Penk Chris; Parker DavidCHRIS 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."