edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Grigg NicolaNICOLA GRIGG (National—Selwyn): I'll ably fill in for my colleague Todd Muller who's buried deep in his phone. I beg your pardon. Look like previous speakers I've also been reflecting on the tone and content of what we've been hearing in this House this afternoon. I just find it extraordinary what we do learn about the power of human endeavour. I have to say Jamie Strange that was quite an extraordinary relay of your own personal story and very touching and thank you for sharing that. Like others across the House it seems I stand to support the passage of the Annie Oxborough Birth Parents Registration Bill through the House this afternoon for hopefully by the end of the day the third and final time. Can I also congratulate my colleague Chris Penk. I think it is a very honourable thing to do for a member of Parliament to bring a bill to this House that will so profoundly change the life of a New Zealander. I have to say on that note it is an enormously brave and powerful thing for said New Zealanders to approach a member of Parliament and seek to change a law. Most people I think would be put off by it or frightened by it or overwhelmed by it but not Annie Oxborough and I'm very pleased that she has had the courage of her conviction to come to Chris and indeed come to this Parliament to seek for something that to her has not been right throughout her life. It is very important for us as legislators within Parliament particularly when an individual has been advised that there's no room in the New Zealand statute to change something that they do have the courage of their convictions to seek a private member's bill and again for the member in charge to also take hold of that and create a private bill and bring it to Parliament.So Annie now will be allowed to change her birth certificate to reflect the names of her biological parents replacing those with her now deceased adoptive parents. We do admire that and we do wish her all the very best with her future endeavours and hope that this brings her indeed the peace and the understanding that I think she has sought. I would also like to commend Naisi Chen for her comments. She obviously sat on the select committee and was able to have a really intimate understanding of Annie's journey. I felt a twinge of envy actually; I would have loved to have been a part of that myself. As I say this is one of the reasons that we do come to this place for all of its quirks because every now and then you can change a life and you can make a real difference to someone and I do on that note like my colleagues commend this bill to the House and wish Annie all the very best.
Clark DavidHon Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's a delight to speak on this second reading. I have reflected between the readings on how good it is to be able to progress this bill swiftly particularly as I heard Chris Penk acknowledge in his introductory comments that the Business Committee has looked to have an expedited third reading stage which I think is a great thing and shows the way this House can work together once a case has been clearly made and members are in agreement and have fully debated the merits and put on the record the merits of such a bill and the challenges that the current law presents to people that rightly want to make sure that their identity is recorded authentically. It's great to have that agreement and willingness to work together to achieve a good outcome in this case for Annie.I also in reflecting on this bill noted the media commentary which reflects on the way in which this House does its business and can do its business in such a cooperative way particularly when it touches on personal matters. I think that that is something that we don't celebrate enough: the way in which this House can work together the way in which we as politicians are expected to debate matters robustly and that relate to our policies and the way we relate to each other and can separate that from the lives of individuals—sometimes in our own families and beyond—and make sure that we are actually doing justice to their lives without trying to point-score is really worthwhile.So we heard stories from Glen Bennett about his mother seeking her adoptive parents. In the first reading I relayed the story of my mother seeking information about her birth parents and my experience as a child going around the South Island seeking her birth parents.Times are different and we are able to put this wrong right. I am very much in support of doing that promptly swiftly and directly. With that I commend this bill to the House.
