O'Connor Greg; Court Simon; Parker DavidPart 4 Natural and built environment plans CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Members we come now to Part 4. This is the debate on clauses 95 to 151 Natural and built environment plans" including Schedules 7 8 9 11 and 12. The question is that Part 4 stand part. SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you Mr Chair. I want to come to clause 95 "Natural and built environment plans" and 95(2) "In the case of the Nelson and Tasman unitary authorities there must be 1 plan that applies to both the region over which the Nelson City Council has control and the region over which the Tasman District Council has control (together the Nelson and Tasman unitary authorities)."—well that's what they are now. Just like Auckland is a unitary authority which includes the functions of the former Auckland Regional Council and the district and city councils within the Auckland region. A unitary authority makes a lot of sense for some regions just like the East Coast—Tairāwhiti to manage the functions of the district council and the regional council when it comes to land use planning and environmental management particularly around freshwater resources for example. But it's remarkable how different this is to the provisions in another bill that Labour is trying to push through the House right now. The Water Services Entities Amendment Bill which when tabled in the House when it came to select committee—the Governance and Administration Committee—actually provides for the Ngāi Tahu takiwā which extends into Nelson and Tasman district to take the Seddon and Murchison water infrastructure assets and manage them separately under what is a quite different regional grouping. Even though Seddon and Murchison live within the Nelson and Tasman entity. So Minister I'm interested as to how the Natural and Built Environments Bill and natural and built environment plans made under this legislation how it is that if you live in Seddon and Murchison right now and if this legislation is passed—which it may still do even though Labour is struggling to pass cars at the moment let alone bills. It may well be if you live in Seddon and Murchison that you'll be under a natural and built environment plan under this bill but your water services will be managed from Christchurch under a separate water service entity because Seddon and Murchison fall under the Ngāi Tahu takiwā. So Minister would you explain why it is that these two separate bits of legislation treat Seddon and Murchison in the Nelson and Tasman district in a different way? Question one.Second question Minister: when it comes to clause 96 the "Purpose and scope of plans"—"A plan must—(a) give effect in the region to the national planning framework as directed by that framework; and … (c) be consistent with the relevant regional spatial strategy"—which I'm sure we'll get to next. Minister when we think about those national instruments national policy statements for fresh water urban development most recently indigenous biodiversity which applies significant natural areas planning overlays onto private property. If these natural and built environment plans must give effect to these planning instruments how is it that local communities who might decide to use their land—say for farming they want to use irrigation they want to be able to develop land in a way that their community agrees is appropriate for the development they're undertaking whether it's the wine-growing industry in Nelson Marlborough or it's dairy farming in Southland or who knows solar farming in Northland. How is it that if there are national instruments—national policy instruments like for fresh water indigenous biodiversity how are they to be reconciled with the aspirations of a local community to develop in a way that they see as benefiting the people of their region when that's at odds?A natural and built environment plan will have to incorporate all of those instruments whether it's the freshwater rules indigenous biodiversity requirements which actually put limits on how people will use their private property if it happens to have a stand of bush or some wetland plants on it that a planner identifies as significant. So Minister do you want to describe firstly how do you reconcile the natural and built environments plans with the water service entities approach and would you tell us how are local communities supposed to get ahead with these plans on top of them?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): In respect of the first question this has never been about local government reorganisation. I don't have a view on that; it's not within the purview of this legislation. It is applying to existing district council and regional council boundaries as they currently are to generally set around catchments in respect to the case of regional councils. In terms of the point made in Nelson and Tasman it's interesting that the Nelson Mayor the Hon Dr Nick Smith a former Minister for the Environment in this place favours this approach to having a regional plan in that area. I've heard him make the point that it's silly that in respect of Richmond which is effectively a suburb of Nelson City but it is in the Tasman district not the Nelson City boundary area—you've got different rules relating to subdivision and other issues that should really be similar between the two areas. In respect of the question as to the scope of plans under clause 96 and how you work issues out such as the member raised well of course those issues already rose. Of course you can farm on a dairy farm but if you're going to pollute the adjacent waterway to a degree that it's no longer fit to swim in the national planning framework cuts in and says "Well the regional council should do something about that." It doesn't say that you can't have a dairy farm but it means that you've got to do it carefully in relation to an adjacent waterway."