That doesn’t mean to say there is no level of protection. And the member’s right that the landscapes around Queenstown are important, and that subdivisions that are in the wrong place can undermine landscape values in a way that the people of the area ought to be worried about. That is preserved—you know, that can still be done, but you won’t be able to, I don’t think, in space like Queenstown, say that all of the landscapes are of that critical importance. And why that’s important, in the example that’s been given to me by officials, including by Transpower New Zealand officials, is that they find it very hard to get any new transmission line approved into Queenstown because everything is categorised as being of importance from a landscape point of view, when, in actual fact, they need a new transmission line into Queenstown because the population is growing.

In respect of the other issue that the member raised around the marine space and fishing, what the amendment is intended to do is—we don’t override the Motiti case. The Motiti case is actually preserved, and there is a planning function there, which is actually starting to work out quite well in New Zealand now. There’s been some recent experience around the Bay of Islands. And I’m glad that we didn’t overreact against the Motiti case, because it’s working its way through the system quite wisely. But what we didn’t want was for there to be an onus on the fishing industry to prove whether or not there are areas of high biodiversity value before they can fish, because the scheme of the bill as drafted created the risk that it would be for the fishing industry to prove that there weren’t areas of high biological value before they could fish, whereas we think that, actually, it should be the other way around. Before you can stop people fishing where they’re ordinarily fishing, there should be an onus on someone else to prove that that’s an area where there ought not to be fishing, otherwise the regulation of the fishing industry would have become impractical.

TAMA POTAKA (National—Hamilton West): I was very, very enthused by the Green member’s comments around 427C, “Places of national importance”: “must identify every place that is a natural landscape or a natural feature (including geoheritage) that is [outstanding] on a national scale”, because, in some instances, the ability of iwi and hapū to assert whether or not a natural feature of a wāhi tūpuna or a wāhi tapu is at the level of “outstanding”, rather than just “a place over there” have been severely compromised. The access issue, for example, on a place like Rangipo Waiu, where the New Zealand Defence Force currently owns some land, has compromised various iwi throughout that middle reach of the North Island to access, look at, and assert that a place is outstanding. So the kawa and tikanga exercise, which is referred to in earlier clauses 3 through to 6, has been so disturbed that the ability of those iwi to assert that that natural feature or that natural landscape is outstanding is severely modified. So I’m trying to understand how a situation like that can be accommodated in the current proposed legislation.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): I don’t know the detail of that particular case that’s referred to in respect of what sounds like it’s land owned by Defence Force in the Central North Island. But the Crown, in general, in respect of land that it needs to control access to, has similar rights to private landowners to exclude people from it. I don’t think that’s changed through this legislation.

In respect of whether there are regionally, rather than nationally, significant issues touched upon by the member, but also just following up on one of the questions asked by the Hon Eugenie Sage, I’m advised that the work is already done by councils in respect of their identification of regionally significant landscapes is something that can flow through to the considerations of the regional planning committee when they put together a regional plan.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. Minister, I just want to come back to the freshwater conservation orders and the implications of that, and also address the issue of nutrients on water quality and ecosystems. New Zealanders mostly agree that there are some places around New Zealand where freshwater resources have been over allocated or where discharges from certain types of land use are negatively affecting the environment in a way which we all agree is not an appropriate way to treat our common resources. But Minister, what we’ve seen through this legislation, through the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management—is a top-down approach; a centralised approach, making rules: whether it’s a nitrogen limit or banning development in wetlands which actually don’t reflect the needs of communities, especially where communities might have a differing view on how resources should be allocated, particularly freshwater.

What we have seen are special rights allocated to iwi Māori, based on spiritual values, which they are perfectly entitled to hold—Māori culture is a taonga—but that which now require decision makers around water to have regard to Te Mana o Te Wai, which puts the health of the water, the spiritual concept mauri, first, above the needs of drinking water allocation and above the needs of water for economic and social development, which of course is water used to grow things and make things, Minister. Many people in the primary sector have been suspicious of this Minister, this Government, and the Ministry for Environment, which he is responsible for, in the way they have gone about lawmaking. In most recent times, there has been a suggestion—and we understand was tabled at Cabinet—that there could be a fertiliser tax on nitrogen potentially to help save us from climate change—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Order! The member will come back to this particular bill; refer to the clauses that you’re asking questions on.

SIMON COURT: Subpart 3, clause 412, “Purpose”: “The purpose … is … better monitoring of actions taken to improve freshwater quality and freshwater ecosystems.” Of course, better monitoring aligns with recommendations from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment to collect better data, to monitor and to make that available—absolutely important, ACT would agree with that. However, in clause 413, “Meaning of nitrogenous fertiliser”, it spells out what nitrogen-based fertiliser is, and then goes on to say that under the regulations of clauses 414 and 415, the Government is entitled to collect information about fertiliser used on land, “the date and place of purchase”, “the names of the seller … and the purchaser”. I mean, this will be a surprise to farmers, this will be a surprise to organisations that rely on producing things on the land—the Government now wants them to supply records of their inputs; of their production inputs; of their economic inputs. Because, of course, farmers are competing; they’re not all sharing the best knowledge. They want to do better than some of their neighbours—you know, that’s the nature of our economy. They might not want to give this information to the Government about the amount, the type, and volume of fertiliser purchased. What the Government and what the public should be interested in is what are the impacts on receiving waters on our common resources of land use—whether that’s using fertiliser or whatever.

So farmers and others will be suspicious that this Government has not given up its intention to impose a fertiliser tax, because it’s quite clear in this legislation that they want to collect all of the information about fertiliser inputs and other inputs to land. Well, what would ACT do? We would say rather than trying to micro-manage this stuff from head office, Minister; rather than try to make rules around who should be allowed to apply how much fertiliser to their land, ACT would say we need to adopt a market-based system. Because where a local council identifies a limit on water quality—the state of the environment that a community agrees is acceptable—then above that limit, nutrients should be able to be traded, because some farmers; some producers will have better ways of mitigating nutrient loss from farms, using better fertiliser, technology and monitoring and application systems—whereas others would prefer to do things in a different way. But if nutrients and water quality are allocated in a market-based system where people could compete for water quality attributes, Minister, wouldn’t that be fairer?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): I do find the ironies in these contributions worthy of comment occasionally, because the only two times New Zealand has ever adopted a cap-and-trade scheme for nutrients inputs were around the Taupō catchment—who did that? The last Labour Government—and the Rotorua catchment. Who did that? The last Labour Government. This very bill encourages more of that, and the last part: I won’t go into that because we’ve already been past that, but it actually enables those market-based mechanisms for exactly the reasons that the member indicated. So I look forward to his stirring speeches in support of those provisions in subsequent contributions.

