Thursday, 27 July 2023
Volume 770
Sitting date: 27 July 2023
THURSDAY, 27 JULY 2023
THURSDAY, 27 JULY 2023
The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.
Karakia/Prayers
Karakia/Prayers
Hon JENNY SALESA (Assistant Speaker—Labour): E te Atua kaha rawa, ka tuku whakamoemiti atu mātou, mō ngā karakia kua waihotia mai ki runga i a mātou. Ka waiho i ō mātou pānga whaiaro katoa ki te taha. Ka mihi mātou ki te Kīngi, me te inoi atu mō te ārahitanga i roto i ō mātou whakaaroarohanga, kia mōhio ai, kia whakaiti ai tā mātou whakahaere i ngā take o te Whare nei, mō te oranga, te maungārongo, me te aroha o Aotearoa. Āmene.
[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 and humility, for the welfare, peace and compassion of New Zealand. Amen.]
Business Statement
Business Statement
Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Minister for Economic Development) on behalf of the Leader of the House: Next week, the committee stage of the Appropriation (2023/24 Estimates) Bill will begin. This is the Estimates debate. There will be appearances by the Ministers of Education, Finance, Health, Housing, Social Development and Employment, Police, and Transport. Other legislation to be considered will include the second readings of the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 3), and the Land Transport (Road Safety) Amendment Bill. There will be extended sittings of the House on the morning of Wednesday, 2 August for members’ business, and on the morning of Thursday, 3 August for Government business.
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the “Acting Acting Leader of the House” for her update on next week. We are making some progress on the Natural and Built Environment Bill and the Spatial Planning Bill. These are very important to the Government. Can she confirm whether or not there will be further progress next week, and, if not, that the Government does not intend to take urgency to advance that after the next recess week?
Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Minister for Economic Development): If the committee stages are not completed today, they will continue next week. Third readings will not take place. The Business Committee will be informed of any plans for urgency in advance.
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 Bronwen Jones requesting that the House amend the Dietary Supplements Regulations 1985 to allow manufacture or import of Bariatric Strength Supplements for Bariatric Surgery patients
petition of Kristine Hayward requesting that the House urge the Government to implement a centrally funded and administered risk-adapted early prostate cancer detection strategy.
SPEAKER: Those petitions are referred to the Petitions Committee. No papers have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation. Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.
CLERK:
Report of the Education and Workforce Committee on the 2023-24 Estimates for Education Sector Votes
report of the Environment Committee 2023-24 Estimates for Vote Environment
reports of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the:
2023-24 Estimates for Vote Audit
2023-24 Estimates for Vote Finance, Fiscal Strategy Report 2023, and Budget Economic and Fiscal Update 2023
Taxation Principles Reporting Bill
reports of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee on the:
2023-24 Estimates for Vote Customs
2023-24 Estimates for Foreign Affairs
Immigration (Mass Arrivals) Amendment Bill
reports of the Governance and Administration Committee on the:
2023-24 Estimates for Vote Internal Affairs (Excluding the Supporting Ethnic Communities and Community Development and Funding Schemes appropriations)
2023-24 Estimates for Vote Office of the Clerk and Vote Parliamentary Service
2023-24 Estimates for Vote Ombudsmen
2023-24 Estimates for Vote Prime Minister and Cabinet
2023-24 Estimates for Vote Public Service (Excluding the Supporting Implementation of a Social Wellbeing Approach appropriations)
2023-24 Estimates for Vote Statistics
Water Services Entities Amendment Bill
reports of the Māori Affairs Committee on the:
2023-24 Estimates for Vote Māori Development
2023-24 Estimates for Vote Te Arawhiti
report of the Primary Production Committee on the 2023-24 Estimates for Vote Agriculture, Biosecurity, Fisheries and Food Safety
reports of the Social Services and Community Committee on the:
2023-24 Estimates for appropriation within Vote Public Service: Supporting Implementation of a Social Wellbeing Approach
2023-24 Estimates for Vote Sport and Recreation
reports of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee on the:
2023-24 Estimates for Vote Building and Construction
2023-24 Estimates for Vote Transport.
SPEAKER: The bills are set down for second reading. The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of bills.
CLERK:
Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) (Provision of Breast Cancer Screening Services) Amendment Bill, introduction
New Zealand Bill of Rights (Right to Lawfully Acquired Property) Amendment Bill, introduction
District Court (Protecting Judgment Debtors on Main Benefit) Amendment Bill, introduction.
SPEAKER: Those bills are set down for first reading.
Oral Questions
Questions to Ministers
Question No. 1—Foreign Affairs
1. DAN ROSEWARNE (Labour) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: What is the significance of the US Secretary of State’s visit to New Zealand in terms of bilateral relations?
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Foreign Affairs): The visit by US Secretary of State, Anthony Blinken, marks a significant milestone in our bilateral relations. The US is one of our closest friends, and our meeting underscores the longstanding partnership between our two nations, grounded in common interests and a shared commitment to liberal democracy and the rule of law. The visit is significant in the context of global diplomacy. At a time when the world is grappling with a host of challenges including conflict, climate change, and economic recovery, this visit emphasises the importance of working even closer together. It signals our mutual readiness to collaborate and contribute constructively to the international rules-based system.
Dan Rosewarne: How does the Minister perceive the role of the United States in further engaging economically in the Indo-Pacific region?
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: The US plays a significant role in the economic dynamics of the IndoPacific region. We discussed the potential for the US to increase its economic engagement in the region, which we believe could greatly contribute to the regional stability and prosperity of our Pacific region. This can be accomplished through more extensive trade relations, investment in infrastructure, and by supporting regional economic integration initiatives. We see a significant opportunity for the US to contribute positively to the economic development of our region, and the signal of that intent is through the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity that New Zealand is participating in, along with a number of other economies.
Dan Rosewarne: How will New Zealand and the United States address the regional challenges identified by Pacific leaders, especially with respect to climate change?
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: New Zealand and the US discussed our common goal of supporting a peaceful, stable, prosperous, and resilient Pacific region. This was a major topic in our conversation. Climate change is, of course, by definition of Pacific partners, the greatest threat facing the Pacific, and both our countries are committed to helping address this. Our climate finance initiatives are targeted to enhance the resilience of the Pacific, and we’re guided by Pacific partner priorities when delivering on this commitment. We’re also mindful of the very real challenges of ensuring resilient infrastructure, connectivity, energy, and food security, as they are often areas impacted by climate change and felt by our Pacific partners more than most.
Question No. 2—Prime Minister
2. NICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government’s statements and actions on tax policy?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes.
Nicola Willis: Does he agree with Grant Robertson’s statement two months ago that taking GST off food would mostly benefit supermarkets?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: On behalf of the Prime Minister, I always agree with the Minister of Finance.
Nicola Willis: Does he agree with Grant Robertson, who said that introducing exemptions to GST “becomes an absolute boondoggle to get through”?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: As I said, I always agree with the Minister of Finance.
Nicola Willis: Was the Minister of Finance correct when he said that removing GST from fresh fruit or vegetables would mean “you get into an argument of what’s the difference between beetroot and canned beetroot, and if you want to make a real impact for the lowest income people you wouldn’t cut the tax off fresh beetroot”?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The Minister of Finance is a very intelligent man, and he is always willing to explore different areas and has very important insights into tax.
Nicola Willis: Was David Parker, his former Minister of Revenue, correct when he said, as reported in 2013, that removing GST from fruit and vegetables “would have opened exploitable and confusing loopholes, and dirtied an otherwise clean tax.”?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The previous Minister of Revenue, Minister Parker, has always been honest with his view.
Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: How can he stand by ruling out a wealth or capital gains tax when report after report has highlighted fundamental unfairness in the tax system, including that the average person in Aotearoa is paying 20.2 percent in tax, while the wealthy are only paying 9.4 percent?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: On behalf of the Prime Minister, we’ve been very clear that the economic conditions do not allow for the proposed taxes that the member is asking about.
Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Why will he not shift the tax burden from the poor to the wealthy through reforming income tax settings and implementing a net wealth tax when, as Te Paati Māori has shown in our policy announcement today, it could raise the incomes of 98 percent of whānau while still providing greater than $16 billion in surplus revenue to address inequities in health, education, housing, justice, climate, and welfare?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: On behalf of the Prime Minister, we’ve been very clear about the economic conditions and the certainty that New Zealanders need right now.
Nicola Willis: Does he agree with the findings of Grant Robertson’s Tax Working Group that removing GST from food and drink would provide a greater absolute benefit to higher-income households than lower-income households and would generate extremely large compliance and administration costs?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: There were lots of findings by the Tax Working Group and we appreciate their insights, and that certainly informs our thinking.
Nicola Willis: Will he rule out a tax policy of removing GST from fruit and vegetables?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: We’re not going to play the “rule in, rule out” game on tax. We have not announced our tax policy, except to say that we will not be introducing a wealth or capital gains tax.
Rawiri Waititi: Is he then saying that he is comfortable with assets and wealth remaining untaxed, enabling the rich to continue to get even richer while ordinary people subsidise their “extravagant lifestyles” through tax policy?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: No. On behalf of the Prime Minister, what is being said is that the economic conditions are not suitable for the changes that the member is recommending right now and that New Zealanders need certainty. But, on behalf of the Prime Minister, we are very much focused on the bread and butter issues and the things that matter to New Zealanders right now.
Nicola Willis: Would he consider a wealth tax if economic conditions changed?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: We’re not going to get into hypothetical situations right now.
Question No. 3—Women
3. ANGELA ROBERTS (Labour) to the Minister for Women: How is the Government delivering for women?
Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister for Women): The Government is delivering on our ongoing commitment to creating a fairer, safer, and more equitable future for women and girls. We are ensuring labour market outcomes are fairer, women are recognised for their ability, and ensuring that Government investment is improving outcomes for women and whānau. Investment into areas such as childcare assistance, KiwiSaver for women on paid parental leave, and training and employment pathways provides women and their whānau with the support they need now, and the support and opportunities to thrive and get ahead.
Angela Roberts: How is the Government helping to deliver better labour market outcomes for women?
Hon JAN TINETTI: Our early childhood education (ECE) policy extending 20 hours free ECE to two-year-olds significantly reduces the cost of early childhood education for parents. It also allows parents to return to work, or take on more hours if they can. We’ve also invested $35.2 million into childcare assistance to expand eligibility, duration, and improve access for families. These investments increase eligibility and will help approximately 30,000 women currently accessing childcare assistance. We’re implementing the Women’s Employment Action Plan, and we have passed fair pay agreements. This is on top of 10 settled pay equity claims that have corrected the pay for over 110,000 employees—with the average pay correction being 32.4 percent—and the ongoing work to progress the 27 active claims across the economy.
Angela Roberts: How is the Government supporting women in leadership?
Hon JAN TINETTI: The Government has made a sustained and conscious effort to develop leadership and ensure that talented women are not overlooked for leadership roles. Representation on public boards is at a record level, and the Government’s target of 50 percent representation for women has been met for the last three years, and 41.9 percent of board chair roles are held by women. The Ministry for Women have also established leadership learning hubs that show a range of courses and resources for women to grow their leadership and governance skills, and has a nomination service to promote candidates for board vacancies.
Angela Roberts: How is the Government investing in women?
Hon JAN TINETTI: Budget 2023 saw expanded gender budgeting, a powerful tool to help understand how Government spending and initiatives will impact people differently depending on their gender. This allows us to invest in programmes that we know will make a difference for women. The Training Incentive Allowance—with an investment of $80.1 million over four years to support sole parents, disabled people, and their carers to study towards higher-level qualifications—is a good example. Since 2021, 90 percent of those who received this allowance were women. Supporting women into higher education and higher-paid employment helps reduce gender pay gaps and creates intergenerational benefits.
Question No. 4—Foreign Affairs
4. GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Is she confident that the Government’s consideration of joining AUKUS Pillar Two is aligned with its stated independent and Pacific-centric foreign policy stance?
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Yes. To be clear: New Zealand is not a party to AUKUS. In so far as Pillar Two arrangements are concerned, at an officials’ level they are exploring the non-nuclear aspects of those arrangements, but let me again be clear: no commitment has been made.
Golriz Ghahraman: Is she concerned that cooperation under the so-called Pillar Two of AUKUS by New Zealand undermines the sovereignty of Pacific Island nations and will lead to the militarisation of the Pacific?
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: No, the assurance that has been sought by the Pacific is that the AUKUS arrangements comply with the Treaty of Rarotonga. New Zealand’s position on a nuclearfree Pacific has not changed, and the assurance sought by Pacific partners is one that New Zealand endorses in order to protect their sovereign interests.
Teanau Tuiono: Does she stand by her statement that amplifying the Pacific voice and the impact of climate change on Pacific peoples is a key priority for New Zealand, and, if so, does she think that joining AUKUS Pillar Two would be a significant departure from New Zealand’s previous priorities in the Pacific?
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: I absolutely stand by my comments because New Zealand has long acknowledged that, for the Pacific, the greatest existential threat to their security is climate change. We know that by doing more in this area their sovereign interests can be protected within the region. AUKUS Pillar Two arrangements and the way in which New Zealand is investigating whether there is a potential benefit to the region is based on the non-nuclear aspects of that. So that would be compliant with the Treaty of Rarotonga.
Teanau Tuiono: How can she claim that Aotearoa is focused on the interests of the Pacific in addressing security issues in our region when she has held six times as many meetings with Australia, US, and UK officials about New Zealand’s potential membership of AUKUS than with Pacific Island counterparts?
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: To the first part of that question, we undertake diplomatic dialogue with a range of partners within our region, but, importantly, with the Pacific, we are a member of the Pacific Islands Forum. We hear their primary concern in terms of climate change being a challenge for their security and sovereign interests in the region. We are working hard to ensure that our investments, particularly in terms of climate finance, rally towards the aspirations of the Pacific, and that is how we are being responsive as a partner to support Pacific aspirations in the region.
Teanau Tuiono: Then how can she be confident that involvement in AUKUS would not compromise New Zealand’s commitments to nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament in the Pacific when it is part of a security and defence agreement with nuclear powers?
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Thank you for the question, because the clarification is very important: New Zealand has not agreed to participate in either the primary set of arrangements or Pillar Two. Being able to investigate what the potential opportunity is doesn’t translate as agreeing to them. The reason why we do that is because we understand just how important it is to maintain our nuclear-free position, to uphold our responsibilities in relation to the Treaty of Rarotonga, and to be a country—the only country—that has a separate portfolio for the non-proliferation and disarmament of nuclear weapons, not only within our region but across the world. And that is consistent with Pacific aspirations.
Golriz Ghahraman: Can she confirm that this Government remains committed to the ban on cluster munitions, and, if so, did she raise this in discussions with the US Secretary of State in relation to conversations about regional Pacific security?
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Thank you for the question. Yes, I did raise this issue in particular reference to the situation with Russia and Ukraine, and while New Zealand supports Ukraine in its defence against Russia’s illegal war of aggression, Russia and Ukraine—as parties to the armed conflict—must comply with international humanitarian law. Any use of cluster munitions must be in accordance with these rules. Unlike New Zealand, neither Russia, Ukraine, or the US are party to the Convention on Cluster Munitions. The convention explicitly prohibits the use of cluster munitions, and our position on these inhumane, indiscriminate weapons is clear: we’re determined to put an end for all time to the suffering and casualties they cause. We’re unafraid to express our view on the use of cluster munitions. We are opposed to any developments that increase the likelihood of cluster munitions being used in any conflict. And we have an obligation, under article 21 of the convention, to pursue universal adherence to it and to promote the norms of the convention.