McDowall JamesDr JAMES McDOWALL (ACT): Thank you Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT to take a brief call on this bill the Annie Oxborough Birth Parents Registration Bill. ACT will obviously continue to support this bill and appreciates the work of the sponsoring member Chris Penk in getting this through the House. We're also supportive of the procedure of going immediately to committee stage and then to a vote at the third reading. As others have canvassed there is a broader context that has been discussed both in the House and in select committee. And although the select committee was careful in making sure the bill didn't affect any primary legislation or is at odds with primary legislation it did outline a bit of a positive framework for how this might actually proceed for others. Is everything OK Mr Speaker you're giving me some interesting looks?DEPUTY SPEAKER: No no it's fine. Just having a conversation with the Clerk. Carry on.Dr JAMES McDOWALL: Ha ha! No worries. Thank you Mr Speaker.So as I said ACT supports this bill. Annie's story is very harrowing and very impressed by her presence in the media and also sharing her story. There are many historical cases of closed adoption and a lot of pain has come out of that in the past. Those outcomes still exist to this day.So this bill is positive in the sense that it shines a light on those issues. Not all cases will be like Annie's but nonetheless have the same origin that I think a future Parliament does need to look at and take into account the learnings and what the select committee has said and how this law change doesn't have to be overly complicated to address a lot of these concerns notwithstanding the fact that many of them are quite different.The select committee obviously said they encourage the Government to consider reforms that could prevent the need for using private bills to achieve these outcomes and we agree with that. The select committee made very helpful improvements to the bill around definitions helped by the Department of Internal Affairs officials which we think appropriately deals with any unintended consequences evident in clause 5.So family connections are obviously deeply important personally to us as human beings and discovering new connections is also very special. I myself have found many new relatives quite recently actually just using DNA testing and that's a very interesting thing that I encourage people to do—Hon Member: Are we cousins? Dr JAMES McDOWALL: Many new cousins!Wrongs have been done in the past as I said. This bill shows that the solution doesn't have to be too complicated. The framework sort of naturally evolves out of this bill and there'll be many in New Zealand who will be watching this debate with great interest—how it might affect them in future. As I said I do hope that the next Government whichever it will be can look at this issue and not just this issue but also around adoption particularly around surrogacy. There's a lot of liberalisation and simplification that can be done and I hope that it is done. Mr Speaker thank you. I wish Annie and her family all the best and I commend this bill to the House.
Parker DavidQuestion No. 3 to Minister—Amended AnswerHon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Transport): Point of order. I seek leave to correct an answer.SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.Hon DAVID PARKER: In respect of my answer to a supplementary question on question No. 3 when I referred to the select committee consideration of congestion charging I was referring to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee inquiry into congestion pricing in Auckland that was presented to the House in 2021 not the resultant bill.
Rurawhe AdrianPETITIONS PAPERS SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLSSPEAKER: A petition has been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.CLERK: Petition of Epilepsy Waikato Charitable Trust requesting the House urge Whatu Ora to fund vagal nerve stimulation therapy for adults with intractable medication-resistant epilepsy as an adjunct treatment.SPEAKER: That petition stands referred to the Petitions Committee. Ministers have delivered papers.CLERK: Auckland Light Rail Ltd Statement of Performance Expectations for year ended 30 June 2024Education Review Office Strategic Intentions 2023 to 2026.SPEAKER: Those papers are published under the authority of the House. Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.CLERK: Report of the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee on the 2023/24 Estimates for Vote Business Science and Innovation (excluding the appropriations that are the responsibility of the Minister of Police related to the Retail Crime Subsidy Scheme)report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the 2023/24 Estimates for Vote Revenuereport of the Petitions Committee on the petition of Nikki Turnerreport of the Privileges Committee on question of privilege concerning a member's disclosure of the outcome of a vote taken during the Environment Committee's consideration of a billreports of the Social Services and Community Committee on the2023/24 Estimates for appropriation within Vote Education Review Office: Independent Monitoring and Assurance of the Oranga Tamariki System2023/24 Estimates for appropriations within Vote Internal Affairs: Supporting Ethnic Communities and Community Development and Funding Schemes2023/24 Estimates for Vote Arts Culture and Heritage; for Vote Housing and Urban Development; for Vote Oranga Tamariki; for Vote Pacific Peoples; and for Vote Social Development.SPEAKER: The report of the Privileges Committee is set down for consideration. No bills have been introduced.
Visitors — Australia—Prime Minister
Rurawhe AdrianVISITORSAustralia—Prime MinisterSPEAKER: I'm sure that members would wish to welcome the Honourable Anthony Albanese Prime Minister of Australia to my left and his accompanying delegation who are present in the gallery.
Rurawhe AdrianWEDNESDAY 26 JULY 2023The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.KARAKIA/PRAYERSSPEAKER: 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. Amene.[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.]