Simon Court: What about the fertiliser tax, Minister?

Hon DAVID PARKER: In respect of the fertiliser issues, they’re a carry-over of the existing Resource Management Act, which enables that information to be gathered if regulations are made to that effect. What are the standards for water quality—again, I agree with the member that we’ve actually moved past the point of debate in New Zealand that we were going to have wadeable rivers. We actually want contact recreation to be safe for people that use our rivers, where they’re in a kayak or having a swim; effectively, swimmability is the standard for New Zealand rivers and streams in both rural and urban areas, and in some of those urban areas particularly—but also in some rural areas, we’ve got some ways to go to get back to there. But we’re actually agreed, as a country, that that’s what we should be heading for, and that’s what the current regulation and the subsidiary instruments provides for.

SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just following on around the effect of certain nutrients on quality and ecosystems of freshwater, and noting that in the current environment it’s very hard to actually grow stuff in New Zealand because there are limits on that. You know, we do have a cost of living crisis and we do have a, what, 20-odd percent increase in the cost of vegetables over the past 12 months. This isn’t going to make it any easier. In fact, it’s going to make it more difficult to grow stuff.

I just wanted to raise with the Minister the reality that in some places of New Zealand we take—there’s a line that goes through around the Bombay Hills where you switch over into the Waikato Regional Council, and the regulations they have around the nutrient usage is quite severe. What you’re actually doing there is prohibiting growing in some of the most fertile areas in New Zealand where we have a cost of living crisis, where fruit and vegetables are more expensive than they’ve been, and where New Zealanders—what they actually need are lower prices, and they need more fresh vegetables on their plate.

So the reality of what this is going to do is make that more challenging. We have situations—you drive north of here a couple of hundred kilometres, and people are actually growing there without consent because this Government is overburdening them with fresh water rules which make it impossible to grow. What we would like to see is a situation where we can move from doing what you’re doing on your land—so there’s a pyramid aspect at the moment, and you can’t move up that scheme. So you can’t actually get up to growing vegetables and into the horticulture space because there are far too many regulations in that area.

Is the Minister aware of that? Is the Minister aware that these regulations are going to make it harder to grow? Is the Minister aware that these regulations are going to make it more expensive for New Zealanders to eat fresh fruit and vegetables? Thank you.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): I do find it frustrating when members don’t pay attention to earlier contributions in the debate, including in response to questions from their own members who know better than the member who just showed his ignorance. There are specific provisions in this bill that elevate vegetable growth. That also reflects what we as a Government have done to actually improve allowances for the likes of nutrient pollution coming from the growth of vegetables compared with other sectors—

Simeon Brown: Nothing in this bill but carrots.

Hon DAVID PARKER: What’s that?

Simeon Brown: What’s the bill do for carrots?

Hon DAVID PARKER: What does the bill do for carrots—that’s the level of debate that we have from Simeon Brown. It’s quite good to put that on the record. What it does is the provisions in this bill say that the interests of vegetable growing are very important to the health of New Zealanders and ought to be elevated. They are in this, as we have done in respect of fresh water management matters, where we have given exemptions to both Pukekohe and Horowhenua areas where the environmental limits could not be reasonably met without kerbing vegetable production. We thought that was wrong for the health of New Zealanders and the price of vegetables, and so we gave them exemptions. That is carried forward in this legislation, and if the member doesn’t know that, it’s not my fault.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. This is proving to be quite a good and lively discussion that we’re having here under extended sitting. I want to come back to Subpart 4, “Places of national importance”—or what we came, in the Environment Committee, to affectionately refer to as “PONIs”. We spent quite a lot of time talking about the PONIs—places of national importance—and a section of the debate was around the use of the term “trivial” or “more than a trivial impact” or “more than a trivial, adverse effect”. I notice in the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper that the word “trivial”, in multiple places—and I’m particularly referring to clause 427C(4)(b). There’s another reference in 427F. There’s another reference in 427H, where the term “trivial” has been replaced by the word “minimal”.

I’m interested to know what the rationale for that change is and whether the Minister has received advice from officials that removing the word “trivial” and replacing it with “minimal” has some impact that maybe wasn’t originally made clear at the select committee, and whether or not the impact of that change will improve—I guess the fact that the Minister has made the change is an indication that he feels it must improve and be a better terminology than the use of the word “trivial”. So, if the Minister could enlighten us as to why that change was made, because it was a matter that was discussed at some considerable length in select committee. There were a number of submitters that made mention of the point, and our concern at select committee was that it was very hard to define “trivial”—that “trivial” has different meanings to different people. But, to replace it with the word “minimal”, I’m not 100 percent sure that that necessarily helps advance certainty in any degree. So if the Minister can give us some insight on that?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Actually, the member Scott Simpson has had his way on this one, if he did express that at select committee, because how it used to work was that “trivial”, which was the term that was used, was defined in the definitions signal, on page 64 of the bill, to mean “adverse effects that are no more than minimal”. So they’ve cut the definition out and they just moved straight from “trivial” to “minimal”, and it is actually—

Hon Scott Simpson: They’ve cut out the middleman!

Hon DAVID PARKER: They’ve cut out the middle definition, yeah. And, in terms of consistency with language in other statutes, it’s probably more consistent and, therefore, leads to less uncertainty in a new statute.

TAMA POTAKA (National—Hamilton West): Just in light of those comments about highly vulnerable biodiversity areas (HVBAs), there was a little bit of uncertainty around the interface between clause 427P(2) and the related determination of an HVBA, which “must have regard to mātauranga Māori”. In the context of clauses 3 through 6 in the affiliations with kawa, tikanga, mana, and the vibe, and then the ability to make a determination that this is an HVBA, a piece of land, a piece of land that happened to be Māori land, the interface with clause 427S, which now says, if you refer to 427R, the Minister can make a provision that, even though you’ve gone through that process of kawa, tikanga, mātauranga Māori, and everything else, and it is the characteristics of an HVBA—it is that—but the Minister can still make, effectively, a determination that that land is exempted from the HVBA provisions. So I’m just trying to understand from the Minister if that is what is intended.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): The ability to have exemptions to highly valuable biodiversity areas is race and colour neutral.