Question No. 5—Transport
5. SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga) to the Minister of Transport: What are his priorities as Minister of Transport?
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Transport): My priorities in the transport portfolio are many, but I have a strong focus on road maintenance and congestion. After nine years of the prior Government underfunding maintenance and the resealing of State highways, this Government has delivered the largest investment in road maintenance and resealing ever. But the quality of our roads is still not up to scratch, and one of my priorities is to improve the condition of our highways. I’m also prioritising working closely with the Mayor of Auckland to sort out Auckland’s transport priorities.
Simeon Brown: Is it the Government’s priority to deliver a $30 billion Auckland Light Rail, and, if so, when will construction start, if ever?
Hon DAVID PARKER: Final decisions on Auckland Light Rail haven’t been taken, and I’m not expecting them to be taken until after the election.
Simeon Brown: Now that the Minister has more time to focus on transport, will he stop forcing local councils to reduce speed limits on local roads, as promised by the Prime Minister when he chucked speed limit reductions on the policy bonfire earlier this year?
Hon DAVID PARKER: The member will be interested to know that that falls within the delegation of the Hon Damien O’Connor. [Interruption] I think that might be a signal.
Simeon Brown: Can the Minister name one major new roading project that was started and completed under this Government, and, if not, are roads not a priority for this Government?
Hon DAVID PARKER: I would test the patience of the House if I read these very long lists. I know that my predecessor, the Hon Michael Wood, often did it. I’m sure that if the member, you know, opened his ears, he would have already heard the answers. The other thing I would say is, in respect of the member’s alternative, he doesn’t have a plan—he’s got a series of unfunded, un-costed announcements.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Point of order. The fact that a list, in the Minister’s eyes, is so long should not take away from his obligation to address the question, which is perhaps to give us one or two of—
SPEAKER: Yeah, you shouldn’t take a point of order like that with a narrative. Get to the point of order, and it is—
Hon Michael Woodhouse: The point is he hasn’t addressed the question.
SPEAKER: No, he will sit down now because it has been addressed—quite clearly addressed.
Hon Damien O’Connor: As he was taking on the portfolio, in his briefings, was there any reference to a “sweat the assets” policy, and, if so, is that still the policy that is in place by the Ministry of Transport or Waka Kotahi?
Hon DAVID PARKER: What was in the briefings were graphs of the required level of State highway resurfacing in order to maintain the quality of the State highway network. The briefings given to me said that resurfacing needs to cover about 9 percent of the roads per annum so that they don’t crack up and become full of potholes. On the nine years prior to 2017, road resurfacing dropped from 9 percent to 5 percent.
Simeon Brown: Can he confirm that Let’s Get Wellington Moving has spent over $59 million on consultants, compared to just $4.7 million on construction, and is it his priority to get Wellington moving or consulting?
Hon DAVID PARKER: I don’t have that number before me, but it is correct that we don’t have a “Ministry of Works” in New Zealand, and every road that is built in New Zealand is designed by consultants who are called “engineers”, is consented by consultants who are called “planners”, and is built by contractors who are called “Fulton Hogan, Downer Group, and others”.
Question No. 6—Health
6. Dr ANAE NERU LEAVASA (Labour—Takanini) to the Minister of Health: What is the Government doing to improve the mental health and wellbeing of New Zealanders?
Hon PEENI HENARE (Associate Minister of Health (Māori Health)) on behalf of the Minister of Health: This Government has made it a priority to improve the mental health and wellbeing of New Zealanders like the many college students in the gallery today. We are building primary care mental health services from the ground up. By the end of May, these services provide coverage of an enrolled population of 3 million New Zealanders, and have delivered over 944,000 sessions. We’ve also launched wellbeingsupport.health.nz to connect people with these free primary mental health and addiction services.
Dr Anae Neru Leavasa: How is the Government growing the mental health workforce?
Hon PEENI HENARE: There has been an increase of 713 psychologists, and a tripling of clinical psychology internships since 2017. We have also grown the number of fully funded new entry to specialist practice places for nurses from 160 in 2019 to 282 available this year. Te Whatu Ora has also invested to deliver 80 new addiction workforce and gambling harm scholarships over the next two years. The scholarships enable students to undertake tertiary study to help them enter the addiction workforce. This programme aligns with our strategy to prevent and minimise gambling harm by investing in developing a skilled, enabled, culturally safe, and responsive workforce.
Dr Anae Neru Leavasa: How has the Government supported the mental wellbeing of people effected by recent severe weather events?
Hon PEENI HENARE: A multimedia campaign, “All Sorts”, delivered by the Mental Health Foundation, was quickly stood up to proactively promote and distribute information about available mental wellbeing support and resources to cyclone-affected regions. I am advised Te Whatu Ora contacted mental health service providers in cyclone-impacted areas to see if they were affected, and whether they had capacity to cope with a potentially increasing workload. As a result, in Hawke’s Bay, additional mental health professionals from other parts of the country were deployed to provide on-the-ground support to communities in the immediate period after the cyclone. This included health improvement practitioners working in general practices in other parts of the country.
Dr Anae Neru Leavasa: What did the Budget 2023 North Island weather events package deliver for mental health initiatives?
Hon PEENI HENARE: This Government has extended the peer support Warmline component of 1737. This is particularly beneficial for people living in rural areas who may otherwise need to travel for face-to-face support. Additional funding has been made available to Youthline. Funding has been allocated to Te Tairāwhiti, Hawke’s Bay, Te Tai Tokerau, and Tāmaki Makaurau for local community mental wellbeing recovery initiatives. Funding has been made available to develop specific rain anxiety content in the Mental Health 101, Addiction 101, and Rural Mental Health 101 training programmes. This training will be made available to those working with impacted people and whānau across these regions. This will then be promoted heavily in the most impacted of areas. Mana Ake, the primary and intermediate school-based mental wellbeing programme, will be rolled out to all Hawke’s Bay and Tairāwhiti primary and intermediate schools to support children from the beginning of 2024.
Question No. 7—Immigration
7. Dr JAMES McDOWALL (ACT) to the Minister of Immigration: What is the total investment value of all Investor 1 and 2 applications that are currently with Immigration New Zealand, if any, and how does that figure compare to the total unweighted investment value of Active Investor Plus visa applications?
Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Associate Minister of Immigration) on behalf of the Minister of Immigration: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Investor 1 and 2 application regimes have been replaced by the Active Investor Plus Visa. The previous scheme was successful in attracting high volumes of funds. However, they resulted often in passive investment in shares and bonds rather than directly into New Zealand companies, which provided only a limited economic benefit to New Zealand. This new Active Investor Plus Visa incentivises applicants to invest more directly into New Zealand businesses, providing the opportunity for investors to connect with them and access global knowledge networks, capitals, and markets. To answer the member’s question, the new Active Investor Plus Visa has had 30 applications since its launch on 19 September 2022, with three now approved and more approved in principle. The estimated unweighted value of the 27 applications currently being processed is $405 million. Immigration New Zealand currently has 163 Investor 1 and 355 Investor 2 applications being processed, with a total estimated proposed value of $2.695 billion. In the first year of the Investor 1 policy, which was 2009, there were only five applications; after two years, there were only 19. Active Investor Plus applications since September 2022 are 30 in total.
Dr James McDowall: Is he aware that under Labour, over $1.5 billion worth of investment has been withdrawn by people who gave up waiting for Immigration New Zealand to process their Investor 1 and 2 applications, and, if so, what work, if any, is being done to follow up on those people to try to get them back under the new regime?
Hon RACHEL BROOKING: On behalf of the Minister, the point of the change to the active investment category is to get more relationships with New Zealand businesses to help the economy.
SPEAKER: I’ll ask the member to ask the question again. I don’t think it was addressed, particularly the first part—if you want to ask it again.
Dr James McDowall: Thank you, Mr Speaker. It read: is he aware that under Labour, over $1.5 billion worth of investment has been withdrawn by people who gave up waiting for Immigration New Zealand to process their Investor 1 and 2 applications, and, if so, what work, if any, is being done to follow up on those people to try to get them back under the new regime?
Hon RACHEL BROOKING: To the first part of the question, I’m not aware of that number.
Dr James McDowall: Does he agree with his predecessor’s response to me during question time on 29 March that the Active Investor Plus Visa will “direct investment into areas that will actually deliver jobs”, and, if so, how many jobs have actually been created by the three applications approved since the visa was launched in September last year?
Hon RACHEL BROOKING: On behalf of the Minister, to the first part of the question, yes.
Question No. 8—Revenue
8. ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato) to the Minister of Revenue: Does she support a wealth tax, and does she support the principles contained within the Taxation Principles Reporting Bill?
Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Minister of Revenue): No, and yes.
Andrew Bayly: Will she rule out requesting or commissioning any work from the IRD on introducing or implementing a capital gains tax or wealth tax while she is the Minister of Revenue, or at least while the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins remains as Prime Minister?
Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: The Prime Minister has made his view very clear. We are not going to introduce a wealth tax or a capital gains tax, and therefore I will not be working on one.
Andrew Bayly: Does she accept New Zealand’s tax system has been underpinned by the principle of having a broad-based, low-rate taxation system, and does she propose to change that approach?
Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: I do believe that New Zealand does have a broad-based, low-rate system, and what I do believe is that the tax system should be aligned with the recognised principles contained in the Taxation Principles Reporting Bill.
Andrew Bayly: How does she define “economic income”, as has been inserted in the Taxation Principles Reporting Bill by her predecessor, and how does that definition differ from taxable income?
Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: I understand the Finance and Expenditure Committee reported back the bill to the House today. I thank them for that work. My understanding is there is no economic income definition in the interpretation part of that bill. However, I am willing to take time to consider the report back by the Finance and Expenditure Committee and will respond in due course.
Andrew Bayly: Does she believe that the term “economic income” proposed in the Government’s Taxation Principles Reporting Bill includes the concept of a tax on unrealised capital gains, such as someone’s KiwiSaver account or house?
Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: The current bill doesn’t propose any tax. Again, it provides principles in which tax policy can be designed in the framework.
Question No. 9—Justice
9. MARJA LUBECK (Labour) to the Minister of Justice: How has the Government enabled communities and hospitality businesses to get behind the men’s Rugby World Cup later this year?
Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Minister of Justice): Last week, the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Rugby World Cup 2023 Extended Trading Hours) Amendment Act passed its third reading with strong support across the House. We know that it has been a tough year, indeed, for hospitality businesses, and these sensible, practical changes to the law will help them to maximise their benefits and make it easier for fans and communities to come together to back the All Blacks. By passing the bill now, businesses will have plenty of time to plan before the All Blacks open the tournament against the host, France, on 9 September.
Marja Lubeck: Why are these changes necessary?
Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: These changes allow businesses to remain open outside of normal trading hours when televising live the men’s Rugby World Cup matches, and it saves businesses from having to go through the usual special licence process. We’ve designed these changes to strike a good balance between ensuring that licence holders have the support and the abilities they need to support communities, as well as celebrating the All Blacks’ victories, with the need to minimise any potential harm. The Rugby World Cup is one of the most significant events in the rugby calendar and it’s a special time for fans to come together. I’m looking forward to getting behind the boys in black when the tournament kicks off in September.
Marja Lubeck: How will the changes ensure a safe environment for fans?
Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: Licence holders will be required to give at least seven days’ written notice to police and their local council if they want to open for matches. This provision is designed to enhance public safety and ensure police have the information so they can deploy resources effectively. The bill sets clear eligibility criteria and extends trading hours that are only available to current on-licence and club licence holders whose licences have not been varied or suspended over the last year. We have learnt from previous amendments, and this year’s bill requires record-keeping to make sure we measure the impact of the changes for similar events in the future.
Marja Lubeck: What do the changes allow licence holders to do?
Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: Eligible on-licence and club licence holders can extend their trading hours to televise games from the Rugby World Cup 2023 without applying for a special licence. If a licence holder has notified that they intend to open for a game for the venue, it can be open for one hour before the game or extend their hours under certain circumstances. The venue must close for the sale of alcohol 30 minutes after the end of the game. These changes provide licence holders with certainty and flexibility to support their communities to be able to cheer on the All Blacks in a safe environment. Go the All Blacks.
Question No. 10—Education
10. PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill) to the Minister of Education: Does she consider the $65 million of Vote Tertiary Education funding allocated to set up the six workforce development councils (WDCs) has provided good value for money?
Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Education): Workforce development councils are statutory bodies established in 2021 and play a crucial role in building links between industry and education providers to help keep curriculums and courses aligned with the development of industry needs. If the member is asking whether I think establishing organisations in the regions to match sector and industry needs with quality educational pathways is worthy of funding, then yes, I do.
Penny Simmonds: Does the Minister consider it’s a good use of taxpayer money to pay a WDC chief executive $128,000 worth of discretionary leave as reward for excessive spending of taxpayer money on such things as meals of lobster, alcohol, and taxis in Sydney?
Hon JAN TINETTI: As Minister, I have no involvement in WDCs’ relationships with employees, so cannot comment. As public entities, WDCs are expected to use public money wisely and maintain appropriate standards as employers. I’m advised the Tertiary Education Commission (TEC) is closely monitoring the performance of the particular WDC that the member is alluding to.
Penny Simmonds: Does the Minister think that a WDC board spending $194,646 to deal with the chief executive who spent $72,000 on the WDC’s Visa card in his first year, over double what all five other WDC chief executive spent in total, is a good use of taxpayer money?
Hon JAN TINETTI: The WDCs as statutory bodies are meeting their requirements under the Education and Training Act and getting on with the job that they were established to do. I haven’t been advised of performance or financial issues at any of the WDCs that requires ministerial intervention. The TEC monitors the performance of WDCs against the expectations laid out in legislation. It also monitors their financial sustainability. WDCs are also subject to audit by the Auditor-General.
Penny Simmonds: Does the Minister think the hundreds of staff being made redundant in the tertiary sector will be pleased or angry about the hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars being wasted on meals of lobster and alcohol, legal fees, gardening leave, and, finally, a settlement pay-out to a WDC chief executive who has been in the job less than two years?
Hon JAN TINETTI: As I’ve said, as Minister I do not speak to employment issues.
Question No. 11—Economic Development
11. NAISI CHEN (Labour) to the Minister for Economic Development: How does the new Aerospace Strategy support Government goals for a high-wage, low-emissions economy?
Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Minister for Economic Development): The launch of this country’s first ever Aerospace Strategy marks a significant milestone. It delivers on two years of close work between Government, industry, iwi, and other communities. It reflects broader plans for a high-wage, low-emissions economy that guarantees economic security for all. Government has a critical role to play to unlock the potential of the aerospace sector. The sector has made clear that we should continue to provide the leadership needed for it to thrive and retain innovators.
Naisi Chen: What is the estimated value of the aerospace sector and its future opportunities?
Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: The New Zealand space economy is estimated to be worth more than $1.7 billion. An increasing number of commercial space and advanced aviation companies are launching, flying, manufacturing, and operating here. There’s also an increasing market for downstream products and services using the data generated by aerospace technologies. The value of the wider sector, such as design, engineering, and technical services and manufacturing is even higher. The global aerospace sector is growing fast and is estimated to be worth over $600 billion annually.
Naisi Chen: Is the strategy and action plan supported by funding?
Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: When we launched the strategy last week, I was able to confirm funding of up to $12 million to support the next steps. This is on top of $15.7 million in funding announced last year to support the implementation of the Aerospace Strategy. This funding will be prioritised for education initiatives, research and development partnerships, and further research into the potential of the sector.