Henare PeeniAMENDED ANSWERS TO ORAL QUESTIONSQuestion No. 7 to MinisterHon PEENI HENARE (Minister for ACC): I seek leave to make a personal explanation to clarify part of an answer to oral question No. 7 on 25 July 2023.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none. Hon PEENI HENARE: Yesterday in my responses to supplementary questions to oral question No. 7 on behalf of the Minister for Social Development and Employment I stated that the Government has changed the criteria for access to the special needs grant for dental treatment so that among other things people are supported to access what would be considered normal dental appointments for fillings or check-ups and to get the kinds of appointments to make sure that they have regular oral health checks. I want to clarify that dental grants which have historically only been available for emergency care now also cover all immediate and essential dental care. This means New Zealanders can get support through the grant for most treatments including things like fillings and infections and it includes consultations and dental professionals but only where they lead to immediate and essential care.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members the House stands adjourned until 2 p.m.The House adjourned at 12.58 p.m.
O'Connor GregCHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The time has come for me to report progress.Progress to be reported.House resumed.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Madam Speaker the committee has considered the Natural and Built Environment Bill and reports progress. I move That the report be adopted.Motion agreed to.Report adopted.
Simpson ScottHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you Mr Chair. I want to raise issues relating to the suspension of applications to occupy common marine and coastal areas for the purposes of aquaculture activities. This is clause 455. Assuming that a commercial activity has been granted an approval to operate—let's say a mussel farm or an oyster farm or fish farming any of those sorts of things that may have occurred. Indeed around my area—in the beautiful Coromandel—we have a fair amount of oyster and also particularly mussel farming. The green-lipped mussel is very popular and it provides a great opportunity for fishing around the mussel farms. But we also have challenging issues with biosecurity matters particularly relating specifically to a nasty thing called Caulerpa that is prevalent around Great Mercury Island around Great Barrier and also now in Northland.So the potential for biosecurity issues to arise and then having a regional council or a planning committee that is going to suspend or seek to suspend an existing commercial operation I think is something that is going to sadly probably become more prevalent as time goes by. We've had a briefing at the Environment Committee about some of these invasive specifies not necessarily always relating to the marine environment but the marine environment is particularly susceptible. So my concern is that if we don't manage those biosecurity issues carefully and well there is a knock-on effect to the commercial operators who are not very far physically from where the contaminated and identified places have been put in place.So if the Minister could give us some assurances that under 455(1)(b) where there has been the identification of an actual or emerging biosecurity concern relating to aquaculture and activities those matters will be appropriately and properly taken into account and what that process might mean in terms of a speedy resolution to the conflict that exists between the commercial imperatives versus the marine biosecurity imperatives that are also equally compelling.
Smith Stuart; Brooking RachelSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Oh thank you Mr Chair. I will take the opportunity to inform the committee that Marlborough alone has 1800 kilometres of shoreline so therefore it is very important that we get the coastal marine aspects of this Natural and Built Environment Bill nailed down and correct and easy to work with.So I did listen very carefully to the Associate Minister for the Environment's response to my earlier question but she didn't address the issue I raised about being in a boat halfway between the shore and an invisible structure such as a salmon farm that wouldn't be visible from the shore but can be seen halfway out. Does the significant natural area aspect of consenting actually apply so that a person in a boat looking to the shore and seeing a beautiful SNA significant natural area—and there are a number of them in the Marlborough Sounds—and then turning 180 degrees and looking out to the salmon farm or the structure or whatever it happens to be it might be an oil rig and being offended by it—is that grounds for objection to a consent application?Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Associate Minister for the Environment): On that point we go back to Part 1 of the bill and the various different outcomes there. So they can be considerations and of course it would depend on the circumstances of the case.
Mooney Joseph; Parker DavidJOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you Mr Chair. I just wanted to ask here around significant biodiverse areas and the considerations relevant to the Minister under clauses 427D and 427E. I note that before specifying criteria that the Minister must seek—in the national planning framework the responsible Minister must seek written advice from the environmental limits and targets review panel on (a) whether in the opinion of the panel the criteria proposed by the responsible Minister are scientifically robust; and (b) any other matter the responsible Minister considers relevant". But when I look under 427E I note that in the criteria there is nothing there to address the issue that the Minister noted before which I think was quite right. Which is for example in Queenstown there are potentially real barriers to building new transmission lines which the area may very well need in the not too distant future because of the electricity demands and growth that that requires. So there's potentially an issue here in that the Minister must set criteria but can't take—my question is: can the Minister take into account other really important considerations like for example the need for a transmission line to be built for an area like Queenstown which needs more electricity and that may cross areas of significant biodiversity values?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): The bill—higher up in the scheme of the bill gives priority to the provision of renewable electricity. It also gives provision to a higher recognition to infrastructure provision more generally not just renewable electricity. Both of those pathways would help as would the regional spatial strategies required under the Spatial Planning Bill that we are yet to consider. But in addition to all of that even if there was a highly nationally important biodiversity area identified actually the only exception really that you can get to that is for critical infrastructure that's got nowhere else to go. So even if the whole of Queenstown was to be—surroundings of it were to be in that high category and I don't think they ever would be even if they were even then the bill allows an exception for that critical infrastructure that can't be put anywhere else. But in the event that would happen the damage that the pylons would do to that area would have to be offset by some environmental measure elsewhere."
