O'Connor Greg; Simpson Scott; Parker DavidNATURAL AND BUILT ENVIRONMENT BILL In CommitteeDebate 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 1000 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."