Naisi Chen: What actions does the strategy outline for the Government and the sector?
Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: The strategy outlines three pillars as the foundation for future collaboration between Government and the aerospace sector. The focus areas are unlocking aerospace potential by creating strong economic foundations, a future-facing Government through greater alignments between Government and the industry, and the idea of an aerospace nation which requires stronger engagement and marketing to the world.
Question No. 12—Cyclone Recovery
12. CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi) to the Minister for Cyclone Recovery: Does he stand by all of his statements and actions in the six months since the Auckland Anniversary weekend flooding events and in the wake of Cyclone Gabrielle?
Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Associate Minister for Cyclone Recovery) on behalf of the Minister for Cyclone Recovery: Yes, I do stand by my statements and actions in relation to the Auckland anniversary weekend flooding events and Cyclone Gabrielle in the context in which they were given. These events represent the second-largest natural disaster experienced in New Zealand, behind only the Canterbury earthquakes in terms of damage and cost. The approach we have taken through the North Island weather events has always been one that is locally led with the support of the Government.
Chris Penk: Does he stand by his statement, then, “It’s worth noting that, after the Canterbury earthquakes, it was four months before decisions were taken on the future of affected areas. We want to move quicker than that.” given that it has now been six months since the initial flooding events?
Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: On behalf of the Minister, I always stand by my statements, and we are working together with councils on cost-sharing arrangements to buy out high-risk properties, and we expect to say more on that soon.
Chris Penk: Of the hundreds of displaced residents in Auckland, how many have received a categorisation of their home?
Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: Under the use of land provisions in the law, that is actually a decision for the Auckland Council, and I do not have those figures on me, as they are subject to Auckland Council. If you would like to put them in writing, we will respond accordingly.
Chris Penk: Of the following Ministers who were appointed as regional leads for cyclone recovery, which of these still holds this role: Stuart Nash, Meka Whaitiri, Michael Wood, Kiritapu Allan, and Nanaia Mahuta?
Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: We have a number of great Ministers on this side of the House. On behalf of Minister Robertson, we have the associate cyclone recovery Minister, the Hon Barbara Edmonds; we have the Hon Kieran McAnulty; and I could provide a number of other lists of MPs in particular who have been working hard on the ground to support their affected communities.
Chris Penk: Point of order. My question was in relation to those whom I named very specifically.
SPEAKER: Yeah, and the question was addressed. That concludes oral questions.
Privilege
Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee—Disclosure of Outcome of Vote Taken during the Environment Committee’s Consideration of a Bill
Hon DAVID PARKER (Chairperson of the Privileges Committee): I move, That the report of the Privileges Committee concerning a member’s disclosure of the outcome of a vote taken during the Environment Committee’s consideration of a bill be noted.
The Privileges Committee report on this issue has been presented to the House and is on the floor for members to see. Those who read it will see that the Privileges Committee found that the complaint in respect of disclosure of the outcome of a vote taken during the Environment Committee’s consideration of a bill was upheld. I’ll go through a bit more of the detail in a second.
The committee also, whilst not wanting to minimise the transgression, didn’t think that the matter was so serious as to warrant a widespread debate in the House, and so recommended to the Business Committee that we didn’t think a debate was necessary. The Business Committee said findings of the Privileges Committee are always important and ought to be brought to the attention of all members so that we avoid those sorts of errors being repeated in the future, and then requested that I, as the chair of the Privileges Committee, take a single call on the matter in order to describe the events that we reported to the House upon.
The Speaker made a reference to the Privileges Committee as a consequence of a complaint from the Hon Eugenie Sage to the Speaker about Simon Court having released the outcome of a vote during the consideration by the select committee of an item of business before them, which was the consideration of the Natural and Built Environment Bill. There was a closed session, and during the session the member formally proposed that a definition of a term be inserted into the bill. That motion was voted down, and then the member, by press release, disclosed that.
The matter was initially referred to the Speaker by the Hon Eugenie Sage. She also said she was going to try and sort it out at select committee at a subsequent meeting. She tried to; the member didn’t back down or apologise and stuck to his guns, and therefore the Hon Eugenie Sage wrote another letter of complaint to the Speaker and the Speaker referred it to the Privileges Committee.
The Privileges Committee found it an easy matter to deal with because there was prior guidance from both earlier Privileges Committee hearings but also from a consideration of the Standing Orders that had been conducted by the Standing Orders Committee in 2003. It was clear that Standing Order 243 applies, which says that “The proceedings of a select committee or a subcommittee other than during the hearing of evidence are not open to the public and remain strictly confidential to the committee until it reports to the House.”
The matter really was as simple as it sounds, although there is the occasional clarification of that in the 2003 report of the Standing Orders Committee. For example, if there is a proposal to change the chair or deputy chair of a select committee, that business is, effectively, concluded by the passing of the motion and therefore can be disclosed. But if there is continuing business before the select committee, then that is part of the confidential proceedings that ought not to be disclosed until the committee reports back to the House.
The reasons for this were set out in the Standing Orders Committee report in 2003, and, in summary, select committees are required to inform the House first of their findings—and it’s for the select committee to do that, not for individual members of the committee. Secondly, the ability to discuss issues in confidence promotes constructive dialogue between committee members about legislation and other parliamentary business. We are a unicameral legislature. We are reliant upon select committees doing their best to improve legislation before it, and one of the good things about our select committee model is that, generally, members from all parties cooperate to try and improve legislation at select committee even if they don’t agree with it. So we’ve got to encourage that habit, and that is undermined if individual members of a select committee, for reasons of political advantage, can whip out of the select committee and breach the confidentiality. Closed sessions enable the provision of free and frank advice to the committee—that includes from officials—and premature or selective release of committee proceedings increases the risks of lobbying outside normal processes or giving advantage to particular groups or persons.
The committee in recent weeks has endorsed those views, found that these considerations remain of the utmost importance today and any breach undermines the integrity of select committee processes. So the findings of the committee were to concur with the Speaker’s assessment of the member’s actions. We found that the member’s starting point should’ve been to be aware of the Standing Order. If the member Simon Court was unaware of it or unclear, he should’ve approached the clerk of the committee. When the matter was raised with him by the Hon Eugenie Sage, he should at that stage have read the Standing Order or consulted with the Clerk of the House or the clerk of the standing committee. We noted that it’s the sole responsibility of each member to exercise caution in their public statements and ensure that the important rules against inappropriate and unauthorised disclosure of select committee proceedings are observed.
In conclusion, the committee noted that the member has apologised for the matter and did not recommend any further action. We were grateful to the Speaker for having referred the question of privilege to us and emphasise that it’s a timely opportunity to reinforce to all members the expectations that apply to the confidentiality of select committee proceedings and the reasons that they exist.
Motion agreed to.
SPEAKER: I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Natural and Built Environment Bill and the Spatial Planning Bill.
House in Committee
House in Committee
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Members, the House is in committee for further consideration of the Natural and Built Environment Bill and for consideration of the Spatial Planning Bill.
Bills
Natural and Built Environment Bill
In Committee
Debate resumed from 25 July.
Part 8 Matters relevant to natural and built environment plans (continued)
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Members, we come first to the Natural and Built Environment Bill. When we were last considering the bill, we were debating Part 8, the debate on clauses 497 to 553, “Matters relevant to natural and built environment plans”. The question again is that Part 8 stand part.
Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you, Mr Chair. For the benefit—and with your indulgence just for a minute—of those people who may be listening on their radios or watching on television, it’s worthwhile just reiterating that we are debating the committee of the whole House portion of the Government’s proposed Natural and Built Environment Bill. It’s a very significant and long piece of statute—it runs to something close to nearly 1,000 pages, and the document I’m referring to brings us to Part 8 of the bill. It’s a multifaceted bill that is designed to replace the existing resource management regime, the Act that was first passed some 30 years ago. We on this side of the House have already made it very clear that should we have an opportunity to lead a new Government after the general election, we will repeal this bill in its entirety.
But notwithstanding all that, I want to turn to Subpart 2—I’m particularly referring to clause 541, which relates to heritage protection orders. This is an area that was the subject of quite a bit of discussion and debate during select committee. So my initial question to the Minister is for an explanation as to some of the detail, some of the rationale, some of the thinking behind this particular subpart and how it in particular differs, in his view, from the existing provisions that apply under the Resource Management Act. I’m particularly interested in clause 541(1), where it says that any iwi authority, group that represents hapū, or “Any Māori group with interests in relation to a place, and anybody corporate having an interest in the protection of any place, may apply to the Minister in the prescribed form for approval as a heritage protection authority for the purposes of protecting that place.” I’m keen to know from the Minister what he feels will be the criteria for the threshold required to meet the application level, and what the implications are of an iwi authority group that represents a hapū or Māori group becoming a heritage protection authority.
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Thank you, Madam Chair. Subclause (5) of clause 541 says, “The Minister must not give [such an authority unless] (a) the approval of the applicant as a heritage protection authority is appropriate for the protection of the place that is the subject of the application; and (b) the applicant is likely to satisfactorily carry out the responsibilities, (including financial responsibilities) of a heritage protection authority”. An example of that might be an area on communally owned Māori land that is of historical significance, and it would seem entirely appropriate in that situation that that sort of function could be delegated to the relevant iwi.
Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you, Madam Chair. That’s appreciated. So just coming then to clause 541(5)—which the Minister has just referred to—which requires the Minister to take those matters into consideration, clause 541(5)(a) makes reference to what is appropriate in terms of the place that is the subject of the application, but paragraph (b) specifically refers to carrying out the responsibilities of a heritage protection authority, and there are three bracketed words there that say “(including financial responsibilities)”. I’m interested to know from the Minister what he would envisage those financial responsibilities to be and the responsibilities to whom. Is it to the members of the iwi authority group that represents the hapū or the Māori group, or is it to the administering authorities—who are those financial responsibilities due to and what form should they take?
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): To the public—to the country. I mean, heritage protection orders are normally the preserve of the local authority or a Minister and Heritage New Zealand, and it’s described in clause 7, on page 51, under the definitions, who a heritage protection authority generally is. You can see in respect of those groups that they’ve generally got the financial wherewithal to do the job, and we don’t really need to ask the question as to whether they’re financially capable of doing it. If, however, a Māori grouping is being proposed as a heritage protection authority, the Government thought it wise to check that given that they’ve got a job to do, it would be reasonable to ask whether they’ve got the resources to do the job.
Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): So that will be a test that is required in terms of financial stability and ability to perhaps meet the costs associated with the heritage designated land and potentially the prospect of an appeal. I’ll come to the appeal provisions shortly, but I want to just move on now to clause 545, which is the effect of a heritage protection order.
Clause 545(1) says that “While a heritage protection order is in force, regardless of the provision of any plan or resource consent, no person may, except in accordance with the prior written consent of the relevant heritage protection authority, do anything”—do anything—“that would wholly or partly nullify the effect of the heritage protection order, including—(a) undertaking any use of land; and (b) subdividing any land; and (c) changing the character, intensity, or scale of the use of any land.”
Now, those are very broad provisions that provide an incredibly wide scope for actually doing nothing. And I’m interested to know from the Minister about the breadth of the protection order. Will it be, for instance, that there will be a sliding measure of conformance or acceptance from one part of the country to another? Does the Minister envisage that there be a one-size-fits-all, a template approach that would mean that wherever a heritage protection order has been put into effect, but absolutely no undertakings of any use of land and subdividing of any land and changing the character and intensity or scale of the use of the land may occur—or does he anticipate that at some point there could be some evolution that would mean that, over the lifetime of the protection order, those matters could be refined, amended, adjusted to changing circumstances or perhaps changing knowledge and information about the historic qualities of the site due to, for instance, maybe some archaeology work or some historic data or information that may become available or just a better scientific understanding of the heritage of the place that’s covered by the protection order.
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Thank you, Madam Chair. In respect of this provision, the member will see that the equivalent provision in the Resource Management Act is section 193—of the current Act. It has to be read in combination with the other sections around it, including clause 544, and I’m advised that the effect of a heritage protection order is that it, effectively, stays in place until a consideration is made as to whether there is a necessary plan change to give effect to the long-term protection of the site. So it’s, effectively, a temporary measure pending completion of more detailed provisions so that the interests of those that are affected by that can be properly heard.
TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s great to be able to stand and take a call in this debate. I’d like to build on my colleague Scott Simpson’s line of questioning regarding the effect of heritage protection orders, particularly, as we’re talking here, clause 545. I would like the Minister to be able to explain how opportunities can occur for those protection orders to be removed should there be, for example, earthquakes or perhaps, even more relevant, some sort of weather, climate change, subsidence kind of issue where you have a protection order in place—which, as Mr Simpson has said, is exceedingly constraining in terms of being able to use that land in any additional way apart from just locking it up in its current state. What happens, where are the mechanisms, if there is a need to be able to change that categorisation because of weather or climate change - related events? How does that happen? And, in particular, these are new conditions; how are they then consulted on and promulgated so that people can understand what change is expected?
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Thank you, Madam Chair. I would note that, before they’re put in place finally, there are appeal rights so that if people feel that they’re wrong, they can appeal against the decision. There’s not only a hearing through a plan or some other process; there can be an appeal against that decision under clause 550. But in respect of the specific question of the member, if there was, for example, an earthquake and the building fell down, or there had been a landslip and some ancient site had been covered up by the landslide, clause 551 provides for that, which is the carry-over of section 195A of the existing Act. And it says, “A heritage protection authority that is responsible for a heritage protection order may at any time give notice to the relevant territorial authority of its intention to alter the heritage protection order.”
STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to carry on with that, Minister, if we had a Pompeii or Mt Vesuvius - type event, are you referring to that? That could be where we could get the ash covering the historic sites. You could, in theory, with some of the maunga in Tāmaki-makau-rau, lose one. It could disappear under ash. So would that be a subject of a protection order, and, if so, how would that be dealt with?
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Well, I suppose the Pink and White Terraces, which used to be a wonder of the world, that were covered up by the Mount Tarawera explosion—or was it originally a lake? The whole mountain blew apart and covered the whole area in, amongst other things, ash. Theoretically, I suppose it would be possible to preserve the underlying Pink and White Terraces, deep under that ash, to the extent they still exist. That’s never happened, in the history of New Zealand, under the existing Resource Management Act provisions, and I think it will be no more likely under the new Act.
BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki-King Country): Thank you, Madam Chair, and I really hope the Taranaki maunga continues to behave. My question is around clause 552 on page 473. So it talks about the transfer of a heritage protection order, where the Minister may transfer responsibility for an existing protection order but not exercise power under subclause (2)(a) that relates to private land, or also in subclause (2)(c) where it relates to Māori land. So, Minister, I’m just looking for, perhaps, an example or a reason where this may happen, where the protection order is transferred but the landowners, whoever they may be, are protected. Thank you.
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): I’ll check with officials that I’ve got this right, but, having read the definition, I suppose one possibility would be that the original heritage protection order could have been obtained, for example, by the Department of Conservation, and they might think it’s appropriate to transfer it to Heritage New Zealand.
TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): Madam Chair, thank you. I would like the Minister to further explain, please, clause 543(4), which is the heritage protection authority’s capacity to withdraw a notice of heritage protection order. When you compare with clause 545, which is the effect of the protection order—where, essentially, this land is locked up in perpetuity because you’ve got no use of land; it can’t be subdivided; the character, the intensity, the scale of the land can’t change—what I’m interested in is, whilst it makes sense at first reading to have the capacity for a notice to be withdrawn, what would the Minister see as being the sorts of criteria which would drive a withdrawal notice for a heritage protection order?