SHANAN HALBERT (Junior Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Minister, I want to just go to water conservation orders and ask you some questions around that. But I’m just going put it in context and ask you about the minimum flow levels, as it relates to this, of the Manuherikia River, which I know the Minister will be well familiar with. The Manuherikia River, as the Minister probably knows, was once a “massive lake that covered all of Central Otago. It was fringed with gum trees and ringed by salty mudflats. Fossil records show the lake was home to crocodiles and flightless, burrowing bats; the surrounding river delta [was] a feeding ground for ancient wading birds related to flamingos and Squawkzilla, the largest known parrot to ever exist.” Fast forward a few tens of millions of years to today, and the Manuherikia River starts high in the snow-capped Hawkdun and St Bathans Ranges, flowing down to the Falls Dam, finished in 1935—about 92 years ago by my calculation—and then carries on about 85 kilometres down to Alexandra where it joins the Clutha, the country’s largest river.

Unlike most other rivers, the Manuherikia starts by collecting the snowmelt from the Hawkdun and St Bathans Ranges and then it carries on, and it doesn’t really get much other water. Most rivers collect more water as they go, as they collect water coming into catchments. However, the area where the Manuherikia River flows through in Central Otago is very, very dry. In fact, they call it in some places “the Middle East”—in fact, it’s the driest place in the country. So it creates a bit of a unique conundrum where it actually needs to collect most of its water at the top, which is why the Falls Dam was constructed back in 1935. I’ve spoken to some old-timers who said that pre the construction of that, there were times when the river ran dry completely, so that dam forms a very important function.

I note, when I look at clause 378 in terms of water conservation orders, that a water conservation order can provide for a whole lot of things: “the preservation, as far as possible in its natural state, of a water body that is considered to be outstanding”, “as a habitat for terrestrial or aquatic organisms”, “as a fishery”, “for its wild, scenic, or other natural characteristics”, “for its scientific and ecological values”, “for recreational, historical, cultural, or spiritual purposes”, and “the protection of characteristics that a water body has, or contributes to, and that are considered to be of outstanding significance in accordance with tikanga Māori.”

What I don’t see any mention of there, Minister, is its economic value for the community. I note that the Central Otago District Council had an independent analysis made of this previously and noted that if there were to be a minimum flow level of about 3,000 litres per second—I think it is—that would be equivalent to reducing the income from farming across Central Otago by some 50 percent compared to the status quo. That would be a very significant matter for that region, and I’m curious as to why this consideration has not been put in there as something that must be considered, or should be considered, as part of a water conservation order.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): I actually claim some expertise in water conservation orders. I’ve done a lot of the water conservation orders that there are in New Zealand, including on all of the tributaries of the Wakatipu, including the Mataura River and including the Ahuriri and a number of other catchments around New Zealand. So I know a lot about them. There is no water conservation application in respect to the Manuherikia. I also know a lot about that river, and, indeed, when I’m in a position in a place where Māori mention their whakapapa and the rivers that they most closely identify with, I actually choose two rivers: the Waikouaiti River and the Manuherikia River, which I camp next to most years.

I also know the history of its mismanagement as a water body, that is a shame on the reputation of the Resource Management Act (RMA) that goes back for 30 years. And I can attest to that, because the year that the RMA came into effect—around 1992—I went to a meeting in a woolshed close by the river at Mr Rutherford’s house with the late Jim Guthrie. We were explained how there was a 30-year transition for what used to be called “mining privileges”, which became “deemed permits” under the RMA, which were meant to transition into RMA water consents and, therefore, enable an effective minimum flow on the Manuherikia River, whatever that flow ought to be. And I don’t actually have a strong view as to what the minimum flow ought to be on that river. I’m actually more interested in water quality outcomes. Sadly, after 30 years of transition started in 1992, the regional council dropped the ball down there and didn’t transition in the deemed water permits, and therefore actual water abstraction during a period when environmental outcomes that should have been getting better got worse, because the actual amount of water being sucked out of the river actually increased each year and farmers became more dependent on unsustainable levels of utilisation sucked out of the main stem of that river. I know a lot about that, as you can hear, but this bill doesn’t affect it.

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki-King Country): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a quick question about contaminated land, Minister. There’s a clause in here, clause 427, that talks about going back to the recovering the costs from the polluter or, if not, the EPA may recover the costs from the local authority. This may or may not be a tie-in with the current Resource Management Act and it’s just a gap in my knowledge. Is there a time limit on that? Because we all know of some very contaminated—or very historically contaminated—sites. Can you just please explain that?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): There’s not. The sad reality in respect of most of the badly contaminated sites in New Zealand is they’re known as what is called “orphan sites”. That is that the owner of those sites, when they were running an old sawmill or chemical production factory, they’ve long since gone into liquidation or scarpered, and there’s no one left to pay the bill of the remediation. So it falls on central and local governments to foot the bill, and there’s a limited amount of money for that. So it’s not possible to put a deadline on the rehabilitation of all contaminated land because they’re under budgets to achieve it.

SARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam): I move, That the question be now put.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just further to the questions of contaminated land, and I’d just like to acknowledge the efforts of the Minister in assisting with the negotiation of the removal of hazardous materials from Mataura back to Tīwai-Bluff aluminium smelter, because that is an example of where it is necessary for a Government to show leadership where we have an orphan site or an organisation that thought they could do the right thing with harmful materials but has not been able to succeed. But, Minister, I just want to ask for your consideration. Isn’t the issue of contaminated land primarily a matter for private property owners, unless the contamination is actually affecting a waterway which is a common asset or the ability of a neighbour to enjoy their land?

Because, Minister, in my experience, working in the contaminated land sector, the hazards associated with past industrial and commercial activity, whether they’ve been manufacturing steel components or concrete, building houses, or even painting houses that once had lead paint on them and where the preparation for repainting involves stripping and sanding and you end up with lead in the soil—that contamination is typically not a risk to anybody unless the soil is disturbed and people are exposed to contaminants by breathing in dusts, for example, such as asbestos or lead. So, Minister, if land contamination is primarily a risk to the landowner, then shouldn’t it be simply something for the landowner to manage? Because contamination, if it’s significant, will reduce the value of that land. For example, I’m aware of land developments where the price has been discounted when it comes to transacting the land because the land developer will need to spend a significant amount of money on cleaning up contamination before they can change the land use, say, from commercial or industrial to residential.

