O'Connor Greg; Potaka Tama; Simpson Scott; Brooking RachelPart 2 Duties responsibilities and restrictions CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Members we come now to Part 2 the debate on clauses 13 to 30 Duties responsibilities and restrictions". The question is that Part 2 stand part.TAMA POTAKA (National—Hamilton West): Thank you Mr Chair. I wanted to particularly take a look at clause 13 and the ethic of stewardship which I didn't see was defined therein. The notion that we will sustain the health and wellbeing of the natural environment for the benefit of both present and future generations—I'm pretty keen to understand from the Minister how many generations we are talking about here. When we start going out three four six generations the decisions on what we can do as planners or as decision makers today aren't necessarily well informed on what the situation is going to be like in four or five generations.The other issue that emerges from that is: do we weight it equally across the number of generations which we're yet to know about—we might get an answer to that—or is there a staggered weighting across the future and present generations?Final question: what happens in a situation when the ethic of stewardship as espoused here actually cuts across the mana and the kawa—ill-defined in the previous part—and there is an inconsistency between that? Thank you.Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you Mr Chair. I'm wanting to just ask the Minister a couple of questions about clause 15 the duty to avoid unreasonable noise. Clause 15(1) says "This section applies to (a) every person who occupies land (including any premises and any coastal marine area); and (b) every person carrying out an activity in on or under a water body or the coastal marine area."Noise can be a particularly problematic environmental hazard and I know that this particular clause attempts to provide some guidance and limits around noise emissions and the standards that may be applied to them in some kind of sensible framework. My particular question relates to one that is in clause 15(4)—"This section applies to overflying by aircraft but only to the extent that noise emission controls for airports including those in the coastal marine area are [not] prescribed by a framework rule or by a plan rule." I've had representations from a number of people in the Ōhāriu electorate who have been concerned about the excessive noise from changed flying patterns that have meant that the good people of Ōhāriu are now being inflicted with aircraft noise that is causing them concern and angst. So my question to the Minister—Simeon Brown: If only the local MP did something about it!Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: Well if only! That's quite right. If only! But I'm convinced that there will be a new MP shortly and that that new MP will almost certainly take up the cudgel on behalf of the people of Ōhāriu.Simeon Brown: Get Ōhāriu back on track.Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: Get Ōhāriu back on track. So my question relates to this clause about overflying by aircraft and if the Minister could give us some enlightenment as to this provision its rationale and how actually it is going to be applied in practical terms in a practical sense. What will be the impact? And will the good people of Ōhāriu be protected by clause 15(4) of the Natural and Built Environment Bill. If so how?Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Associate Minister for the Environment): Just in answer to those two questions clause 15—the duty to avoid unreasonable noise—is of course very similar to section 16 of the Resource Management Act (RMA) but also merged with section 9 of the RMA so really the Act applies to the aircraft issue that the Hon Scott Simpson just said; so the same framework there.In terms of Tama Potaka's questions about the ethic of stewardship of course that is found currently in section 7(aa) of the RMA. And to ask about how many future generations I think the point here is not just to be thinking about tomorrow."