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): I’ll check with officials.
STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you, Madam Chair, Actually, my question is on clause 542, “Consent of owners of Māori land”. It says, “A heritage protection authority must obtain the written consent of the owners of Māori land (as defined in section 4 of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993) before it gives notice to a territorial authority of a heritage protection order affecting that land, except when the authority is the landowner.” My question is: does that include all of those landowners? Often there are many and that was one of the things that the National Government wanted to sort out with te ture whenua amendment bill some years ago, but that was opposed. But if the Minister could clarify that, because I think it’s really important that if it is to be an order going on that land, all of the landowners are indeed consulted. What happens if you can’t contact them all?
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): That’s an interesting question. There are actually many blocks of communally owned Māori land where the ownership is so fractionalised that there’s not really an economic interest for those who inherit the interest of their parents making it worthwhile going through the process of updating the records of the Māori Land Court to ensure that the appropriate transfers take place. In those situations, in my experience, the Māori Land Court try to call meetings of the people to whom they can give notice, and the Māori Land Court run a process through which the collective owners who often own structures such as ahu whenua trusts are asked to take a decision overseeing through a process which is approved by the Māori Land Court.
Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just following on from what the Minister said, and I want to come to the appeal clauses in a minute, but I’m interested just to tease out the concept of communal owned land. Because it’s not only iwi, hapū, Māori land that is potentially communally owned. There are a number of organisations, some of them more controversial than others where, on the face of it, land is owned communally. I can think of back in the day, and the Minister may well have visited some of the communal owned properties in my electorate in the Coromandel—back in the day. He may be able to recall having made those visits and partaken of the hospitality of those communes. But does he envisage a situation where communally owned land, other than land owned by Māori, or iwi, or hapū could be encapsulated into the provisions of this subpart of the bill? Is that something that is limited exclusively to iwi, hapū, Māori groups, or could it stretch to land communally owned by other organisations, groups, or entities?
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Responding to an earlier question in respect of clause 543(4) that I said I’d ask officials about as to when a heritage protection authority may withdraw a notice said “Act”, I’m advised that that might occur, for example, where it looks like a planned change that would be necessary to give effect to that protection is unlikely to result, and people might think that in those circumstances it wasn’t worth proceeding. In that sort of situation, it could be that a decision maker would withdraw their application.
In respect of the question about whether there are sorts of land other than Māori land that are owned by more than one party that could be covered by heritage protection orders, yes, they would, but they’re not caught within the definition of Te Ture Whenua Māori Act Māori land as referred to in respect of clause 542.
MARK CAMERON (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. Minister, forgiving my naivety with this—clause 543, we’ve been talking about heritage protection orders, and I’m cognisant of the fact that there are certain areas, especially in Northland, with well-known geological features that have shared ownership locally. They would, arguably, be considered culturally sensitive to those, but they are non-Māori owned, as they’ve a shared ownership structure. In terms of heritage protection orders, would there be a potentiality that that ownership structure, should they be in a local authority that enforces a protection order on them—would that be eroded, and what would that, in terms of outcomes, look like under the veil of that cultural heritage use that was referenced in here?
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Well, it would be an issue for the decision makers who are, actually, generally, local authorities, as to whether they thought some sort of protection was warranted under the rules of their plan.
Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Clause 545 is the clause that I spoke about earlier that gives effect to the heritage protection order. It’s the clause that sets out the fairly extensive and broad nullification of a whole lot of activities on land that has been designated as subject to a protection order—so nothing that includes any undertaking of any land use, subdividing any land, or changing the character, intensity, or scale of the use of any land.
Then there are several other clauses, and it’s not until we get to clause 550 that we find that there is an appeal provision relating to clause 545. In clause 550(1) it says that the “section applies if a person—(a) proposes to do anything in relation to land that is subject to a heritage order for the purpose that, but for the heritage protection order, would be lawful; and (b) has been refused consent to undertake that”, and so on.
But, then, in subclause (2) of clause 550, there is the ability for a person to appeal to the Environment Court against a heritage protection authority’s refusal to consent to the conditions. Now, that’s good, I guess, but an appeal through to the Environment Court has the potential to be slow, cumbersome, and expensive. I’m wondering whether the balance is right in terms of that appeal process, where the heritage authority that has already been tested, in terms of its own financial ability to be robust, clearly will have resources available to defend and protect themselves against an appeal of a protection order, but an individual could be, for instance, one of the communal property owners who may feel that the situation unfairly imposes upon their ability to enjoy, peacefully and lawfully, access to the land or to some use of the land. But the balance between the two—the authority has already had its financial probity tested and proved, so they’ve got assets, they’ve got strength, and they’ve got financial might, but the individual that is appealing may not have. And I’m keen to have the Minister’s sense about how the relative power imbalance or the potential power imbalance might potentially be better addressed.
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Well, I suppose I would first make it clear that in respect of heritage protection orders on private land, as opposed to communally owned Māori land, those heritage protection orders can only be made by a council or the Crown; they can’t be made by a Māori authority. So it’s the council or the Crown.
Then, if someone has land that is subject to a heritage protection order—and they may have bought the land subject to that order. It’s not always imposed upon them; it’s often something that a prior landowner has wanted to protect for the future, before they sold their land. It might be—I don’t know—a very old church, it might be a place that’s got some significant trees on it, or it might be the site of the first school in the area—for whatever reason, they might have wanted to preserve it. But, then, a subsequent landowner might want to say, “Well, look, I still want to do something here.”, and they could apply to the council or the Crown, if the Crown was the relevant authority. Their permission might be refused, and they might think that unreasonable. In order for that to be tested, there is an appeal right created, as is the case in just about any other appeal right. In respect of important matters of public or private interests, it’s normal for the appeal to go to a court, because they run fair processes, they act judicially without bias, they apply the law without fear and favour, and they give reasons for their decisions, which gives confidence to the public that the system is robust, and that’s what’s proposed here.
Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you, and thanks for the Minister’s explanation. I want to come back to this sense of a potential power imbalance between the authority that has deemed a piece of land communally owned to be the subject of a protection order and the potential for an individual to appeal that—as I say, potentially one of the communal owners or a small group of those communal owners.
In clause 550(4), it says, “In considering an appeal under this section, the court must have regard to” and then it has three legs to the matters that the court must have regard to, and this is the Environment Court. The first leg is “(a) whether the decision appealed against has caused”—has caused—“or is likely to cause serious hardship to the appellant; and,”. I can think of a wide variety of circumstances where it may be relatively easy for an appellant to show that, actually, serious hardship has occurred or is likely to occur.
But then there’s the second leg, and it’s not an “or”; it’s an “and”. So these three legs all have to be met before a successful appeal could be made. The second leg is “(b) whether the decision appealed against would render the land concerned incapable of reasonable use; and”. It’s that question about reasonable use and being incapable that I’m keen to have some sense from the Minister about; how that test of incapacity or reasonableness will be applied in terms of appeal decisions. I know that there’s a lot of common law about the test for reasonableness. But that’s the second leg; so that’s another “and”.
And then the third leg is—this is clause 550(4)(c)—“the extent to which the decision may be modified without wholly or partly nullifying the effect of the heritage protection order.” So three legs to a successful appeal need to be met, not individually but collectively—the three legs. I put it to the Minister that that’s actually a very high threshold for an appellant to meet, and the potential likelihood of an appeal being successful based on meeting all three of those legs would be relatively small, if indeed at all.
So I’m interested in the Minister’s views on that and whether he thinks that that is an adequate protection and whether it’s a reasonable threshold for, as I’ve indicated previously, perhaps a single individual with limited means to try and meet the threshold of the three appeal criteria under that clause.
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Again, I would note this is a carry-over of section 195 of the existing Resource Management Act. I would further note that the court must have regard to those three factors; it doesn’t say that all three factors have to be fully met in order for an earlier decision appealed against to be modified. They’re just the factors that must be considered. It doesn’t say how they should be weighted.
I would have thought in practice that if the decision appealed was going to cause serious hardship and it would render the land unable to be reasonably used and the decision couldn’t be modified in a way that could accommodate that, the decision of the court would then in part depend on what they thought was a fair outcome according to the scheme of the Act. That might include, using the example I used earlier, whether the person purchased the land already subject to that inhibition or whether this was something new or recent.
In terms of the court’s remedies there, the court—at subclause (5)—can either confirm the decision, reverse the decision, modify the heritage protection order, or cancel it.
TANGI UTIKERE (Chief Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.
STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Minister, for those fulsome answers. In clause 552, “Transfer of heritage protection order”—and you’ve touched on this before—it says that “The Minister may, on the Minister’s own initiative, transfer responsibility for an existing heritage protection order to another heritage protection authority.” However, the Minister may not exercise that power, particularly when it relates to private land. Does mean, Minister, that if a heritage protection order is being administered by a council over some site and a Minister believes that it’s not being administered to a standard that the Minister might like, their hands are tied so that they can’t actually say, “Well, I’ll take it over now, as the Minister, rather than the council.”—is that possible, and, if not, why not?
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Before I call the Minister, I just want to say that there have been at least five calls on heritage protection orders. It’s beginning to be repetitive.
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Well, I think the clause means what it says, which is that the Minister must not exercise the discretion to transfer responsibility for an existing heritage protection order if the heritage protection order relates to private land.
MARK CAMERON (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. Minister, back to clause 545, “Effect of heritage protection order”, in verbatim if you’d be so kind to indulge me: “(1) While a heritage protection order is in force, regardless of the provisions of any plan or resource consent, no person may”—and we can go through it, as you can well read. And I’ll go through (a), (b), and (c): “(a) undertaking any use of land; and (b) subdividing any land; and (c) changing the character,” Well, I’m cognisant of the fact that in ownership structures—and in the multiple-ownership structures—there can be possible multiple titles with multiple owners involved. If there was, in this arrangement, a property that was subject to heritage protection orders, how would this potentially affect those of multiple-ownership structures versus singular in terms of outcome and protection to their property rights?
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): The legislation contemplates all of those possibilities and indeed needs to, because there are many different ways in which people own land—either on their own account; they can sometimes own fee simple interests or leasehold interests; they can sometimes have other interests in land like easements across the land. And each of those different interests in land can either be owned by individuals, by corporate bodies, or by groups of individuals or corporates.
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. This is my first occasion to speak on this committee stage for the entire bill. I want to make a couple of general remarks about the widespread agreement across the House that the current Resource Management Act is no longer fit for purpose and needs improvement. Our general consensus, looking at this very large piece of legislation, is that rather than fixing it, it will make it worse in many respects, and we’re now working our way through the mountain of detail and questions. I don’t know what hour we’re up to: 20th hour or 10th hour or 12th hour—we’re halfway through.
I’ve got some specific questions I could ask here about Subpart 2 of Part 8, which may or may not shed any light on it. I suppose—where it sort of becomes interesting; I look at clause 541(1), for example. It says that “any [iwi authority] with interest in relation to a place may apply to the Minister in the prescribed form for approval as a heritage protection authority”.
I’d just be interested to know from the Minister what “interest in relation to a place” means. Does that mean that they own the place, or that they may claim to have some kaitiaki role in respect of the place? What are the boundaries of that, in the sense that it could be an individual’s house, for example, totally unrelated to that particular group, but the group claims to have some broader interest in the land? I don’t know; take, for example, if somebody owned a house on the waterfront in Whangamatā or Coromandel, and there was a group that claimed to have a connection with that area of the Coromandel, would that mean that they could apply to have a heritage protection authority over an individual’s property, and, if so, what would that mean from a heritage point of view? So I suppose the starting point, just to clarify that, is: what are the boundaries around the interest, and how tightly is that defined?
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): I did address this previously, in respect to an earlier question. The only authorities or organisations that can be heritage protection authorities in respect to private land are Ministers of the Crown or local authorities or Heritage New Zealand. In respect to Māori land, some Māori groupings can sometimes apply to be a heritage protection authority, in respect to that Māori land, but not other private land.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): I call on the Hon Paul Goldsmith, but before I do, this particular area has been addressed by the Minister before and, yes, it’s your first call on this bill, but it doesn’t mean that we will trapeze it. It’s begun to be a bit repetitive.
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you for your indulgence, Madam Chair. I suppose I accept the answer from the Minister in relation to private land. I’ll be interested to know what it means when it comes in relation to public land or council land or even disputed lands. I’m thinking in terms of council-owned land or Government lands. So what interest would a particular iwi authority or group have to have in relation to some sort of structure on council land in an area that there might be interest in? What are the boundaries around whether they could apply to be a heritage protection authority for that place?
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Well, they couldn’t if it wasn’t Māori land.
SHANAN HALBERT (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 42
New Zealand National 29; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2; Whaitiri.
Motion agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Simon Court’s amendment to Part 8 on 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 amendment to the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 39
New Zealand National 29; ACT New Zealand 10.
Noes 72
New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.
Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 8 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 39
New Zealand National 29; ACT New Zealand 10.
Amendments agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 8 as amended be agreed to.
Ayes 72
New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.
Noes 42
New Zealand National 29; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2; Whaitiri.
Part 8 as amended agreed to.
Part 9 Subdivision and reclamation
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members, we come now to Part 9. This is the debate on clauses 568 to 629, on “Subdivision and reclamation”. The question is that Part 9 stand part. I call on the Minister, the Hon Dr David Parker. Sorry, the Hon David Parker. I keep on promoting you.
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Thank you for that. It was a very easy doctorate.
Hon Scott Simpson: Was it philosophy or medical?
Hon DAVID PARKER: I think I got it in a Weet-Bix packet. For the help of members, I’m advised that these provisions are all but identical to the provisions in the Resource Management Act (RMA) and they deal with subdivision and reclamations of land. Members will see that for every one of the sections that are in this Part—and I have checked through every one of them—there is reference made to the equivalent section in the RMA.
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): I note that the Minister said it’s just the same as what’s in the Resource Management Act (RMA) in relation to subdivisions and surveys and allotments, which is the sort of meat and drink of actually getting things done and building houses, building new houses, and trying to increase the supply of houses to deal with the housing affordability issues that we have. So it’s pretty fundamental about the work of part of this Act to get things done and to help people get into houses more cheaply and effectively.
The question I have is: to say, well, yes the clauses and the meaning of all this is unchanged from the RMA, but what impact does the changed purpose of this legislation, as it interacts with this section, have, if any, on this section? So if we’re talking about requirements for approving survey plans, for example, in clause 572, what impact does the same law that we currently have under the RMA—what impact does the different purpose of this legislation have on the operation or handling of that?
Because now we have to take into account te Oranga o te Taiao—the interconnectedness of all parts of the environment, the relationship between iwi and hapū and te taiao, and that is based on whakapapa, the relationship between the health of the natural environment—all these sorts of concepts which I have no idea what they mean in practice. I imagine that we will be spending a lot of time in the courts trying to figure that out, but I’d be interested to know what the Minister thinks. What sort of impact, if any, will that different purpose and different sort of framework for the whole Act have when it comes to the specifics of the approval of survey plans, of the certificate of approval from a territorial authority, the requirements relating to subdivisions—all those basic things, which he says hasn’t been changed?
But my fundamental question is: will it operate in the same way and will it be more efficient or less efficient? Will it be easier for people to subdivide their property and build new houses, or will it be harder? Will they, in some way, have to demonstrate that they understand the relationship between the health of the natural environment and its capacity, or will they have to try to explain what the health of the natural environment is? Will they have to sort of demonstrate when they’re dividing things up that they understand the interconnectedness of all parts of the environment, whatever that means? So those are the sorts of questions I have for the Minister.