So there’s a lot of information here, Minister, on subpart 4 about classification of contaminated land and, of course, the polluter pays principle which ACT absolutely agrees with, Minister. But the landowner’s obligations are to identify to regional council when land is contaminated and to provide information about whether that contamination exceeds an environmental limit and so on. But it doesn’t say what’s to happen next, because, of course, one of the problems we have now is that simply collecting information about natural and physical hazards is never enough. Someone will always have to act on it. And, Minister, it’s not clear what that action might be from a regional council. So if you could clarify that, also your interpretation or, I guess, give us a bit of context and background on the relative issues between the private property owner having the contamination versus the public risk, if the land is not being disturbed and the contaminants are not being released.

Minister, I also want you to just give us your interpretation of how significant contaminated land sites, in clause 422, might work under this legislation, because it’s not just orphan sites that are significant contaminated land sites. New Zealand also has hundreds of closed landfills, sites where we willingly, knowingly, intentionally placed harmful substances, general refuse, municipal waste collected from households, agricultural waste and chemicals, all kinds of manufacturing wastes in communities around New Zealand in areas that are subject to erosion from coastal processes or river processes, on sites which may well be now surrounded or even have had residential developments built over them, Minister. There’s significant contaminated land sites like closed landfills.

Minister, when it comes to paying for it and time frames, if you could give us some clarity about once these sites are identified, whether there is an opportunity to clean them up, who should pay. And, Minister, given you also have the responsibility for the waste levy under the Ministry for the Environment’s overall programme of work, would you be able to indicate whether the waste levy collected from disposing waste at landfills now, which is heading up towards $60 a tonne or more, could be applied as a fund to provide funding and financing for cleaning up of the significant contaminated land sites. Minister.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Thank you, Chair. Look, the member understands these issues are complicated. I understand that he understands the complication. I agree with his general proposition that you’re more worried about contaminated land if the contamination is going to flow from that land into a water body or into the air or into an adjacent piece of land. But some of these provisions also note that if the land use changes, you’ve got to be pretty careful it’s contaminated. It might be OK to run a lead acid battery manufacturing plant on a piece of land that’s industrial, but if it’s become contaminated and you were to convert that into a residential subdivision, then, of course, the lead poisoning that could occur to people living in the housing that is built on that subdivided land could be significant, and there’s a public policy interest against that happening, and so that’s why provisions like clause 421 provide duties on territorial authorities when considering consent applications to subdivide contaminated land.

In respect of the issue as to the waste levy, yes, we’re actually giving consideration to that. I think where that will end is in that in respect of municipal sites where, really, central government probably had responsibility for the original site. I’m certainly open to the idea that the Waste Minimisation Fund should be able to be accessed to help remediate those sites. I think that’s a practical and sensible thing to do.

In respect of private sites that are owned by private bodies who have polluted their land, I’m not sure that the public purse should be going to that.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you, Mr Chair. I just wanted to ask here around significant biodiverse areas and the considerations relevant to the Minister under clauses 427D and 427E. I note that before specifying criteria that the Minister must seek—in the national planning framework, the responsible Minister must seek written advice from the environmental limits and targets review panel, on (a), “whether, in the opinion of the panel, the criteria proposed by the responsible Minister are scientifically robust; and (b) any other matter the responsible Minister considers relevant”. But when I look under 427E, I note that in the criteria there is nothing there to address the issue that the Minister noted before, which I think was quite right. Which is, for example, in Queenstown, there are potentially real barriers to building new transmission lines, which the area may very well need in the not too distant future because of the electricity demands and growth that that requires. So there’s potentially an issue here in that the Minister must set criteria but can’t take—my question is: can the Minister take into account other really important considerations, like, for example, the need for a transmission line to be built for an area like Queenstown which needs more electricity, and that may cross areas of significant biodiversity values?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): The bill—higher up in the scheme of the bill gives priority to the provision of renewable electricity. It also gives provision to a higher recognition to infrastructure provision more generally, not just renewable electricity. Both of those pathways would help, as would the regional spatial strategies required under the Spatial Planning Bill, that we are yet to consider. But in addition to all of that, even if there was a highly nationally important biodiversity area identified, actually the only exception really that you can get to that is for critical infrastructure that’s got nowhere else to go. So even if the whole of Queenstown was to be—surroundings of it were to be in that high category, and I don’t think they ever would be, even if they were, even then, the bill allows an exception for that critical infrastructure that can’t be put anywhere else. But in the event that would happen, the damage that the pylons would do to that area would have to be offset by some environmental measure elsewhere.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Minister’s tabled amendments to clauses 427G and 427X on Supplementary Order Paper 389 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments to the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 72

New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.

Noes 44

New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.

Amendments to the amendments agreed to.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Point of order, Mr Chair. I’m just wanting to check that there has been the proper order of the Supplementary Order Paper put here. I’ve got this Supplementary Order Paper in hand, which is an amendment to Supplementary Order Paper 389. It is on the Table. I’m just checking with the Clerks as to whether that amendment to the Supplementary Order Paper 389 ought to have been put before Supplementary Order Paper 389 was put. Here’s the document there.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): We’ll just take the time to make sure we’ve got that right, Minister in the chair.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Mr Chair, can I assist the committee here. I’m speaking to the point of order that I’ve raised. I think the Supplementary Order Paper should have been put first, and I’m not sure what the proper way through is. The simplest way for me is just to seek leave of the committee rather than have an argument about it. If necessary, this is a matter that I would need to push, but I suspect there is an easy way through here, which is to—I’m not sure whether that vote had been completely recorded. Perhaps we could have an indication—

Matt Doocey: Just speaking to that point of order, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Just hold on one second.

Matt Doocey: Just while you’re working through the proceedings, I think it would be helpful from the Minister for the committee just to hear why he thinks the order should go in the order he is suggesting and the issues that he’s trying to overcome.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): He has spoken before. But elaborate on your thoughts on the point of order.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): If it assists, I believe that the process of the committee is meant to put amendments to amendments before the amendment is heard, if they’re from the Minister. That does not appear to have occurred here. I’m not blaming the Clerks, but that’s what has happened here, and I would suggest the proper thing is to put that Supplementary Order Paper that then amends that wider Supplementary Order Paper in the manner that accords with the Standing Orders.

MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Speaking to that point of order, surely if the proceedings aren’t in order, that probably makes the last vote void—you can’t be amending an amendment that hasn’t been amended.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): OK. I hear both sides. If you can just allow me to take advice now. I think we have a way through. Just to clarify: I’m advised that the tabled amendment was actually voted on through the wording of the amendment. So, actually, if the member is concerned that it hadn’t been, I’m reassured that isn’t the case. Thank you for the committee taking the time to clarify that. We are now in the position we were in before. We’ll now go on to the second amendment, which is that of Simon Court. Just before we go, everyone understands?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): So, if my understanding is correct, you’re now saying that we’ve already voted on that Supplementary Order Paper of 10.20 a.m., on clause 164, and that tabled amendment was put before the Supplementary Order Paper 389 was put, and therefore they have both been voted upon and we come to the member Simon Court’s amendments.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): That is the advice I’ve received. The question is that Simon Court’s amendment to Part 6 of Supplementary Order Paper 389 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 392 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments to the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 44

New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 72

New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.

Amendments to the amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Hon Eugenie Sage’s amendments to clause 427A of Supplementary Order Paper 389 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 394 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments to the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 10

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.

Noes 106

New Zealand Labour 62; New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.

Amendments to the amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 6 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 389, as amended, be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 72

New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.

Noes 44

New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.

Amendments as amended agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 6 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 72

New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.

Noes 45

New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10; Whaitiri.

Part 6 as amended agreed to.

Part 7 Coastal matters

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Members, we come now to Part 7, debate on clauses 428 to 496, “Coastal matters”. The question is that Part 7 stand part.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you, Mr Chair. We come now to an interesting part of the legislation relating to coastal matters. I know that members who represent electorates that have coastal boundaries, such as my own in the beautiful Coromandel, and my colleague Stuart Smith’s in Kaikōura, have particular interest in matters relating to this part of the proposed bill.

What essentially this part does is to provide for rules, regulations, and statutory provisions for what is, effectively, the commercialisation of the marine space. It is a matter that is different to matters relating to “on the land”, because in the marine space, of course, nobody owns the marine space, but we accept, as a nation and as a Parliament, that it’s fit and proper that there should be access to the resource that is provided in the marine space, but that access should not be unfettered; it should be controlled and organised. So clause 428 essentially sets out that an allocation framework, as defined in section 7, doesn’t apply to any application activity or authorisation under this part. Then Subpart 1 goes on to talk about the occupation of common marine and coastal areas.

So what I’m interested to know from the Minister in the chair—and I note that we actually have the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries in the chair at the moment, so she’ll be well placed to answer questions in this particular section—is, how does this particular part differ from existing provisions in the current Resource Management Act, and what changes has the Minister proposed that would make the administration of coastal matters easier, less complicated, less costly, and more efficient in terms of providing for better outcomes for those individuals and entities that wish to use part of the coastal resources that we have available to us?

New Zealand is a small nation at the bottom of the South Pacific. It’s often said that we are surrounded by the largest moat on the planet, and that’s almost certainly true. But what it means is that we have, actually, a very extensive coastline, very long coastline, with differing needs and requirements in different parts of it. I’m interested, particularly, about the commercialisation of, for instance, aquaculture, commercial fishing, recreational fishing, for instance, charter fishing—all those sorts of things. I know that my colleague Stuart Smith will want to ask questions relating to the energy sector.

So if the Minister could start off this debate on Part 7 by giving us an insight into what changes, if any, are made between this proposed Part 7 of the statute, as opposed to the existing Resource Management Act; and if those changes have been made, how do they benefit the environment that is our coastal environment; and what steps are in place to ensure a more easy, simple, and less complicated, less costly process for those entities and people that want to use the marine space?

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Associate Minister for the Environment): At a high level, in terms of the allocation and clause 428 that the member referred to, of course the more substantive changes to the allocation frameworks are found in the other parts of the bill, not this part of the bill. So, largely, what’s happening in our coastal marine area isn’t changing and the relationship with the fishing Act as well is also not changing.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you, Mr Chair. As my colleague, the Hon Scott Simpson said, I do have quite an interest in this section of the bill. The Kaikōura electorate, as well as being comparable in size to Israel, has over 20 percent of New Zealand’s coastline. I know that will be a surprise to many, but the Marlborough Sounds alone makes up 20 percent of New Zealand’s coastline.

Hon Scott Simpson: How much?

STUART SMITH: Ha, ha! 20 percent. Then, of course, we have the Kaikōura coast all the way down to the Ashley River, which is all part of—

Hon Scott Simpson: How long is that in kilometres?

STUART SMITH: Well, it’s over 20 percent of those coastal kilometres; I don’t have that number to hand. So this section in the bill is of great interest. As my colleague sort of outlined before, the interests between how this may change things, particularly aquaculture in the Marlborough Sounds, where there’s been quite a number of issues in the Sounds with salmon farming in particular, but now there’s King Salmon’s application for Blue Endeavour, which is out in Cook Strait, essentially, which I assume still comes under the same rules as it did under the previous Resource Management Act (RMA)—and the Minister’s nodding her head.

But does that constrain, in any way, future applications—that’s already under way and won’t be affected by this legislation, I would assume. But it seems one of the big concerns that King Salmon had, despite being kilometres offshore, is that the significant natural area part of the RMA could be triggered by someone who was halfway out to the offshore Blue Endeavour farm, they could look towards the coast and see a significant natural area—it wouldn’t be possible to see it from the farm itself, but it could be seen part of the way out there—and they could turn around and look the other way and see the salmon farm and be offended by that, and that was grounds for appeal or against the consent. So I’d like to know if that is still possible.

I’d also like to know, while I’m on my feet, Mr Chair—and I’ve got five minutes left; that’s good—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Stuart Smith.

STUART SMITH: Thank you, Mr Chair. About offshore wind: now, offshore wind applications to date—oh, there’s no applications, in fact, but the interest has been outside the 12-mile limit. Why we still call it that, I’m not sure; we should go to the metric system, but I’m not quite sure, off the top of my head, what 12 miles is in kilometres, but I’ll leave that to the Minister. Anyway—

Matt Doocey: 18.6.