Pallett SarahSARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam): I move That the question be now put.
Kuriger Barbara; Parker DavidBARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki-King Country): Thank you Madam Chair. Just a quick question about contaminated land Minister. There's a clause in here clause 427 that talks about going back to the recovering the costs from the polluter or if not the EPA may recover the costs from the local authority. This may or may not be a tie-in with the current Resource Management Act and it's just a gap in my knowledge. Is there a time limit on that? Because we all know of some very contaminated—or very historically contaminated—sites. Can you just please explain that?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): There's not. The sad reality in respect of most of the badly contaminated sites in New Zealand is they're known as what is called orphan sites". That is that the owner of those sites when they were running an old sawmill or chemical production factory they've long since gone into liquidation or scarpered and there's no one left to pay the bill of the remediation. So it falls on central and local governments to foot the bill and there's a limited amount of money for that. So it's not possible to put a deadline on the rehabilitation of all contaminated land because they're under budgets to achieve it."
Potaka Tama; Parker DavidTAMA POTAKA (National—Hamilton West): Just in light of those comments about highly vulnerable biodiversity areas (HVBAs) there was a little bit of uncertainty around the interface between clause 427P(2) and the related determination of an HVBA which must have regard to mātauranga Māori". In the context of clauses 3 through 6 in the affiliations with kawa tikanga mana and the vibe and then the ability to make a determination that this is an HVBA a piece of land a piece of land that happened to be Māori land the interface with clause 427S which now says if you refer to 427R the Minister can make a provision that even though you've gone through that process of kawa tikanga mātauranga Māori and everything else and it is the characteristics of an HVBA—it is that—but the Minister can still make effectively a determination that that land is exempted from the HVBA provisions. So I'm just trying to understand from the Minister if that is what is intended.Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): The ability to have exemptions to highly valuable biodiversity areas is race and colour neutral."
Simpson Scott; Parker DavidHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you very much Madam Chair. This is proving to be quite a good and lively discussion that we're having here under extended sitting. I want to come back to Subpart 4 Places of national importance"—or what we came in the Environment Committee to affectionately refer to as "PONIs". We spent quite a lot of time talking about the PONIs—places of national importance—and a section of the debate was around the use of the term "trivial" or "more than a trivial impact" or "more than a trivial adverse effect". I notice in the Minister's Supplementary Order Paper that the word "trivial" in multiple places—and I'm particularly referring to clause 427C(4)(b). There's another reference in 427F. There's another reference in 427H where the term "trivial" has been replaced by the word "minimal".I'm interested to know what the rationale for that change is and whether the Minister has received advice from officials that removing the word "trivial" and replacing it with "minimal" has some impact that maybe wasn't originally made clear at the select committee and whether or not the impact of that change will improve—I guess the fact that the Minister has made the change is an indication that he feels it must improve and be a better terminology than the use of the word "trivial". So if the Minister could enlighten us as to why that change was made because it was a matter that was discussed at some considerable length in select committee. There were a number of submitters that made mention of the point and our concern at select committee was that it was very hard to define "trivial"—that "trivial" has different meanings to different people. But to replace it with the word "minimal" I'm not 100 percent sure that that necessarily helps advance certainty in any degree. So if the Minister can give us some insight on that?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Actually the member Scott Simpson has had his way on this one if he did express that at select committee because how it used to work was that "trivial" which was the term that was used was defined in the definitions signal on page 64 of the bill to mean "adverse effects that are no more than minimal". So they've cut the definition out and they just moved straight from "trivial" to "minimal" and it is actually—Hon Scott Simpson: They've cut out the middleman!Hon DAVID PARKER: They've cut out the middle definition yeah. And in terms of consistency with language in other statutes it's probably more consistent and therefore leads to less uncertainty in a new statute."