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): The provisions of Part 9 are very, very mechanical. It’s about if you have a subdivision, what documentation do you need? You need a plan, a survey plan—that’s covered here. There are requirements of survey plans that are sent out; there are requirements relating to conditions of the subdivision or consent. Now, these are very mechanical issues as described in Part 9, and they really are a carryover of the Resource Management Act.
In respect of the member’s question, “What does the impact of the purpose clause on these provisions have?”: very little. These are very detailed mechanical provisions. In respect of, “Do these provisions change the supply of land under the new system?”: no, they don’t. If the supply of land increases under the new Act, these are the mechanical provisions to give effect to those subdivisions. Will there be an increase in supply of land? Yes, there will be. That increase in the supply of land comes from earlier parts of the Act that we’ve already debated.
But, for example, “System outcomes”, in clause 5(7)(b), one of them is that the “development capacity, in relation to housing and business land, [be] available well ahead of expected demand”. So we are baking into the system, in a way that I think virtually every party in the House now agrees with, expansive land markets so that we don’t drive house prices too high through artificial scarcity of building opportunities. But that really has no effect on Part 9. That’s just, once that happens, Part 9 is administrative as to how you give effect to a subdivision.
Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, the Minister has made that point quite clear, which is that Part 9 is, essentially, a cut-and-paste from the existing resource management legislation.
But let me just hypothetically talk for a minute. For instance, if I was my very good friend Warren Mayall from the beautiful Pāuanui part of the Coromandel, and I wanted to do a subdivision—just by cutting and pasting the existing provisions of the Resource Management Act (RMA) into the newly proposed Natural and Built Environment Bill, where are the improvements? Where is the streamlining? Where are the pieces in this, admittedly, administrative and functional part of the legislation?
Where are the pieces of Part 9 that are going to make it easier for Warren Mayall, for instance, of Pāuanui to do a little bit of subdivision, to do some development work, and to make advantage of what the Minister has told us throughout this debate and, indeed, throughout the whole genesis of this change to our existing RMA environment? It’s supposed to make things easier and it is supposed to make things quicker, faster, and less complicated, but this part is just a cut-and-paste. It doesn’t seem to make any improvements at all.
Yes, it’s detailed, and we could go through—as, I’m sure, some of my colleagues are intent to do—clause by clause, subclause by subclause, and point out some areas that need to be tested, but just because it was in the Resource Management Act from 30-odd years ago and it may have been subsequently amended over the multiple times that the RMA has been amended since it was first passed by this House, it doesn’t mean necessarily, I think, that it should be just the subject of a straight cut-and-paste without some kind of opportunity to review, to improve, to streamline, and to make it more efficient. So, without referring to any particular clause in Part 9, I’m keen to know how the Minister feels that this part is actually going to improve his overall legislative package, and what it might mean for my very good friend Warren Mayall in Pāuanui.
BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki-King Country): Thank you, Madam Chair. To the Minister: it’s a broader question in terms of how the bills fit together, and so I accept what you’re saying about this part of the bill. But as we went through the select committee, we were almost in live timing with the cyclones that were happening, and we thought a lot about where we build and how we build, and we saw—and the Minister has probably seen this himself—overlays of where wetlands previously were and where flooding lay.
The question is really related more to the interaction of this bill with the spatial planning and freeing up land. Are there likely to be more as we build on to the climate adaptation bill? Accepting that we haven’t debated or had the opportunity to talk about that yet, is that actually going to, again, talk about how we might free up land? Is that going to have some ability, again, to restrict the land available to apply these clauses to, because we looked, as a committee, as we were doing this, and we were thinking, “My goodness, have we built in some places that we shouldn’t have built? Have we left enough space between houses?”, and all of those sorts of things. So my question is more about how all of that fits together, please.
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Those questions really relate to the higher parts of the bill that we’ve already debated, not to the mechanical provisions relating to subdivision and reclamation in Part 9, which are a carry-over of the Resource Management Act parts and are purely mechanical.
MARK CAMERON (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. Minister, if I could go all the way to clause 606(8), which speaks to a “lake means … lake [where a] … bed area [of] 8 hectares or more”—so 20-odd acres, if you want to use the old terminology. If you can envisage an area where there are half a dozen property owners that have a contiguous boundary between them all; topographically, they have built a dam structure there that would have a bedded area larger than 8 hectares. Is that then construed as a lake in this instance, and would it stifle the profitability of actually subdividing the said land? You could see it playing out in real time: property owners that share this contiguous reality not being able to subdivide their land, based on the terminology of “what is a lake?” Gracious me, a lot of the lakes I know have actually been man-made and they’re not naturally forming bodies of water. Do you think that needs to be revisited?
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): This section applies where there is reclamation next to the sea, a river, or a lake where you reclaim land next to that lake—or, if you hadn’t reclaimed it, there’s generally access provided alongside most areas of the sea, lakes, and rivers through what are called “esplanade reserves” or “marginal strips”. So this says that where you have reclaimed land; then you need to be thinking about whether there should be an access strip along it, and it says that an esplanade reserve must be set aside from the allotment under the section’s name, but only if it’s been required as a condition of the resource consent that was given for the reclamation.
STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Oh, thank you, Madam Chair. Just a quick one, Minister. So I know you said if a land had been reclaimed, but actually land can be reclaimed—as we saw along the Kaikōura coast—by an act of God. A significant amount of land can be, actually, reclaimed by an act of God. Do those provisions apply to God? Does God have to apply for an esplanade plan and provide access? Because he’s done a massive amount of work lifting up a significant amount of territory out of the sea for access for a lot more people. Actually, a good example—and the Minister, I’m sure, will like to know—is access to the Cape Campbell Lighthouse. It used to be completely guided or controlled by the tide; that’s no longer the case because of the reclamation of the land and that esplanade doesn’t seem to be there. Is that something that is covered in this bill?
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): I call on the Minister, if he wants to address that particular question.
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Boundaries to land sometimes change through natural causes. Whether the change to a pattern of land goes into an adjacent title depends a lot on the age of the title. Some titles that go back a long way went to either the high water mean spring mark or to the midline of a river. Others are subject to esplanade reserves. Some of those esplanade reserves move with rivers; some of them do not move with rivers. It depends on the circumstance and the time of the creation of the title.
ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): I move, That the question be now put.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Given there are no other calls, the question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 9 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 39
New Zealand National 29; ACT New Zealand 10.
Amendments agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 9 as amended be agreed to.
Ayes 72
New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.
Noes 42
New Zealand National 29; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2; Whaitiri.
Part 9 as amended agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members, Part 10 has been struck out of the bill following an amendment recommended by the Environment Committee.
Part 11 Compliance, monitoring, and enforcement
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): We come now to Part 11. This is the debate on clauses 694 to 802, “Compliance, monitoring, and enforcement”, including Schedule 6. The question is that Part 11 stand part.
Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Madam Chair, thank you for clarifying, because I know the fact that Part 10 had disappeared—and those of us that sat on the Environment Committee will understand the reasons for that—but people who have been maybe following this debate assiduously at home or on the wireless will be wondering what happened to Part 10. Well, it has been amended, and that goes to show that the select committee actually did extraordinarily good work, I thought, on this and was capably chaired by the Hon Eugenie Sage throughout, but we spent an awful lot of time on this legislation.
Part 11 deals with compliance and enforcement, and it’s an area of the legislative flow plan—if I can put it that way—perhaps, that is at the heart of much of what happens in resource management law, planning, and what have you. It’s the bit that often causes individuals, property owners, and indeed councils, regional councils, and all sorts of people—businesses, entities—an enormous amount of time, effort, and energy in terms of complying with the fine detail of the legislation and then, indeed, the actual enforcement of it.
It’s been the subject of much criticism in terms of the existing Resource Management Act, and my opening question to the Minister is: in what ways does Part 11 make process better, cheaper, easier, more convenient for people wanting to get things done? How is it that Part 11, throughout any of the clauses that are listed, changes what is already existing, and what provisions can the Minister point to that are going to make this part of his proposed legislation better than what we already have?
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Again, much of this is carried forward by the Resource Management Act, but the significant change, I would say to the committee, is the introduction of a civil remedies regime. Under a civil remedies regime, instead of suing someone through the criminal courts and trying to get a conviction for breaches of the law and perhaps an enforcement order that some environmental ill that is illegal be remedied, the new statute enables agreements to be reached between the errant party—if I could describe that in that ways; perhaps someone that’s caused some pollution over a period of time—to invest in things that will remedy the breach. The experience overseas has been that you can sometimes get to better outcomes through an agreement with the errant party promising to fix up their errant ways rather than prosecuting them through the courts.
Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): So, yes, indeed, the opportunity to participate in a civil proceeding is, on the face of it, laudable—it, you know, makes a degree of sense, but it would make a whole lot more sense if our civil court system was working faster and quicker, and I don’t have any confidence that, actually, actions in civil litigation are going to provide any kind of more speedy, less costly, or more efficient outcomes. So the pathway, in principle, is effective and probably worth pursuing, but, again—like so many other things that happen with the current Government—it’s the practical application where people are let down, because the civil justice system is mired at the moment, and anyone that has had anything to do with a civil case will know how long it takes to get things through the civil jurisdictions.
I want to spend just a minute or two talking about some of the enforcement orders. I know that the Minister has already indicated that a lot of this is replicated from the existing Resource Management Act (RMA), but again I make the point that so much of what is wrong with the existing RMA is in the detail. So much of what is wrong with the RMA in its current form hasn’t yet been addressed by the nitty-gritty process detail that has been transferred into this piece of legislation from the existing legislation, and therefore many of the pitfalls are going to be exactly the same.
Clause 700, for instance, “Scope of enforcement order”: “An enforcement order is an order made under section 705 by the Environment Court that may do any 1 or more of the following”, and then there is quite a long list; it goes through to paragraph (j)—so all sorts of things in terms of an enforcement order. It’s this kind of detail that is a mystery to laypeople trying to work their way through a situation where they may have a matter that has been brought by a local council or a consenting agency or whatever and where an enforcement order has been put in place. Then, their ability to understand in a meaningful way what is being asked of them will almost certainly require professional assistance, and that professional assistance will come at a cost and it will mean that it’s not easy to use. So that’s just one clause, clause 700. As I said, it’s quite a long—I’m not going to waste the time of the committee of the whole House in going through it subclause by subclause, but it’s quite extensive.
Then, 701 goes through an equally long process, the compliance with an enforcement order: “An enforcement order is made against a person, and that enforcement order is served on that person, and that person must”, and then there’s a whole range of things that they have to do. Then, there’s clause 702, the application of an enforcement order—again, detailed, long, with a lot of reference back to other clauses. For those that, for instance, have not had the benefit of a law degree or legal training, much of this is going to be very difficult for them to follow, so again, Minister, I wondered if you could give us some insight as to why, for instance—just something relatively pertinent to the whole process—[Bell rung]
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Order! The member—
Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: Mr Chair—sorry, I had neglected to see that the Chair had changed, so my apologies, Mr Chair.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): It’s good to see your concentration is so—
Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: Well, this is a weighty matter, Mr Chair. It’s a matter that does require concentration, and it’s required the concentration of a number of us for many, many months—many, many months. Some of us have spent a lot of time on it. But I come back to my point, and it’s about—if the purpose of the Government’s whole rationale for these significant changes is to make improvements, then where do we see it in something as basic to the whole thing as enforcement orders? I don’t see that in any of the words that are in front of me in this part of the bill, Part 11, because it’s just a straight copy of what we have now. I would have hoped that there was an opportunity for some streamlining, some using, for instance, of just language that was more easily understood. It’s heavy, black-letter law that is going to require a lot of understanding by the people who are impacted by it.
So, general comments, I know, Mr Chair, but I think pertinent to the whole Part 11 of the bill.
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): The member asked for some practical examples. The first point I would make is that it’s actually generally not “Mr Smith” or “Mrs Brown”, or any other individual, who takes enforcement action for breaches of the Resource Management Act or the new statute—it’s generally councils or the Environmental Protection Authority, and they need powers to do what is practical. I agree with the member there.
The clause that the member referred to, clause 700(1)(j), makes reference to “monetary benefit orders” and “adverse publicity orders”. These are both new instruments. I’m not sure if the member is aware—he may well be—that this matter could have come up when he was the Prime Minister, but it certainly came up on my plate after we came into office.
There was a very irresponsible company called Sustainable Solvents, who had an operation near the Whangārei oil refinery, actually. So-called “Sustainable Solvents” had a permission to bring on limited amounts of solvents collected from a range of places—like people that make paint or other people that are involved in chemicals—to process them and then take them off-site. They took the money, they stored the solvents in metal barrels, and they accumulated enormous quantities—far more than they were allowed to. They left it there so long, these highly flammable, highly toxic substances started to rot through the metal barrels that they were contained in, and then they scarpered and ran away from their insolvent company.
The cost to taxpayers and the local councils up there, of remedying that particular atrocious behaviour, was worth more than $1 million, and—as history will record—there was actually no effective remedy against the people that caused the problem. There will be under the new regime, and two of the mechanisms for that are monetary benefits and adverse publicity orders.
Monetary benefit orders, which are referred to in clause 700, are detailed at clause 718, and they allow the Environment Court to make an order to pay an amount that the court thinks is fair, on the balance of the probabilities, representing the monetary benefits acquired by the person as a result of the commission of an offence. So in that case, if a director of that company had pocketed the money that they’d collected for the theoretically safe disposal of those chemicals and then then did the scarper, leaving the council and central government with a million-dollar bill, and if they had made a million-dollar profit on the way through, theoretically the counsel could come along and say, “You should have to pay $1 million.” Now, that would be an extreme example, but sadly, there are other examples of that, like New Zealand.
Now, in that sort of situation, I suspect an adverse publicity order wouldn’t matter very much—but it does to the big corporates. Some of the big corporates that have got themselves in a bind do react to the possibility of an adverse publicity order. One of the things that happens overseas, particularly in respect of large corporates, is that the courts can say, “There should be publicity that this particular corporate did things that were wrong.” That’s what adverse publicity orders do.
TONI SEVERIN (ACT): Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you, Minister. You were saying earlier about coming together, basically, and working the differences out between polluters and non-polluters, but I was just wondering—I might be completely blind—is there a time frame to be able to work it out before they go to the next stat? Because, as you know, many people work faster than others. Is there any sort of time frame to make sure that when two parties are working together to come to a solution, there will be some form of time frame before you go to the next stat where you may have to go to court?
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Thank you, that’s a very good and practical question, and, yes, there are. As with any other area of law enforcement, there is general a period—except in the most serious of crimes, like murder, for which there is no limitation period. For things that relate to the environment, there is generally a limitation period which stops you bringing a prosecution after a period of time. Now, that sort of cuts both ways, because if you have too short a limitation period, you can both make it too hard to bring people to account, but you also frustrate the ability of people to do the right thing in advance of and in substitution for more penal enforcement proceedings.
So the bill tries to address that by extending the limitation period from two to six years, which is the normal limitation period that applies at civil law. If I have a contract with you and I breach it, you have six years to sue me. If I act negligently and cause you harm, the statute of limitations says that you have six years to bring your case against me. And now, in environmental cases, councils will have six years to bring prosecutions against those who have erred. And, of course, during that sixyear period, work can be done to ameliorate those things in a way that might avoid a prosecution.
STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you, Mr Chair. Just on that one, Minister, the per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances pollution, for example, happened quite some time ago. So does that apply—that statute of limitations, as it were, apply to that? Also, the example that the Minister himself gave earlier about barrels rotting away with the chemicals inside them, which could take, let’s say they’re buried or stored somewhere, and they rust through or corrode away, you know, over a period of 6.5 years—is the polluter then still able to be captured under that circumstance?
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): I should clarify an earlier answer, in response to the member, I conflated two issues: criminal penalties and civil penalties. Civil penalties, the limitation period is six years. The criminal limitation period is extended from 12 months to two years. So the criminal limitation period is two years, not six years. The civil one is six.
In respect to the question about per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The PFAS challenge is an interesting one because those chemicals, when originally used, were legally used. People didn’t understand properly that the long-term effect of PFAS and PFOS. I won’t even try and pronounce the long name—polyfluoride—very long name.
Hon Member: Oh, give it a go!
Hon DAVID PARKER: Ha, ha! No. They were used most commonly in foam to put out chemical fires. We’ve had some problems around that in the country, although not nearly as bad as the problems Australia have, partly because we don’t have as big a defence force, and therefore not using as many of these foams in, you know, trials, putting out—firefighting practice. So I would think that in most cases, no, there wouldn’t be a remedy for those historic incidences in the use of that.
Having said that, we have found that since the banning of PFAS, some people have continued to use it illegally. Not often, but if there was a case where they had, after it became illegal, disposed of it and put it in, for example, a dump where it was causing problems, and that was found out to have occurred, then I would have thought that would be in breach of both the existing law and the new law. As to how that would interact with limitation periods that I’ve described, well, we’d have to look at the facts of the case.
BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki-King Country): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ve just got a question on clause 732(1) on page 573, where it says, “An NBE regulator may require a person undertaking a particular activity to provide a financial assurance.” My question around that is that one of the three really big things that came up when we were taking submissions on this was the term of consent and the 10-year consenting—and I know it’s a topic that’s come up several times before. One of the points that was always made was that if the consenting process was too short, then the project may be viable on a longer term, but you wouldn’t get the bank to be able to fund it on a shorter term. So I just want to test the Minister for the Environment’s understanding, I guess, on how this clause, with any shortened consenting, may affect people’s ability to get financial assurance.
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Look, I don’t think that this would impact upon that; I think that’s an unrelated issue which has been partially addressed by amendments that have been made. But this relates to the term of bonds. These are, effectively, financial guarantees that have been provided by someone when they’re going to do something that’s risky for the environment. Again, we’ve had real examples where bonds haven’t been taken, and taxpayers have been left with bills, sometimes of $100 million, in respect—and this is a recent occurrence—of the remediation of some of the former oilfields in the Taranaki basin where the corporate has left a mess behind, that the company has been insolvent, and we’ve been left with no one to pay the bill and it’s fallen to taxpayers.
Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you, Mr Chair. Can I just say that I’m very much appreciating the Minister for the Environment’s willingness to engage on the detail of this stuff. It’s really helpful and it’s an indication of, I think, a good committee of the whole House process, and he’s been very patient and very generous with his explanations
But I want to come back to this clause 718. Before the Minister’s earlier explanation, I, for one, hadn’t actually fully understood, I think, the potential impact of that change. So I want to just think for a minute, and if the Minister can maybe give us an interpretation. How would this clause, 718, the “Monetary benefit orders”, help in a case, for instance, like that that occurred at Mataura after the aluminium smelter sent toxic aluminium waste to a third party, and then the third party shipped it to the Mataura—well, the storage place close to the Mataura River, which occasionally floods. This toxic waste had the potential for causing great damage if it got wet.
The ability, then, for the principal polluter to then, essentially, subcontract out responsibility for the waste to an entity that may subsequently become insolvent or unable to meet demands and the bad stuff is still there—what is, then, the nexus and causal responsibility of the original polluter, notwithstanding that they had legally attempted to contract out of their responsibility for the ultimate safe disposal of that waste? Does this clause cover that situation where there is a chain of commercial transactions, each one potentially negating further and diluting further the legal responsibility of each entity as that progresses through the commercial chain? Does this clause meet that kind of situation?
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Look, I actually don’t think it would in that—I was also involved in that particular instance. It might apply if the storer of the material had taken money from the smelter to store and dispose of it properly, and then took the money and didn’t do the job. Then, you might get an order against the company or the person that was the contractor that didn’t do what they were meant to do, but I don’t think you’d get a monetary order under the smelter in respect of that.
There might be other remedies against the smelter for not properly taking care of their materials, but that would be dependent upon the facts. In actual fact, what caused the smelter to take responsibility for that was what, in America, they call the “bully pulpit”, because we publicised through this Parliament the poor behaviour of Rio Tinto in that case, and it was reported in The Guardian and came to the attention of the audit committee of Rio Tinto, and then they paid attention and started to take responsibility for the problem.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Honourable Stuart Smith—sorry, the Hon Scott Simpson.
Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you. Same initials—it’s all right. It’s not the first time.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): You’re not even sitting together this time!
Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: Ha, ha! Mr Chair, your good humour is appreciated as well. But I think it’s worth teasing out this point, because these are practical, real situations that occur in New Zealand, sometimes at the hand of large international corporates. I think the Minister makes a useful point, but surely shouldn’t it be that there should be some kind of legislative regulatory control or ability to put into effect responsibility for the primary polluter having responsibility for the toxic waste that they may generate, rather than just relying on a bully pulpit response from our Parliament?
Notwithstanding that the bully pulpit may be effective, but wouldn’t it be better to somehow try and create a legal framework, and maybe, within this art of the bill, could have been an opportunity to have attempted to do that. If this part of the bill can’t do that, is there another part of the bill that could or should, and was that kind of prospect considered by officials or the Minister in his consideration of this Part of the bill?
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): When I said Rio Tinto before, I should have said the New Zealand aluminium company, of which the majority shareholder is Rio Tinto. Look, I’m not going to go much further into that instance because it is very complex, because some of the things that happened way back when down there were actually permitted activities and were legal. So you’ve got to be careful to distinguish between what happened when and what was the legal status of things when it happened.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The Hon Scott Simpson. This is short, sharp questions to the Minister and back.
Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): The short, sharp question is, notwithstanding historic cases, why couldn’t we have put into this legislation something that would prevent future cases?
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Well, the “polluter pays” principle is enshrined in this legislation, and so you would expect that if in the future someone sought a resource consent—and you would need it for something as complex as a large smelter—the conditions of that resource consent would apply the “polluter pays” principle and require them to take financial responsibility for the hazardous substances produced as a consequence of their industrial process.
STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Oh, well thank you, Mr Chair. I wouldn’t mind if you used “the Hon” bit. That would be fine.
Hon Scott Simpson: Soon!
STUART SMITH: Ha, ha! Soon. Clause 716A, “Water shortage direction”, Minister—particularly “(2) A direction may relate to any specified water, to water in any specified area, or to water in any specified water body.”, and “(3) A direction may not last for more than 14 days”. I don’t see anything in here that requires that direction to be hierarchical. So you could foresee, Minister, a situation where those with different water-take consents—for example, some with a primary consent so that they can go to A-class water. Depending on what the class situation is on those consents, you would not expect they would have to go off at the same time as, say, a B or C class water-take, and there doesn’t seem to be any direction at all for a hierarchical approach to be taken. Am I understanding that correctly?
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): No, I don’t think so. With respect, I’m informed that that is a carry-over from the Resource Management Act (RMA) section. So if the local council, in the way they deal with water shortages, is to put some people off first, that will continue to apply. I know that, as a matter of fact, it depends sometimes on the nature of the water consents. Sometimes if they’re old pre-RMA deemed permits, they prevail over RMA water permits.
I would also note one other important change in this part of the bill: until now, as a matter of general legal proposition, you can’t insure against criminal penalties. So I can’t get an insurance company to pay my traffic fines or cover me if I do something in breach of the criminal code. That is a matter of public policy; you can’t take insurance against that. Until now, you’ve been able to insure against Environment Court fines, and some people have—and they’ve deliberately paid an insurance premium rather than the fine—so that is made illegal by this part of the bill.
TONI SEVERIN (ACT): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m just looking through this and I was just reading through the abatement notices, and I came across the cancellation of abatement notices. Now, I’m assuming that they’d only be cancelled once the person or company has achieved what they have had that notice on, before they’re cancelled, because it doesn’t actually say that here. I might be misreading it, but it doesn’t actually say that they have achieved what’s in the notice that has been put on them. Would that be correct—that they would have to go through whatever the notices had, to be able to get that notice of abatement removed, before the cancellation occurred?
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): I would say that’s normally the case, but I could also contemplate the possibility that an abatement notice is given to a company, rather than a real person, and the company might go into liquidation and have no ability to do anything in terms of the abatement notice. I can imagine, in that circumstance, even though the abatement notice hadn’t been adhered to, eventually it might be cancelled.
SHANAN HALBERT (Junior Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.
Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to turn to Subpart 4 of Part 11, in particular reference to “emergency works”. Across the nation this year, we’ve had some horrific weather, with awful impacts on land, property, and people’s lives; my area in the beautiful Coromandel has been particularly harshly hit. So Subpart 4 provides a range of emergency works provisions where there are exclusions for work to be done when circumstances such as a civil emergency is declared, work that can be done without a consent during a period of time, consents for emergency work, power to take preventive action or remedial action—that’s quite an extensive area there.
But I want to particularly refer to clause 755(3): “The person who authorised the activity must, within 60 working days of the notification under subsection (2), apply in writing for the appropriate consent authority for any necessary resource consents required in respect of the activity”. So it provides an opportunity for work to be done, and then a retrospective consenting process to occur. There are times when some of the emergency work that needs to be done, for instance, a clear road on the Thames coast, somewhere between Thames and Coromandel where you have a steep hillside; a narrow winding road, and then the foreshore immediately adjacent. In years gone by, in a less enlightened time, road repair workers would simply bulldoze their way through the slip and literally push it into the tide, and that’s what they’d do—no consent required, nothing of that nature. What’s now required is that that slip be cleared, that the waste be trucked to a consented waste deposit area, and my concern is that sometimes that is simply not practical.
I’m interested to know from the Minister whether consideration was given to maybe providing a more flexible arrangement that would allow for an activity that may be—under normal circumstances; under normal weather events; under what we would consider a “business as usual” operating situation—not acceptable, but in an emergency situation is entirely acceptable; entirely practical, and yes, may not meet best practice, but will actually mean that people’s lives and their ability to communicate, to travel, and to just go about the day-to-day business that they need to do—particularly in an emergency situation—could be better applied for.
I also want to ask the Minister specifically about a situation that a colleague of mine, Nicola Grigg, has raised on a number of occasions, where farmers in her neck of the woods—in her Selwyn electorate—have a situation where there is a flooding area, where braided rivers or streams can actually be clogged and full of debris, and then the farmer has a time-limited ability to clear that away, but the time limit is actually relatively short—I can’t remember it, and I can’t at the moment see it at my fingertips. But I’m interested to know whether there was consideration by the Minister or his officials to making these rules a little less formulaic, a little more practical, and a little more userfriendly under the difficult and challenging situations that exist when we have a civil defence emergency having been put in place.
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): More good news for the member—
Hon Scott Simpson: Thank you! It’s getting better.
Hon DAVID PARKER: Ha, ha! The only time you have to apply for a resource consent is if there is a long-term adverse effect from what is done in the emergency, so you can respond during the emergency and do whatever’s required under the emergency management legislation, but if there’s an ongoing adverse effect, you do effectively have to apply to either regularise it and let that adverse effect apply forever, or get some other way to deal with it. In 2020, we changed that period during which, if there is a long-term effect, the period that you’ve got to apply for your resource consent was doubled from 30 working days to 60 working days, because this was a real problem—60 working days is 12 weeks, which is, you know, three months, really—
Hon Scott Simpson: It’s about the same length as an Official Information Act request.
Hon DAVID PARKER: Ha, ha! So—
Stuart Smith: They always ask for more time.
Hon DAVID PARKER: Ha, ha! That’s right, you always ask. So yeah, I think that’s the answer to that. Whether you do need a resource consent: some of these things are permitted activities, for example, a lot of plans throughout the country allow a lot of remedial roadworks—not all remedial roadworks—or works to the railway line and things; that’s a permitted activity, you don’t even need a resource consent.
GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): I move, That the question be now put.
STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you, Mr Chair. Wise choice. Clause 807, “Mode of service of summons on master or owner of [a] ship”. It goes on in (1) to say that “if it is delivered personally to [an] agent of the ship on behalf of the defendant or is brought to the notice of the agent if the agent refuses to accept it on behalf of the defendant; or if it is sent to the agent of the ship by [a] registered letter addressed to”—etc. But it may not have an agent, and what defines a “ship”? Because, does that include—people live on boats and I don’t know where the line is drawn between “boat” and “ship”, but it doesn’t seem to be—
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): I think the member’s getting ahead of himself. Think this is Part 12 you’re looking at, are you not?
STUART SMITH: No, I’m not. Oh, am I? Oh hell, I am too. Sorry. In my enthusiasm, I turned too many pages.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Well, we could get there as soon as he would like.
TONI SEVERIN (ACT): Thank you, Mr Chair. It’s about excess noise—clause 714. Coming from Christchurch, we’ve had a little bit of a problem where we’ve got existing events, places, pubs and now we’ve got a whole lot of new rebuilds occurring. A lot of these people are realising that they’ve built their new homes, or have ended up buying an apartment, close to the excess noise.
I know this is back to councils on that, but the thing is that these people have built these houses near these bars or excess noise, or new subdivisions closer to the airport, but then they come back and they’re complaining about the noise that these places have. The thing is it’s really hard, because we want to build more houses, but it doesn’t help if these are built in areas where these people are going to see that there’s excess noise, and how this could be circumvented before we end up having all these complaints coming through to the council, saying, “Oh, look, you allowed X, Y, Z, to be built here, but we already had these places built 10 or 20 years ago.”
It’s been a huge issue, especially downtown, because we want to revitalise that Christchurch downtown, but people are not prepared to put up with this noise. To me, this here, it’s not combatting to say, “Yeah, you’ve got excess noise”, but what happens if you buy something—what’s the recourse of them saying, “It’s your onus. It’s on your onus. You bought that property, that bar or event place is just there, even though it’s a new build.” So that’s about the excess noise, because it’s happening a lot.
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Fair points that the member Toni Severin raises. It can’t all be planned for in advance, because circumstances change over time, but I do agree, as does the statute at clause 714(1). It says: if the noise is excessive, it has to be unreasonable. What is unreasonable depends upon the circumstances. Obviously, the noise that you would expect at night in the middle of an industrial suburb would be different to in the middle of a residential A zone. Similarly, the noise that you have to put up with if you’re living in a rural area that has a lot of cherries being grown includes bird guns, and you can’t shut down bird guns just because you move in next door and subdivide the land.
Having said that, if the whole area eventually turns into residential, what used to be acceptable—you know, the standards change. It is a thing that worries the likes of airports. Airports, if there are subdivisions too close to them, suffer what are called reverse sensitivity effects. Those sorts of things are required to be taken into account under the statute so as to protect the operation of infrastructure like airports.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 11 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 37
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 10.
Amendments agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 11 as amended be agreed to.
Ayes 72
New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.
Noes 40
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2; Whaitiri.
Part 11 as amended agreed to.
Part 12 General provisions
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Members, we come now to Part 12. This is the debate on clauses 803 to 861—general provisions—including Schedules 13, 14A, and 15. The question is that Part 12 stand part.