STUART SMITH: 18.6—there you go. While they’re outside the area of the RMA or the Natural and Built Environment Bill, the cables that have to take the electricity back to shore will, of course, cross through that 12-mile zone and then go up the coast to the beach, essentially, to reach a grid injection point—or, indeed, a large load. So is that being considered in this legislation? Because the RMA didn’t consider offshore wind and how that may impact on our planning rules and what impact that might have on the natural environment. So I look forward to that. Thank you.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Associate Minister for the Environment): As Stuart Smith just said, the offshore wind farms are in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ), not the 12-mile coastal marine area, and I agree with him asking about why we still use those measurements. But the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment is doing a piece of work to consider how we do consenting for those offshore wind farms in the EEZ. I note that there are some efficiencies in here for aquaculture in terms of how aquaculture areas can be more efficiently made at the plan stage, rather than at the consenting stage.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Mr Chair. Minister, this matter of how coastal land or land in the common area is allocated under Part 7, “Coastal matters”, is actually vital to give certainty to a whole lot of infrastructure operators, asset owners, and people and businesses who might want to develop activities in the coastal area.

Minister, I’m not entirely sure if you’re correct—and perhaps you will clarify it—but is it possible to build a wind turbine on the seabed within the 12-mile limit? Or are there any technical reasons—or, perhaps, I don’t know, ecological or even spiritual reasons—why it can only be built in the exclusive economic zone? Because I would have thought that building a wind farm closer to land is actually a much better economic proposition; and, with reduced transmission distance to the consumer, probably a much better technical proposition as well. So, Minister, if you can confirm that it is possible, or should be possible, to build a wind farm within the 12-mile limit, that would be great.

Then, thinking about how applications for different competing uses are dealt with. Well, I live in Auckland. The Auckland region has 3,000 kilometres of coastline, including west coast beaches regularly smashed by 4- to 6-metre swells; where the volcanic mountain range that used to stretch 50 kilometres out to sea, all we have of it as a result of coastal processes are the remnants of the Waitakere Ranges, which were simply the eastern foothills of an enormous volcanic mountain range equivalent in size, the Hon Scott Simpson, to the Coromandel Ranges. So coastal processes and how you occupy it—very important to the people of Auckland when you’re considering the west coast. Then on the east coast, of course, is where most Aucklanders carry out their business of recreation and their use of the coastal area.

Now, in Auckland, we have significant competition for land uses in the coastal area. Auckland Council owns most of the boat ramps in the haul-out areas. However, there are groups in the community who say, “Well, look, wouldn’t it be better if we used what looks like a haul-out area with messy boats with Kiwis in their stubbies and singlets on a Saturday morning sanding and painting the boat—wouldn’t it be better if we use that land for some other kind of purpose?” So there is already competition for these areas, which is why it’s helpful that the bill provides some clarification about a method of competition. But, of course, if local councils or local government own these areas, and they have the decision-making powers, then how are other groups supposed to get access? That’s not clear.

When we think about the benefits of having haul-out facilities—well, we have issues with biosecurity, Minister. You’ll be well aware that Caulerpa seaweed, all kinds of marine pests and barnacles which must be removed from boats. There are regional council rules in Auckland and Northland which require recreational commercial boats to be hauled out, to be cleaned off, and to be repainted with anti-fouling paints at regular intervals. We don’t have the haul-out facilities—how on earth are we going to maintain our recreational and commercial boating fleet? So, Minister, how would the requirements be given weight if a decision maker is looking at bids for competing activities?

Then, of course, Minister, we have port developments. I mean, what did we learn during the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown of New Zealand? That the operation of our ports, whether it’s having adequately trained personnel, proper equipment, and being able to come and go without having to show your papers at a regional border if you’re a truckie—all very important, but it all starts at the port. Because around about 3 million to 4 million containers are imported in and out of New Zealand every year. If our ports are not able to expand, to develop, to occupy the seabed, to occupy the coastal area—and to do it without having to go back and prove why they should be allowed to do it every time—then New Zealand’s not going to be able to grow; we’re not going to be able to deliver manufacturing and other high-paid jobs around the regions.

So, Minister, if you could explain how this beneficial competition for allocation of coastal land might work so we can all get ahead. Thanks, Minister.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Associate Minister for the Environment): Going first to the comments around the exclusive economic zone (EEZ), my comment here was in response to the member’s question. Of course, I can assure the member, Simon Court, that I’m no expert on offshore wind farms; but should it be possible to have them in the coastal marine area (CMA), then clause 19 requires that nothing can happen without a resource consent in the CMA. I take the earlier point from Stuart Smith—his point was that you might need consents in the CMA that then go out to the EEZ, so of course we want any work that the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment is doing to be joined up with what is happening in this Natural and Built Environment Bill.

In terms of allocation, as I said before, these are not departures from the Resource Management Act, and good that we are having the Spatial Planning Bill and that regime, in terms of doing it long-term; thinking about how we want to use our spaces.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Oh, thank you, Mr Chair. I will take the opportunity to inform the committee that Marlborough alone has 1,800 kilometres of shoreline, so, therefore, it is very important that we get the coastal marine aspects of this Natural and Built Environment Bill nailed down and correct and easy to work with.

So I did listen very carefully to the Associate Minister for the Environment’s response to my earlier question, but she didn’t address the issue I raised about being in a boat halfway between the shore and an invisible structure, such as a salmon farm, that wouldn’t be visible from the shore but can be seen halfway out. Does the significant natural area aspect of consenting actually apply so that a person in a boat looking to the shore and seeing a beautiful SNA, significant natural area—and there are a number of them in the Marlborough Sounds—and then turning 180 degrees and looking out to the salmon farm or the structure or whatever it happens to be, it might be an oil rig, and being offended by it—is that grounds for objection to a consent application?

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Associate Minister for the Environment): On that point, we go back to Part 1 of the bill and the various different outcomes there. So they can be considerations, and of course it would depend on the circumstances of the case.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m not sure that we’re quite getting the clarity of answer that my colleague Stuart Smith was looking for, but none the less let’s move on.