Potaka Tama; Parker DavidTAMA POTAKA (National—Hamilton West): I was very very enthused by the Green member's comments around 427C places of national importance": "must identify every place that is a natural landscape or a natural feature (including geoheritage) that is [outstanding] on a national scale" because in some instances the ability of iwi and hapū to assert whether or not a natural feature of a wāhi tūpuna or a wāhi tapu is at the level of "outstanding" rather than just "a place over there" have been severely compromised. The access issue for example on a place like Rangipo Waiu where the New Zealand Defence Force currently owns some land has compromised various iwi throughout that middle reach of the North Island to access look at and assert that a place is outstanding. So the kawa and tikanga exercise which is referred to in earlier clauses 3 through to 6 has been so disturbed that the ability of those iwi to assert that that natural feature or that natural landscape is outstanding is severely modified. So I'm trying to understand how a situation like that can be accommodated in the current proposed legislation.Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): I don't know the detail of that particular case that's referred to in respect of what sounds like it's land owned by Defence Force in the Central North Island. But the Crown in general in respect of land that it needs to control access to has similar rights to private landowners to exclude people from it. I don't think that's changed through this legislation.In respect of whether there are regionally rather than nationally significant issues touched upon by the member but also just following up on one of the questions asked by the Hon Eugenie Sage I'm advised that the work is already done by councils in respect of their identification of regionally significant landscapes is something that can flow through to the considerations of the regional planning committee when they put together a regional plan."
Mooney Joseph; Parker DavidJOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank very much Madam Chair. Minister I just want to go back to freshwater farm plans. And my question is around the requirement for farm operators to prepare a freshwater farm plan then submit the plan to a certifier for certification and then arrange for the freshwater farm plan to be audited. So it's quite a few steps involved there and I think the Minister would accept that most farmers won't have the ability to do this themselves and they'll have to hire consultants to do the work. Certainly to prepare the freshwater farm plan which some say could cost up to $10000 and then obviously the next steps in terms of certifying and auditing it.My question then goes to: what happens if there is a major adverse weather event which affects the relevant freshwater farm plan and looking at clause 403(2) it says that A farm operator must keep the certified freshwater farm plan fit for purpose by amending the plan as necessary to reflect any changes in the farm; and amending the plan as necessary to comply with this subpart and regulations." So let's take for example the events that have happened this year on the East Coast—Tairāwhiti Gisborne Hawke's Bay—which would have a pretty significant impact on the operations of a farm and therefore would need quite significant changes to the operation of that farm. How is a farmer realistically going to update their farm plan then get it certified then get it audited and comply with the requirements here? And I know it's not just unique to these guys—Tairāwhiti Gisborne Hawke's Bay area; back in the beginning of 2020 a major adverse weather event happened in Southland in which again the same scenario would have been faced by farmers.Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): The first point I would make is that if you're going to have farm plans as a substitute for regulation they do need to have a degree of rigour about them. And there's general agreement I think across the system that if it's going to be a substitute for regulation it actually has to be something that in practice people can be held to account for whether they do what they promised to do in order to limit their adverse effects on the environment. This is modelled on the Canterbury system and it's working there.In respect to the member's question about what happens if events change well we've actually had the real example as the member astutely points out in respect of the Hawke's Bay region. And the Government response to that has been to write at the recuse of the regional council and say "Taihoa you've got a few more years to take care of it because you're actually addressing other issues in response to the emergency." So these things are practical and there are mechanisms to make sure that those sorts of events can be catered for as evidenced by the fact that just in recent months that very occurrence has been dealt with."
Kuriger Barbara; Parker DavidBARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki-King Country): Thank you Madam Chair. I just want to talk about the areas of highly vulnerable biodiversity and I just have a question because it talks about—there's a criteria on page 299 clause 427P. Where does that—can I ask the Minister where does that leave the review into stewardship land given that there's a huge range of biodiversity classes on conservation land? There's obviously a review going into it will this particular piece of legislation define it more clearly? And if you could just explain to me what happens next from here?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): I addressed this to some extent under the first discussion we had on the first part of the bill but the member's quite right that this is further articulated in this part of the legislation. The scheme of the Act is to try and properly protect what is truly important but not have that—and then really protect it with very very limited exceptions as to some for example essential infrastructure that's got no other place to go. But other than that very you know very rare exception to the protection of highly valuable biodiversity areas. They are protected against development pressures but in order for them to be of that status they really do have to be nationally outstanding. It can't be low. Now I know there are members in this House and there is an amendment in the name of the Hon Eugenie Sage that wants to extend that to regionally significant areas of biodiversity. Within the view of the Government yes regionally significant highly biodiverse areas can be protected by councils if they want to through their plans and they go through a planning process and that's a decision they take locally. But in respect of the highly protected areas where the scheme of the Act protects it as opposed to rules in a plan we think that should be limited to the nationally important and that's what this does.