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Responding to the earlier question of Stuart Smith on clause 807, about the service on ships. Of course it’s pretty hard to catch up on a ship if it’s been away from port for a day or two. It’s unreasonable to expect someone to chase it and clamber up the side of a moving ship with a grappling hook so as to serve the ship with a process or a document. So that’s what clause 807 says. It sets out different ways in which that can be done, either through serving on the agent of a ship—normally, a ship does have an agent. I don’t know whether they’re a stevedore or whether they have someone who they act through, locally, to employ wharfies and the like when they unload the ship. And in addition to that, there’s some flexibility built in by subclause 3 of being able to apply to the District Court, who might allow the service procedures set out in the Criminal Procedure Act to apply.
Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thanks, Mr Chair. Part 12 of the Natural and Built Environment Bill deals with the amorphous “General provisions”. It’s kind of almost a wrap-up kind of part where there are all sorts of interesting titbits of information that I’m sure my colleagues will want to tease out.
But one in particular is an area that I’ve spoken of in this House on other pieces of legislation; it relates to the service of documents. So I’m referring to clause 806. In clause 806(1) in Supplementary Order Paper 389: “A notice or any other document required or authorised to be served on or given to a person for the purposes of this Act may be served [by] or given by (a) delivering it to the person; or (b) leaving it at the person’s usual or last known place of residence or business [and so forth] … (c) sending it by post to the person’s usual or last known place of residence … (d) emailing it to … an email address … (e) complying with a means of service prescribed in regulations made under section 858.”
I know that this is a provision that’s probably literally been cut and pasted from other statutes or the existing Resource Management Act, but, at a time when good old-fashioned snail mail is becoming increasingly irrelevant to so many people, and the inevitable march of digital communications, I’m wondering whether the Minister for the Environment, or his officials, have given some thought to extending the definition of service.
In the past, I’ve been concerned about how easy it is to have multiple email addresses, to have multiple digital identities, and to have a document that could actually be very important literally just sent to what could, effectively, be a random email address, is, I think, pretty—well, it’s designed probably not to have good effect. The Minister, I’m sure, attends religiously to his email inbox and will know that he gets lots of emails, as do the rest of. Some of it looks like spam, some of it looks like it should be taken seriously, and some of it not.
So my question, really, is: in relation to the service of documents, is this going to be, effectively, futureproofed? Is it still reasonable to expect that sending something to the last known address of a person, it could have been several years ago, via snail mail, where there may not even be a letterbox any more—is this a matter where maybe we’ve got to think more imaginatively?
Finally on this matter, could the Minister give us some insight into what’s considered best practice in other jurisdictions in these matters? Surely, it’s not just New Zealand that’s grappling with issues of this sort. I’d like to know that we’re keeping abreast and up to date with the international best practice in terms of serving of documents.
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Yes, it is being modernised to include emails where that email is being used by the person. I suppose, if the council is worried that they weren’t using an email—if this was applying to a council taking enforcement action, they’d be wanting to make sure they did it properly, and I think, more often than not, they’d probably serve a copy on the person, rather than just send them an email. But that will be for them. I can, however, confirm that after much debate, we did delete facsimiles from the list.
TONI SEVERIN (ACT): Thank you, Mr Chair. Minister, I’m just reading through here on clause 811, “Vesting of reclaimed land.” Now, this is a big issue that we’ve had around Christchurch, especially around the Avon River. After the quake there was a lot of land that had been built on that had been reclaimed and so forth. Now, I noticed through here that those that feel that they are vested, and the person owns that land, they have to Gazette it. The thing is that the majority of people wouldn’t know what gazetting actually means and how to get that information. As we’re saying, especially around the riverbed, and lake bed, and especially with reclaimed land and with natural disasters that we have, these places are more prone to actually flood or liquefaction, which is a new term that everybody in Christchurch now loves.
This is the other thing: there was also the unlawful reclaimed land, because I know that there was also—where these subdivisions had been there was a bit of dispute with the Environment Court versus also council giving consent around this. This is, I think, a huge concern, and making sure that people do actually understand where they can possibly get this information—I know from the Minister for Land Information, but just sometimes, the Gazette notice, if there are other people involved, they may not realise how to get that information. You’d hope lawyers and so forth would inform people that are possibly going to be involved with these reclaimed lake beds or riverbeds. Areas that have had water receding from and they’re now building on, which I hope they’re not—learn from previous experiences. But, just clarify, for those that are listening out there, what a Gazette notice actually really means, because unless you’ve been involved with Parliament, most people wouldn’t know what that means.
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Thank you. This deals only with riverbeds or lake beds, not areas of the foreshore and seabed, or what’s called the coastal marine area—that’s not covered by this. It’s only reclaimed land that might formerly have been a riverbed or lake bed. In that situation, as the member points out, yes, if there is a title to be granted to that land, there has to be a process to convert that from land that someone doesn’t own to being land which is owned by someone. That clause says that it’s the Minister for Land Information that makes that, and the action that does that is a notice in the Gazette. But you’ll see that before the Crown does that, the Crown determines whether an appropriate price has been paid by that person. Because, you know, until that time, really the Crown is the custodian of that land on behalf of all people. That is, essentially, a carry-on from the existing provision, clause 355 of the Resource Management Act.
CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Oh, thank you very much, Mr Chair. What an honour to have the ability to take a call on the Natural and Built Environment Bill, Part 12. I hope that the Minister in the chair, David Parker, is going to enjoy a discussion that we are about to have in relation to the relationship of this to other legislation—and I point him towards clause 859 of this bill. The reason I say that I’m sure he will enjoy it is because, with a sharp legal mind, as one would expect and hope the Attorney-General has, he will understand, you know, the nature of what I’m asking.
So, just to tease out a little bit the idea that this Act, as it will be when it passes, no doubt, will have priority over other Acts—and so, for the benefit of those who aren’t physically strong enough to pick up a copy of this legislation and turn to almost halfway through it, at “Conflicts with special Acts”, it says, “Every local authority or other … body must be guided, in the exercise of any function [etc.] in relation to natural or physical resources imposed or conferred by any of [a number of] Acts [that are] specified in [the schedule]”—or replacement substitute Acts for that—“by the provisions of this Act”. So this Act, which is to say the Natural and Built Environment Bill, as it is now, will prevail in in the course of resolving any conflict between them.
I think it’s helpful, for a start, that we have a clear indicator of which will prevail, because, of course, if we have two pieces of legislation on the statute book and there’s, you know, potential for one to have priority over the other, I think it’s helpful to have a mechanism to say which should prevail. But, of course, we always have to consider the possibility that there is another piece of legislation that is in conflict that itself says it will prevail in the event of conflict—I just sort of put that out there. It doesn’t particularly need a response; it’s not a question per se but just an observation.
But—and I think this is an important point—I wonder if the Minister would agree that given clause 859, this would prevail over the terms of the severe weather emergency response legislation, or similarly named; we refer to it in shorthand as SWERL. Members of the committee may remember that it wasn’t that long ago this House passed into law, with the support, I think, of all parties—certainly the National Party in Opposition as well as the Government itself, of course—emergency response legislation to enable Orders in Council to be made following Cyclone Gabrielle and other severe weather events in the North Island in early 2023. So I think I’m right in saying, on the face of it, that according to this conflicts clause, 859, the requirements of this will prevail over the ability as provided in the other legislation for Orders in Council to be made. But I would suggest that in the real world, that would be a strange outcome, because certainly the intent of the other legislation would be that it would prevail over all other legislation by allowing Ministers pretty broad powers to amend almost every piece of legislation—obvious exceptions, and as noted quite rightly: Electoral Act, New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and so forth.
So if the Minister can comment on the relationship of those two, specifically in relation to emergency management scenarios, that would be very helpful indeed.
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): I would respectfully disagree with the member’s interpretation of that section, because clause 859 only applies to the Acts in Schedule 14A or any of those passed in substitution of those Acts. So it applies to those Acts that are listed in Schedule 14A, my favourite of which is probably the Dunedin Waterworks Extension Act 1875.
CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I should actually rise to acknowledge, for the record, that the Minister is correct. In my defence, I hadn’t read the schedule, which is not really a defence so much as a guilty plea, I suppose, if anything. But in my defence it is pretty long, but of course the Minister is right.
I would note, however, that in relation to the way that those emergency provisions have been set out in this bill—and I flipped back a couple of pages to clause 854, “Emergency response regulations”—I hope it is the case that they have learnt the lessons from Cyclone Gabrielle and other recent weather events. I’m conscious that the gestation of this bill has been long. Certainly, you know, it starts pre-dating—including the expert panel that pre-dated the drafting or the passage of the legislation itself. And so no doubt it was compiled, including in this section, long before we knew of Gabrielle in the context of that wretched cyclone that’s wrought so much havoc.
So if the Minister can please assure us that the lessons learnt from that and the ability to respond have been captured in the emergency response regulations in addition, of course, to previous events such as Canterbury earthquakes, Kaikōura earthquakes and so on, that would be very helpful indeed.
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Although clause 854 does contemplate some emergency response regulations being able to be made, they would not be nearly as broad in scope as those enabled by the response to Cyclone Gabrielle, which are “Henry VIII” writ large.
I would just draw the attention of the committee also to a late Supplementary Order Paper to Schedule 15 of this part, and I’m advised that this is necessary. There are already amendments in the Supplementary Order Papers before us to slightly change the way in which the farm planning regime works, which is transitioned into this Act in an improved form. And this amendment makes it clear that that same amendment is made to the same provisions under the Resource Management Act.
Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to focus on clause 816, relating to obligations relating to gathering and sharing of information. One of the, I guess, big complaints that happens around the existing Resource Management Act is that often there will be people who are engaged in the resource management process at various levels and in various ways, and they are repeatedly asked for the same information again and again and again by various players within the system process.
Clause 816 provides a number of duties to gather information and to keep records. It says that “(1) Every local authority must (a) gather … information, and undertake or commission research, as necessary to enable the local authority to carry out its functions effectively under this Act;”. So what I’m hoping the Minister is going to be able to confirm for us is that under clause 817, for instance, which requires regional councils to share records of protected customary rights, for instance, with regional planning committees, the sharing of information will extend beyond just information relating to customary rights and that the sharing of information might extend across all parts of the workings, or the mechanics, of this new proposed natural and built environment legislation.
As I’ve indicated previously, the ability to take advantage of digital communications, digital data storage, and so forth, I would have thought makes it much easier now to share data. I was delighted to hear that the Minister, after what sounds like long and complicated discussions, has decided to remove facsimiles from the methodology for serving documents. But a serious question: can the Minister give us some assurance that the information that is gathered in the requirements to keep records—that that information can be shared where appropriate, while, obviously, taking into account the necessity to ensure that privacy matters and appropriate protections are put in place?
So that’s one part, and, if I might, I want to move now to a particular matter in relation to clause 818, which is where local authorities are required to have participation policies for Māori. There are some quite extensive requirements for local authorities to have a participation policy that is developed in collaboration with iwi authorities and groups that represent hapū and Māori groups with an interest in their region or district. There’s nothing wrong with that—it’s quite good. But my question specifically relates to who decides which of the appropriate iwi groups, hapū within a district or region, to engage with, and are they the mandated iwi?
Again, I’m familiar, for instance, with my part of the world, in the Coromandel, where we have multiple iwi interests. When it comes to Treaty settlement arrangements, there are some iwi that are mandated for Treaty settlement negotiations, and then there are some sub-iwi, or iwi in their own right, who have not been mandated, but they feel very much closed out of the process and they’re not included.
So the question is: how do we decide under clause 818, which is the Māori participation policy clause, and the duty in clause 819 to keep records relating to iwi, hapū, and Māori groups that represent hapū and Māori groups with interests in the region or district that may not necessarily be mandated under Treaty negotiation legislation? How is this legislation going to ensure that those groups are covered and whether they have legitimacy or not? Is this an area where a local authority is going to have to make some quite difficult judgment calls about who is in and who is out? So if the Minister could give us some overview of that, I’d appreciate it.
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Thank you. In terms of repeated requests for information, I know what that feels like. Hey, look, this here is one of the most practical things in this bill, which for 20 years has bedevilled the current system. I get repeated complaints from councils, from applicants complaining that they don’t know who they should be dealing with in respect of issues that affect Māori interests.
At the moment there is a list maintained by the Crown through Te Puni Kōkiri (TPK) of iwi, hapū, and other Māori interests in an area. But it’s not a code, so people can use that list maintained by the Crown and then someone can second-guess it and say, “I should have been on that list. You haven’t done it properly.”, and then injunct the process. This does happen. It sometimes happens very late in the process, and sometimes the delays that are occasioned by this cause cost increases through the delay, that total hundreds of millions of dollars. This is a big issue.
Now, speaking to my Māori colleagues within the Labour Party, they recognise this and they agree that no one wants that inefficiency—no one. So we are doing what, with respect, the prior Government over nine years didn’t, which is we’re making the TPK list a code. So if an applicant or a council wants to know who they should deal with in a certain area, what iwi, hapū, other Māori interests—this is covered at clause 819(2)—They can actually go to the list that the Crown has to maintain and they can rely upon it.
Now, that list might change for the future—next time someone accesses it—but at the time it is accessed and relied upon, it is a code and can’t be second-guessed. So this is a very, very important; very simple; very practical improvement to the system.
TONI SEVERIN (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just going to clause 821: “Administrative charges and additional charges (1) A local authority must fix fees or charges (administrative charges) payable in respect of the following functions performed under this Act: (a) receiving, processing, and granting any certificate, authority, approval, permit, or consent: (b) carrying out any inspection, monitoring”, and we go on right through. Now, the question I’ve got around here is is this bill going to make it cheaper for people to be actually able to get their consents and able to get their certificates? Because to build these days, the cost is just going up and up. So is this bill, the Natural and Built Environment Bill, actually going to speed up this process and have our fees come down? So when we are applying for this process so that we can get our certificates and permits and consents, will this add more red tape and councils will have to add more to their fees to be able to cover additional staffing to go through the new Natural and Built Environment Bill as well as, I believe, the Spatial Planning Bill, which is connected with it? Because to me it seems that it’s going to actually add more compliance and more cost for the average person that needs to get consents to be able to afford around this bill.
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): That’s largely a carry-over of the existing provisions, because the existing system is a user-pays system. Although, it does slightly change in respect of the monitoring of permitted activities. But the new system has been modelled and those assessments have been independently verified, and many hundreds of millions of dollars will be saved by applicants in the system every year. And that’s actually just process cost savings to applicants. They are in part because there will be a lot more permitted activities under the new system. Activities envisaged through a spatial plan coming through a Natural and Built Environment Act plan might be quite significant, like a new area opened up for subdivision and associated roads and hospitals and police stations, all of which could be permitted activities, whereas currently it would be very unlikely that they would be.
In addition to that, the ways in which plans are changed are much more efficient. The time to change a plan will change from often 10 years down to a four-year maximum, and there’ll be savings there too. So every dollar spent in the new system is estimated to be saving users $2.58 to $4.90 at the mid-range estimate, but they total hundreds of millions of dollars each year.
Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I looked at clause 824, which is headed “Local authority policy on discounting administrative charges”, and I wondered whether it was linked to the Sentencing Act for offering discounts. But I see, actually, on further reading that it’s not, but it is a provision that provides for local authorities, or a regional planning committee that is yet to be established—“must adopt a policy for discounting administrative charges. (2) A local authority must adopt a policy in accordance with the special consultative process procedure set out in section 83 of the Local Government Act … that provides for discounts (a) when local authorities are responsible for applications for a resource consent and do not process an application within the time frame required under this Act:”. And so this need to comply with time frames that have been set in the legislation has been an ongoing issue through pretty much the entire life of the Resource Management Act. And I suspect that this clause 824 has been more or less transferred from the existing legislation, but they’ve added, obviously, the regional planning committee piece to it.
But my question to the Minister for the Environment is: how can we be sure that when a local authority, under this clause, is required to establish a discounting methodology for what is effectively their non-performance, that that discounting mechanism and pricing model is going to provide meaningful incentives for them to comply themselves? How can we be sure that those incentives or—if you want to reverse it—those penalties for non-compliance of the regulated and legislated time frames are meaningful and are actually going to provide enough incentive for the local authority or the regional planning committee to actually take notice of it?
Clause 824 goes on to say in subclause (3) that “The policy must specify (a) the discount, or the method for determining the discount, that would be given for any application fees or charges paid or owing; and (b) the procedure an applicant must follow to obtain the discount.” It just strikes me that it’s a bit of the fox in charge of the hen house—the local authority sets the discounting rate and sets the discounting level. You know, I’m wondering whether there could have been, perhaps, some template formula applied that would remove it from being the local authority’s purview to set what is, as I read it, essentially, their own incentive or discounting policy rather than having one that might be more meaningful and more encouraging of them meeting their time frame requirements than just setting it themselves.
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): This was a provision inserted by the last National-ACT Government in an effort to create some accountability for time frames. I think it probably has been a useful addition. Yes, it is left to local authorities, but, in my experience, local authority councillors and mayors want efficient processes too. They’re, effectively, in charge of that process for setting the discount, and they have to use the special consultative process set out in section 83 of the Local Government Act.
TONI SEVERIN (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m now just going to “System performance and monitoring”, clause 837, around “Reporting”. I was reading here that once we get the Spatial Planning Act 2022 involved with this as well, there’s going to be reporting every six years. So I’m assuming—because this is not my bill, but to clarify for me, who, like many other people, may be wanting to build something in the future—that every six years that the chief executive is going to submit and respond to Ministers with a report, and I’m assuming it’s the efficiency and operation of how these bills are working together to get things moving a lot quicker around building and so forth. I could be completely wrong, but I’d just like it all clarified, because the thing is, six years is also a very long time, so I was wondering if there are interim reports that are going to be showing up, if there’s anything in particular that’s going to be a problem, or if there’s something that is good that we could move a bit faster, especially when we want to build more houses and we need to know if there are going to be problems—especially with this new bill, which is a complete replacement to the Resource Management Act, even though some pieces have been placed in there. There’s going to be a time of confusion for a lot of people, but I would hope that there would be some form of early monitoring to pick up any problems or any good things that are occurring already in these bills.
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Yes, there will be. That will, in part, be through the lessons learned of the first-tranche regions into the new system. The funding of that transition is assisted by central government to make sure that we have good quality first-round plans and that we run efficient processes, and the lessons learned will be carried forward into subsequent processes. It’s one of the lessons from implementation of the Resource Management Act, where that wasn’t done, and they had two systems running side by side very inefficiently.
Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): A new part of the legislation that hasn’t been brought over from the existing resource management legislative framework is clause 839C, “Regional monitoring and reporting strategies”. This is a clause that requires one of the newly established—well, probably won’t ever be; given an opportunity, they won’t be established! But, anyway, hypothetically, “A regional planning committee must prepare a regional monitoring and reporting strategy to describe how the local authorities in its region are to carry out their monitoring functions under this Part.” Then subclause (2) of that clause goes on to include the essential components of what that regional monitoring and reporting strategy needs to include.
My question to the Minister is: how can we be sure that these requirements to provide regional monitoring and reporting strategies are going to be similar in the different regional planning committee territories? I think one of the stated goals and objectives of this legislation is to try and get things more standardised, not necessarily an identical template every year but to have a smoother, faster process. And it just strikes me that, if regional planning committees are required to prepare their own regional monitoring and reporting strategies and then insist on the local authorities that operate within the area of a regional planning committee, the potential for having regional differences and disparities is actually quite high. For instance, it could be that the regional planning committee in the central North Island is going to have a different set of monitoring and reporting strategy requirements of their local authorities to one perhaps in the deep south of Southland and that area.
So I’m interested, from the Minister, if he could let us know: does he envisage that regional planning committees will have largely similar or near identical requirements of this sort, so that individual local authorities within a region might be similarly the same? Because I can envisage a situation where, potentially, local authorities in some regions might face and be tasked with far more onerous regional monitoring and reporting requirements than in other parts of the country. If that was to be the case, I’m not sure that that would actually go very far to achieving the overall objectives that the bill seeks to achieve.
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): There are a number of ways that could be done. It could be through informal guidance from the Ministry for the Environment. It would also be possible, too, under the provisions of the Act, to set out a way in which that reporting had to be done in a way that is consistent. That’s not to say the priorities might not be different from one part to the other. For example, the Southland region doesn’t have the same housing pressures that Auckland does. Housing supply is a bigger issue to address in Auckland than it is in Southland and, accordingly, you’d expect there’d to be more focus in the monitoring function there to make sure that they’d made enough land available to build houses in Auckland. It would be a bigger issue than that same issue in Southland.
CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you, Madam Chair. My question relates to the clause alluringly entitled, in alluring fashion—should’ve done it that way round in the first place, shouldn’t I?—the word just simply “Repeal”, 860: when the Minister in the chair, David Parker, reads the words “The Resource Management Act 1991 … is repealed.”, how does he feel inside?
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Well, I would say that this Government has done what prior Governments promised they’d do but never did.
CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you, Madam Chair. Quick supplementary question: how does the Minister now feel to know that he is proposing to replace the worst statute on the statute book with one that is even worse?
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Well, if I thought that that were true, I wouldn’t be bringing this legislation to the House. It’s undoubtedly not true, as proven by the fact that plans go down from over 100 to 18, plan formation times drop from about 10 years to four, permitted activities increase, land markets are improved, and cost savings to users are estimated to be many hundreds of millions of dollars each year, in addition to the economic savings of avoided delay.
Glen Bennett: Madam Chair—Madam Chair.
Toni Severin: Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Yeah, thank you.
Toni Severin: Thank you, Madam Chair. I—
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): No, no. No. Sorry, I haven’t quite called you. I was just thanking the member in front of you for their assistance. I’m listening very carefully to contributions. While I still hear new questions and new material, and members are showing great enthusiasm to take a call, then that is fine. But I’m also aware that this bill has been under consideration by the committee for quite some time—as huge as it is. So with those few words, I call Toni Severin.
TONI SEVERIN (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. I was just reading through, again, around the planned reviews and it’s clause 839D, “Duty of local authorities to report.” It’s saying every threeyear cycle. Now, as you know, we have a lot of changes going on and needing a lot of land. Then I go further down through to clause 839G: nine-yearly plans, as well. Do you think that this time frame is short enough, or too long, for us to be able to plan in advance for the needs?
As we’re saying, the difference between Auckland and Invercargill—where I originate from—and Christchurch. We’ve all got so many different things going on in these different regions and different requirements, and whether or not three years and nine years for the future looking is significant enough—especially when we have got a shortage of land getting built on as well as being able to build these properties. Also to see if things have been pulled out of that circulation as well because we’ve found something’s wrong due to an adverse event and so forth, and they have to look at replanning. Is that enough time, or is it too short of a time for them to actually be able to be more fluent, to be able to keep up with demand?
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Look, I think the sort of wholesale review of the plans every decade or so is about right. But I also think that every three years, the duly elected councils should be able to tell the regional planning committee what they think their priorities are for things that need more attention.
Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Without wanting to cast any aspersion upon your ruling, we have been at this a long time and the enthusiasm for taking a call is maybe not as exciting as it was when we started this debate on Tuesday. However, notwithstanding that, thank you for the opportunity to speak. We are debating Part 12, which has—as my colleague Chris Penk made mention of when he was talking to the clause he was talking about—the alluring title of “General provisions”. And one of the more alluring general provisions under Part 12 is clause 840 and its alluringly titled “Minister may make grants and loans. And I am delighted to see that under clause 840(1) that “The Minister for the Environment may make grants or loans to any person to assist in achieving the purpose of this Act.” I’d like to know, on Chris Penk’s behalf, how he can apply for a loan or a grant, because I think he would be a worthy candidate, as would be, probably, Stuart Smith, Ian McKelvie, and Harete Hipango. So there are a number of people who might be able to take advantage of the general provision that entitles the Minister for the Environment to make grants or loans to any person to assist in achieving the purpose of that.
That’s actually a very wide provision. I’m not wishing to be too facetious, but how does the Minister see this particular clause operating? It goes on in subclause (2) to say that “The Minister may impose terms and conditions on a grant or loan as the Minister thinks fit.” And in subclause (3), “Money spent or advanced by the Minister under this section must be paid out of money appropriated by Parliament for the purpose.” So that’s a good thing. Presumably in future Budgets, the Minister will envisage that there will be a line in future Budgets that he will have negotiated with a Minister of Finance, and the line will say a provision for the Minister to make grants and loans. I kind of understand, I think, what the reason for it is, but I’d be really happy for the Minister to maybe give us some background, some insight as to why that is there and what it’s all about and whether, in fact, that is an existing provision or a new provision. I’m not familiar enough with this particular clause to know whether it’s new or whether it’s existing from the existing Resource Management Act.
One of the criticisms of this legislation is that it gives the Minister a very wide range of powers. And we think on this side of the House that maybe some of those powers and responsibilities given to the particular Minister for the Environment on any given day or week or parliamentary term are probably too wide. But I’m interested particularly in this one, about giving the Minister the ability to grant loans and funding.
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): It’s a carry-over of the same provision under the Resource Management Act. An example of where it might be used in the new system is to assist the first-tranche regions in their transition into the new regime.
STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you, Madam Chair. So under clause 840(3), it says “money spent”—I appreciate that the Minister just said it’s a carry-over, but that doesn’t mean it’s a good thing—but it says, “Money spent or advanced by the Minister under this section must be paid out of money appropriated by Parliament for the purpose.” Is it for that purpose specifically, or is that out of the general appropriation? Because that sounds like it’s quite specific in that clause, and I doubt very much that it would be down to that level.
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): In respect of resource management reform, there is an appropriation to fund that.
BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Deputy Leader—ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, I’m really interested in the amendment on Supplementary Order Paper 389 at clause 857A when it talks about “Regulations relating to dumping and incineration in coastal marine area”. I know many of my colleagues have spoken about the wide-ranging powers that the Minister will have under this bill. However, I’m really interested in understanding a little bit more about why this particular regulation-making power is restricted, because it talks about how “The Governor-General may, by Order in Council, make regulations” to do with “deeming to be included in any plan, rules that may apply generally or specifically” to do all of these things listed relating to waste and coastal permits. But then it goes on to say that “The Minister must not recommend the making of any regulations under” all of these sections unless they’ve consulted with the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Conservation, and it’s necessary to do a regulation because of obligations under international conventions, protocols, or to enable New Zealand to become party to an international convention or protocol or implementing an international practice or standard. And I’m quite curious as to why it’s so specific that it’s to do with international protocols and standards but not because the Minister themselves believes there is a need for a larger regulation.
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): I’m advised that that’s in order to meet New Zealand’s international obligations under MARPOL, which is the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships.
STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): So the dumping and incineration in coastal marine areas—does that include wood fires on the beach? Because that’s a coastal marine area, and I’m not sure whether the Minister’s aware but the American Environmental Protection Agency has just published a note stating that the wood smoke is 40 times more harmful than tobacco smoke in the same quantities. So it is actually a harmful, harmful substance. I know that incineration of wood on the beach is quite common. People do get around the bonfire—they’re breathing in the smoke, not aware that they are inhaling smoke that is 40 times more harmful than tobacco smoke.
GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): I move, That the question be now put.
Motion agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that Simon Court’s amendment to Part 12 on 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 amendment 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.
Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 12 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 12 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.
Part 12 as amended agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Schedule 1 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.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that Schedule 1 as amended be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 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.
Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Schedule 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.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that Schedule 2 as amended be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 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.
Schedule 2 as amended agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the Minister’s tabled amendment to Schedule 3 on Supplementary Order Paper 389 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 106
New Zealand Labour 62; New Zealand National 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.
Noes 10
ACT New Zealand 10.
Amendment to the amendments agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that Simon Court’s amendments to Schedule 3 on 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 (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Schedule 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.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that Schedule 3 as amended be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 3 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.
Schedule 3 as amended agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Schedule 4 has been struck out of the bill following an amendment recommended by the select committee.
The question is that the Minister’s tabled amendments to Schedule 5 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 (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that Simon Court’s amendments to Schedule 5 on 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 (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Schedule 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 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 Schedule 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.
Schedule 5 as amended agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the Minister’s tabled amendment to Schedule 6 on Supplementary Order Paper 389 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment 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.
Amendment to the amendment agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that Simon Court’s amendments to Schedule 6 on 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 (Hon Jacqui Dean): The Hon Eugenie Sage’s amendment to clause 30B(3) of Schedule 6 on Supplementary Order Paper 389, set out on Supplementary Order Paper 393, is out of order as being the same in substance as a previous decision of the committee.
The question is that the Hon Eugenie Sage’s remaining amendment to Schedule 6 on Supplementary Order Paper 389, set out on Supplementary Order Paper 393, be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment 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.
Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Schedule 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 Schedule 6 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.
Schedule 6 as amended agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the Minister’s tabled amendment to Schedule 7 on Supplementary Order Paper 389 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment 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.
Amendment to the amendments agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that Simon Court’s amendments to Schedule 7 on 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 (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Schedule 7 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 Schedule 7 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.
Schedule 7 as amended agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that Simon Court’s amendments to Schedule 8 on 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 (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Schedule 8 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 Schedule 8 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.
Schedule 8 as amended agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 9 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.
Schedule 9 agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Schedule 10 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 Schedule 10 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.
Schedule 10 as amended agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that Simon Court’s amendments to Schedule 10A on 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 (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Schedule 10A 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 Schedule 10A 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.
Schedule 10A as amended agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 11 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.
Schedule 11 agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Schedule 12 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 Schedule 12 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.
Schedule 12 as amended agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that Simon Court’s amendment to Schedule 13 on 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 (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Schedule 13 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 Schedule 13 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.
Schedule 13 as amended agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Schedule 14 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 Schedule 14 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.
Schedule 14 as amended agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Schedule 14A 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 Schedule 14A 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.
Schedule 14A as amended agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the Minister’s tabled amendments to Parts 1, 3, and 4 of Schedule 15 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 (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Schedule 15 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 Schedule 15 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 387 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.
A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 15 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.
Schedule 15 as amended agreed to.
Progress to be reported.
House resumed.
Report of Committee of the whole House
Report of Committee of the whole House
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Mr Speaker, the committee has further 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. 5 to Minister
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Transport): Point of order. I seek leave to correct an answer.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought. There is no objection.
Hon DAVID PARKER: Out of an abundance of caution, I’ve been advised to correct an answer that I gave in question No. 5 about local road speeds falling within the designation of Minister O’Connor. Because the final document hasn’t been officially signed, I’m advised that that should have been “will” fall within the designation.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 1 August 2023. Thank you for your sterling work this week, ladies and gentlemen.
The House adjourned at 6.02 p.m.