I want to refer to clause 449, “Requirements for offers for authorisations”: “(1) An offer for an authorisation must specify—(a) the activity or range of activities for which the authorisation is sought; and (b) the site it applies to.” I’m interested, because the Minister has already told us that, essentially, this part of the bill is replicating existing Resource Management Act wording and format. That’s, I guess, all fine and dandy to a point, but the issue that concerns me is will this legislation and these words and provisions in Part 7—are they actually going to provide the futureproofing that we require?

Aquaculture, the marine space—the opportunities to commercialise it are rapidly expanding. My colleague Stuart Smith and also Simon Court have already mentioned offshore wind farms, for instance, but there’s a whole range of new potential activity. For instance, in New Zealand, we don’t do much in the way of kelp farming, yet other nations do, and what I want to be assured of is that there is enough flexibility in these provisions to meet opportunities that we may not yet have even considered. The science may not have even been developed yet, and I’m not 100 percent sure that there is.

There’s a second point that I wanted to raise in relation to clause 454, and that’s a clause that’s headed up “Use of tender money”. What happens is that regional councils go through a process of tendering for commercial use of marine space. There is potential for a competitive environment. There’s quite a lot of prescriptive stuff in clause 449 that relates to the tendering process. Clause 450 gives preferential rights to iwi when it comes to aquaculture and the tendering process. Some of that relates to previous Treaty settlement claims, and that’s understood and is a given, but there’s a commercial aspect to this in that the regional councils are incentivised to actually monetise the process of tendering.

So, coming back to clause 454, “Use of tender money”, it says that, “The regional council must apply its share of the remuneration to achieving the purpose of this Act in the coastal marine area in its region.”, and I guess my question to the Minister is about the potential for that to, effectively, create a perverse incentive to commercialise in a way that may not otherwise occur. So for a regional council that wants to invest in improving its marine space, providing tidy-up work, or maybe some remediation of coastal erosion and a whole lot of that sort of stuff, which is expensive and potentially long term, they’ll be looking for ways to generate revenue and income, but it’s not necessarily going to come from ratepayers.

The use of the tender money, I think, is potentially an incentive to perversely commercialise that goes beyond what the Minister whose name this bill is in potentially may have considered. So I’m interested in the Minister’s views and thoughts on that, and on whether there are going to be any restrictions on that—particularly if a regional council is looking for a new source of revenue or an increased source of revenue, surely that then is an opportunity where a keen and eager regional council would say, “Ha, ha! Here’s an opportunity for us to generate some revenue.”

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Oh, thank you, Mr Chair. I turn to clause 443, “Regional council must offer authorisations if Minister of Conservation approves”, and I know this relates to coastal and marine permits, and so on. But I go back to my earlier statement about how surprised I was, as was everyone who’s ever come across the Department of Conservation’s permitting habits, at how long it takes. For the Onslow geotechnical work, they got consents through. They gave it a fast-tracked process because they saw it as a project of national significance. It appears that at times and in certain circumstances, the Department of Conservation has primacy over the Minister for the Environment—or that’s what I take from that instance—and yet we’ve heard today that the Minister has said that Onslow will not get fast-tracked consenting, which, essentially, signs its death warrant, but this seems to be somewhat contradictory in clause 443.

So I’d like the Minister’s—I know that this goes outside of this provision, but this provision seems to set it in stone that the Minister of Conservation has primacy over the Minister for regional councils, anyway, and, therefore, probably even the Minister for the Environment. So could I have some guidance on that from the Minister and some assurance that the Department of Conservation doesn’t have this “Henry VIII” - type power over the environment?

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Associate Minister for the Environment): As I’ve noted previously, most of these provisions are very similar to the Resource Management Act. On the issue of tendering, I note that half of it does go into the public accounts.

Hon Scott Simpson: Sorry, can the Minister speak up? I didn’t hear that.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Minister, sorry, one of the members is just seeking clarification of your last—

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Oh, I was saying in the last point that half of that money does go into the public account.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Thank you, Minister.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to raise issues relating to the suspension of applications to occupy common marine and coastal areas for the purposes of aquaculture activities. This is clause 455. Assuming that a commercial activity has been granted an approval to operate—let’s say a mussel farm or an oyster farm or fish farming, any of those sorts of things that may have occurred. Indeed, around my area—in the beautiful Coromandel—we have a fair amount of oyster and also, particularly, mussel farming. The green-lipped mussel is very popular, and it provides a great opportunity for fishing around the mussel farms. But we also have challenging issues with biosecurity matters, particularly relating specifically to a nasty thing called Caulerpa that is prevalent around Great Mercury Island, around Great Barrier, and also now in Northland.

So the potential for biosecurity issues to arise and then having a regional council or a planning committee that is going to suspend, or seek to suspend, an existing commercial operation, I think, is something that is going to, sadly, probably become more prevalent as time goes by. We’ve had a briefing at the Environment Committee about some of these invasive specifies, not necessarily always relating to the marine environment, but the marine environment is particularly susceptible. So my concern is that, if we don’t manage those biosecurity issues carefully and well, there is a knock-on effect to the commercial operators who are not very far physically from where the contaminated and identified places have been put in place.

So if the Minister could give us some assurances that, under 455(1)(b), where there has been the identification of an actual or emerging biosecurity concern relating to aquaculture and activities, those matters will be appropriately and properly taken into account, and what that process might mean in terms of a speedy resolution to the conflict that exists between the commercial imperatives versus the marine biosecurity imperatives that are also equally compelling.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 7 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 389 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 72

New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.

Noes 44

New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.

Amendments agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 7 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 72

New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.

Noes 45

New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10; Whaitiri.

Part 7 as amended agreed to.

Part 8 Matters relevant to natural and built environment plans

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Members, we come now to Part 8, the debate on clauses 497 to 553, “Matters relevant to natural and built environment plans”. The question is that Part 8 stand part.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to discuss clause 500, “Criteria for approval as requiring authority”. Now, this will be particularly important to the energy sector, both for building new generation but also building new transmission and distribution lines as well as all of the associated activities that go with that such as substations and so on. I would like first to begin with the Minister giving an assurance that what we have today and what the sector is used to dealing with is materially the same as what this bill will do when it comes into force for a brief period before we repeal it after the election. So if you could just enlighten us on that, Minister, that would be much appreciated.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Well, it’s come somewhat as a disappointment that the Minister appears to have lost her voice and is seemingly no longer of a mood to answer questions. So maybe we’ll continue on with Part 8. Again, this is a part of the clause—Subpart 1 relates to designations, and again, my suspicion is that much of this wording will have come from the existing Resource Management Act. But that said, there are a couple of changes that I see that have been made in terms of the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper. They appear to be minor, but at 509(3), there are some typographical changes that I suspect are more to do with form than substance. But those are the matters that relate to iwi Māori. I’m keen to know what the Minister’s view is about the designations; is she happy and satisfied that they are sufficiently robust and futureproofed to ensure that the objectives of the total bill will be met given that this appears to be largely a cut and paste of existing provisions?