Simpson Scott; Parker DavidHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you Madam Chair and appreciate the Minister's elucidation of those points because that's very helpful. I'm keen to know whether the Minister sees whether a potential could develop over a period of time where because we have such a vast number of farms in the country a range of different catchment areas a range of different topographies geology farming practices and such forth it could develop that some kind of formulaic template emerges as a methodology for complying with the provisions of this part that would make it easier for farmers to comply with the requirements but also more administratively efficient for the regional councils in terms of the records that they must keep in terms of clause 408. So I'm interested to know what the Minister thinks may develop in terms of process around these freshwater farm plans.Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Another fair point. Yes we don't want this on the one hand to be so rigid that you drive everyone to a monopoly provider of services; we also don't want to be so rigid as to impose the same rules unnecessarily everywhere even though they are not apposite to some areas. So the purpose of farm plans is to be flexible enough to deal with the issues faced by each farmer. For example if you've got a steep hill country and the problem of sediment eroding off steep faces that should be retired from heavy grazing pressure that might be different to another area where the issues are nutrient flows from flat country intensive farming practices. So the system has to be flexible enough to allow for both of those possibilities. But the member's also right that you also want a degree of standardisation so it's not everything's been done again and I think the regulations allow for both of those things to be accommodated.
Smith Stuart; Parker DavidSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you Madam Chair. It is indeed good news that Lake Onslow won't go ahead. Mr Parker the Minister said it wouldn't go through fast-track anyway. Well it seems that he hasn't been talking to the Minister of Conservation because when I asked through written questions about why the permits for the groundwork to be done on it which had to be received from the Department of Conservation were done in what was world record time—world record time for those consents to go through—and when I asked further why that was it was because it was seen as national significance this project. I asked how that was assessed but all I got was a fair bit of duck-shoving around and no answer. So clearly one part of the Government doesn't share the same view as the Minister.Hon Scott Simpson: The left hand doesn't know what the left hand's doing.STUART SMITH: That's correct. But I want to go on to clause 158A Specified prohibited activities". It says the following activities are prohibited activities: "(a) prospecting exploring or mining for Crown owned minerals in the internal waters of the Coromandel Peninsula;"—fair enough; "(b) mining of which the main purpose is to mine mercury." That's fair enough as well. But then under subclause (2): "Subsection (1)(a) does not apply to prospecting exploring or mining activities set out in section 61(1A) of the Crown Minerals Act 1991.". That particular section 61 is access arrangements in respect of Crown land and land in common marine and coastal areas and (1A) is in initial access arrangement in relation to tier 2 permits. Now tier 2 permits I'm sure you'd be interested to know is in section 2B of the Crown Minerals Act. In this Act tier 2 means a permit that is not a tier 1 permit. If you look at the tier 1 permit it's all laid out in the parts above. There seems to be a sort of a circular argument here. You can't have a tier 1 permit—a tier 2 permit is just on a tier 1 permit. There's no real definition of that. So that seems to be somewhat circular. Can the Minister enlighten us on that please?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Yes I can. It's a straight carryover of section 87B of the Resource Management Act which sets out some areas where around the Coromandel prospecting and mining is not allowed.STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Well it's a carryover from an Act that doesn't work very well into a bill that's going to be even worse. That's not really an explanation as to why it is there. Just because it was there before doesn't mean it was the right thing. It seems circular. It says a tier 2 permit is anything that is not in tier 1. So what is that?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): It is not circular. It does work as evidenced by the fact that the prior Government didn't change that provision in the nine years they were in Government."