We had been told that much of this bill was designed to make things easier, to make them smoother, and yet the reality, as we’ve debated at length, has been that much of these clauses right through in Subpart 1 are, on the face of it, pieces of legislation that are going to make things more complicated, more expensive, and more confusing for lay people. So if the Minister could give us an insight into why the few changes that have been made have been made, and why perhaps there hasn’t been a more radical review of designations and matters that are relevant to the natural and built environment plan process?

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Associate Minister for the Environment): In relation to the Hon Scott Simpson’s point about changes in the Supplementary Order Paper, I’m advised that, yes, they are all technical in nature.

Related to Scott Simpson’s points about—sorry, you are Scott Simpson. Related to Stuart Smith’s point—it would be good if you didn’t sit next to each other!—about who can be a requiring authority, generally, as the Hon Scott Simpson just said, most of this is taken from the Resource Management Act (RMA). But one of the changes from the RMA is wider access to the designation powers, and that these will be in effect straight away. So it will be more useful than the current RMA.

SIMON COURT (ACT): I’m hoping to get some enlightened clarification from the Minister in the chair, particularly thinking back to her illustrious career as a resource management lawyer at a time when, in my role as a construction manager, I might have come to her for advice, and particularly when it comes to the matter of designation and notices of requirement.

So for those members in the Chamber who are not familiar with this aspect of the current resource management law, if you’re an asset owner, if you want to build an airport, if you want to build a State highway or a road, or if you have a water pipeline to construct at some point in the future, you use a designation tool under the current Resource Management Act, which is also provided for in this bill in clause 503, Minister, on page 349, which allows an asset owner or a future asset owner to say, “This is the corridor that crosses people’s land in which we want to build our infrastructure, but we’re not quite sure when we’re coming to build it.”

Of course, no one’s quite sure, because this Government doesn’t have a 30-year infrastructure plan that ACT would introduce, and, in fact, there is no funding for infrastructure assured, whether it’s a State highway network, or even three waters, after the proposed reform proposal. But what organisations like the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) trading as Waka Kotahi do, they get a magic marker like this one and they draw a map across people’s private property where they want the road to go in future.

I’ll give the example of the next stage of State Highway 1 Warkworth to Wellsford, which designates a whole lot of private property—farmland, for example, and even some business-zoned land—between the towns of Warkworth and Wellsford and Auckland for a future four- to six-laning highway project. Everyone knows it’s desperately necessary, because the current highway route through Dome Valley is regularly subject to slips and floods and has closed, diverting traffic on to much less suitable local roads, which cannot handle heavy traffic.

Minister, under the notice of requirement for designation, primary and secondary construction notices (CIPs) must be lodged with the territorial authority and identify where this activity is going to take place. But if we look at the requirement under clause 504(4) for a secondary CIP—now, this might sound pretty technical to people, but imagine you want to build a road 10 years in the future. You want to secure the land so someone else doesn’t come and build, I don’t know, a power station in the way or build a whole residential subdivision in the way. You must designate that land and put a notice of requirement over it.

But what this requires is that even though you haven’t done the design yet, you don’t know all of those factors that are going to come into the final delivery of the project—whether you might want to add on a cycleway or a pedestrian bridge as well, where the on-ramps and off-ramps are going to go. But under clause 504(4) and 504(5), the secondary CIP must show the likely finished contours; the location on the site of the public works, and the height, shape, and bulk; vehicle access, circulation, and provision for parking; and landscaping. Minister, all these won’t be delivered until at least the preliminary design, if not the detailed design stage. There is no public sector entity that is going to provide this level of detail when they go and seek a designation for a corridor, unless they were already budgeted to do all of that design work that normally doesn’t happen for some years down the track.

Minister, we know this has caused a problem. It caused a problem with the Northern Corridor Improvements project in Auckland where NZTA and its partners applied for a designation and were required to include all of this detail that meant when the designer came along to do the final design, they said, “We can’t work with this stuff in the notice of requirement. You’ve given us conditions that we can’t meet, we can’t design around. The project isn’t going to proceed. We’re not going to get the benefits out of it.”

So, Minister, would you clarify what circumstances require this level of detail? Is this practical and how will this affect actual delivery of projects, say, that the private sector through a public-private partnership, wanting to bring innovation, lessons learnt from overseas where they’ve actually built roads using tolling that people can get to get around on at 130 kilometres an hour like in Texas, which I visited last year? Will this make it harder to build, Minister?

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Associate Minister for the Environment): Thank you. I just want to note that the problems that the member was speaking about are problems under the Resource Management Act, and that is why there is now this spatial footprint process which is at clause 505(1)(c), also noting, of course, the increase in lapse from five years to 10 years will help with those issues.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The time has come for me to report progress.

Progress to be reported.

House resumed.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the Natural and Built Environment Bill and reports progress. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

Amended Answers to Oral Questions

Question No. 7 to Minister

Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister for ACC): I seek leave to make a personal explanation to clarify part of an answer to oral question No. 7, on 25 July 2023.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none.

Hon PEENI HENARE: Yesterday, in my responses to supplementary questions to oral question No. 7, on behalf of the Minister for Social Development and Employment, I stated that the Government has changed the criteria for access to the special needs grant for dental treatment so that, among other things, people are supported to access what would be considered normal dental appointments for fillings or check-ups, and to get the kinds of appointments to make sure that they have regular oral health checks. I want to clarify that dental grants, which have historically only been available for emergency care, now also cover all immediate and essential dental care. This means New Zealanders can get support through the grant for most treatments, including things like fillings and infections, and it includes consultations and dental professionals, but only where they lead to immediate and essential care.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, the House stands adjourned until 2 p.m.

The House adjourned at 12.58 p.m.