Potaka Tama; Parker DavidTAMA POTAKA (National—Hamilton West): Thank you Madam Chair. This is a just a note an observation. There was a comment made two minutes ago that those customary rights exist but unless they are in a marine space unless they are recognised and the subject of a declaration by the Māori Land Court I find it very irreconcilable if those rights can actually be accounted for by way of the legislation and the decision makers' actions in making decisions under the legislation. If it is expected that decision makers have to be aware that those customary rights exist and build them into their decision-making processes even though they have not been declared through the Maori Land Court or through the High Court by way of another judicial pathway then how can a decision maker under this legislation actually take account of those or implement those? I find that very inconsistent and I'd like to know from the Minister how a decision maker can implement or take account of a right that hasn't been declared through the judicial process. Otherwise we get into a very difficult space à la the Nelson Tenths litigation where there has been an assertion of rights but people do not want to recognise them.Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): That's not what I said. What I said was that for a customary right to be found to exist under takutai moana legislation it must be found by the court to exist. It's not creating new rights; it's actually recognising rights that the courts find have not been extinguished and therefore will be recognised and carried forward. At the point they are elucidated the system protects them. But the member is quite right—you can't know what you don't know and this legislation doesn't say anything to the contrary.
Sage Eugenie; Parker David; Dean JacquiHon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Thank you Madam Chair. Last night the Minister referred to the fact that the bill significantly improves the provisions around notification providing clearer direction. If I could just ask the Minister in terms of the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) in his name it makes a number of changes around how plans deal with notification of activities. In the bill as recommended by the Environment Committee there were criteria in clause 108E on pages 153 and 154 about what the regional planning committee must take into account when deciding whether certain activities should be non-notified—i.e. the public doesn't get an opportunity to make submissions. In the Minister's SOP those provisions appear to have gone and clauses 108E and 108F have been significantly changed. So I just wonder if the Minister could provide some comment on that and whether it reduces the scope for notification by removing those criteria for non-notification or whether this is simply improving and clarifying these provisions.Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): I'm advised by officials that the provisions have just been moved; they haven't been deleted so they're still in the Act.Dr Tracey McLellan: Madam Chair. Madam Chair.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): No not yet but I am mindful of—I'm listening for new material.
Kuriger Barbara; Parker DavidBARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki-King Country): Thank you Madam Chair. Minister I'd just like to ask you a question around clause 102 What the plans must include". We know there's identifying the issues of importance to the region and national planning frameworks.In the select committee we talked a lot about vegetables and fruit also came into the conversation. I'm trying to tie together the purpose of the bill te Oranga o te Taiao which we were told and explained how it leads to the wellbeing of the people. The discussions we had for the Minister's reference was that if we're going to put a planning regime in place where the land and the people are all going to be healthy we're going to have to identify what we're going to be able to do with vegetables. We accept that there are environmental limits around agriculture and horticulture. I remember saying in committee one day that "you can't compare the vast amount of dairy farming country to the small about of vegetable-growing land that sits around the country."We're all a bit concerned in the committee that we weren't going to have the ability to provide our people with cost-effective vegetables with the amount of I guess regulation and red tape and limits that we put on our vegetable growers for a very small area of New Zealand—and so I'm thinking that some things may have to give in respect of others. So I'm trying to tie the purpose around the health of the environment and the people down to how this will work in reality in these communities because vegetables have been identified by the committee as something that's critically important to the wellbeing of New Zealanders.Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): I agree with the member. The Government of course in the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management gave some exceptions to that regime for vegetable growing. So that's evidence that this Government agrees with that principle. That is given effect to—higher in the planning hierarchy through clause 58(g) which says "The national planning framework must … [enable a] supply of fresh fruit and vegetables." So we've already covered that part in an earlier part of the debate."
Parker David; O'Connor GregHon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Only the ACT Party seems to think that by reducing from over 100 plans to 16 the system will be less efficient—it's just wrong. Simon Court: Well who said that? Hon DAVID PARKER: Well that seems to be the implication—that you don't want to have the system changed that comes down from 100 plans to 16. I've read out the likes of the Property Council. They think it's going to be more efficient. The cost-benefit analysis done independently of me says that for every dollar spent in the system $4.50 will be saved by system users. There's enormous amounts of money going to be saved. One of the reasons is that there'll be a lot more permitted activities which seems to be what the member is worried about. That is achieved in part through the procedural principles set out in clause 6A which we've already passed but which says that you've got to reduce reliance on resource consenting processes. Now plans will be put together by a regional planning committee with the staff drawn from the local planning committees who will be putting together 16 plans across the country instead of over 100 individually. This will be more efficient and is going to save the country hundreds of millions of dollars every year. CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Just before I go on just to the member Simon Court I note that the member when he sat down asked about three questions across the floor. The intention of the committee stage is that we have a question and answer to actually advance things rather than making—so I'll invite the member and the member is entitled to stand for as long as he likes to speak. However I will invite him to consider the way of doing business which may be more productive and give him the answers which he requires and save him from calling the questions across the Chamber once he sits down.
Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): With respect to the member I think he's misread the clause: Discretionary targets may be set for any matter that is not a matter for … a mandatory target". It's that way; not the other way round which is just how the member read it out. It may have just been a slip of the tongue.Chris Bishop: Is that what I said? Oh sorry.Hon DAVID PARKER: Yeah but I'll assume that that was just a slip of the tongue. All national direction currently under the Resource Management Act is discretionary so there's no mandatory national direction. What this does is respond to the issues which are of concern to New Zealanders and says "Look these are areas that really the system does need a bit of national direction on." They are listed and I agree with the member that that's been one of the failures of the existing system: that we haven't had that."
Bishop ChrisCHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you Mr Chair and I apologise to the Minister and members if this matter has already been canvased. I want to ask the Minister about clause 51 which is about discretionary targets that may be set for any matter for which a mandatory target is required. Clause 51 outlines that discretionary targets can be set for a system outcome a framework outcome or a plan outcome. Now this bill gives quite big powers to central government in relation to the setting of targets and that was subject to quite a bit of debate in the select committee. I am not someone who thinks that central government doesn't have a role; in fact I think we need to strengthen the national direction provided through the system from the centre down in order to achieve a whole variety of different outcomes. But concerns have been expressed about the level of ministerial and central government control and direction. And so I wonder if the Minister could ventilate to the House how he expects the discretionary targets regime to be used in contradistinction to the mandatory targets regime: when would one be used and when would another be used?
Simpson Scott; Parker DavidHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you Mr Chair. Clause 82 relates to and deals with the national planning framework provisions for transitional provisions. It says that it may include transitional provisions for any matter including its effect on existing matters or proceedings." Minister could you explain how you see that as working in practice please—in what situations may a transitional provision apply? Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): As is set out in the footnote to that particular clause that's the carry-over of section 45A of the Resource Management Act. What that could mean in practice is that national direction could say that it doesn't apply to resource consents that have already been lodged."
Grigg Nicola; Parker DavidNICOLA GRIGG (National—Selwyn): Thank you Mr Chair. I too actually want to turn the Minister's mind to the same section that Simon Court has been speaking about but I also want to speak about clause 75AAD. I'm sure the Minister would have seen over the weekend that once again Canterbury has been inundated with a wet weather event and our rivers are absolutely choked and have once again flooded much of Canterbury. Rural land farmland rural towns council roads culverts and bridges have all been damaged. We saw this obviously in 2021 and again we see it just two years later though I have to say not to the same extent. The Minister will be aware that regional councils have asked the Government for a contribution towards clearing out and managing rivers around the country. However this has been declined. Most councils will tell you particularly the Canterbury Regional Council that they are unable to carry out this work given the current planning and permitted regulatory environment. So with regard to clause 75AAD and activities that may be permitted with or without requirements could the Minister please explain how regional councils and/or landowners can interpret this legislation so that they are able to carry out flood mitigation work on rivers around the district so that infrastructure human habitat farmland that is currently being regularly flooded and causing millions of dollars' worth of damage can actually be protected. And notwithstanding subclause (2) in clause 20 I have quickly read through that. Can the Minister please explain the overlay of the proposed rules regulations and of course the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management with regard to statements like Te Mana o Te Wai and how under these rules and proposed new rules our councils our landowners and our homeowners can carry out flood mitigation works to protect their valuable infrastructure?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Although the detail of consents is dealt with in Part 5 of the bill not here it is correct that national direction under the new system as it can now under the Resource Management Act could say all flood schemes are permitted activities. It could do. I don't think it would be likely to but it could do if a future Government wanted to. The rules relating to where you can put up flood banks and what work you can do on tree control are unchanged by the passage of this Act but could be modified by a future Government in either a permissive or restrictive way in the future were that in the national interest.