Horan Brendan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to MembersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHoran Brendan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members[Sitting date: 02 July 2013. Volume:691;Page:11719. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]4.BRENDAN HORAN (Independent)to theMinister of Transport: Is he aware of reports that the owners of theRena may prepare an application for resource consent to leave the remaining part of the wreck of theRena on the Astrolabe Reef and if an application is lodged will the Crown oppose such an application?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Transport):Yes and if an application is made the Crown will look at the application before judging its merits. I made all of those positions clear in a press statement on 2 October 2012.Brendan Horan: On what occasions did the Minister or his officials consult with local iwi and/or the Department of Conservation regarding a confidential agreement between the Crown Maritime New Zealand and the owners of theRena to consider supporting the owner’s pending application to leave the rusting wreck of theRena on the Astrolabe Reef?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I am unaware of the circumstances that the member is referring to. What I do know is that the Crown maintains that the owners are legally required to remove the wreck and they of course—just as anybody is entitled to seek compensation from them for damage they might have incurred—are free to seek resource consent to leave the wreck there.Brendan Horan: I seek leave to table paragraphs 13.4 and 13.5 from the Crown response regarding Wai 2391 and 2393 disclosing the sordid agreement to leave the wreck of theRena on the Astrolabe Reef.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Brendan Horan: How long has it been National Government policy that if one pays $10.4 million for a public interest fund—the cost of 10 houses in Parnell or St Heliers—one can pollute New Zealand seas and foreshore for years thereby saving polluters potentially hundreds of millions of dollars?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: That is not Government policy. In fact the New Zealand Government like many other Governments is a signatory to international limitation arrangements around shipping. We are heavily reliant on shipping as an exporting nation. The member should really read all of the report so that he can ask questions that show he does actually know a little bit about what he is talking of.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is he saying in principle that no entity be it a company or an individual should be allowed to abuse and misuse assets that do not belong to them and escape the consequences of such actions?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: What I am saying is that I think the owners of theRena  given their obligations under New Zealand law have acted most responsibly.Te Ururoa Flavell: Āe rānei kua rongo ia i te kōrero a Buddy Mikaere mō te tū o te iwi i tērā takiwā te tikanga ia me nuku te Karauna i ngā waihotanga mai o tērā o ngā kaipuke; mēnā āe he aha ngā kōrero i waenganui i te Kāwanatanga me te iwi mō te take e kore ai ia e pīrangi ki te tuku ki te whakawātea i tērā wāhi o ngā parapara ka tukuna mai ai ka ngahoro mai ki tērā o ngā kāinga?[Has he indeed heard Buddy Mikaere’s statement about the stance taken by the tribe of that area where essentially they are demanding that the Crown remove the remaining refuse of that wreck; if so what negotiations have taken place between the Government and the tribe as to the reason why he will not allow the area to be cleared of the refuse that continues to slip away from the remaining part of that wreck upon the home area? ]Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Can I say at the outset that notwithstanding the view that Mr Mikaere has expressed the relationship between the company and the iwi is one where there has been mutually a degree of trying to keep communications constructive. However the Crown maintains that the owner does remain legally required to remove the wreck as a consequence of the notice that was issued under the Maritime Transport Act. No arrangements that we have made with the owner or anyone else have compromised the ability of the iwi or anyone else to seek compensation for damage that they can legally prove to have occurred to them as a result of the wreck. There is of course also no restriction on the owners of the wreck seeking a resource consent through proper channels to leave the wreck in place.Te Ururoa Flavell: He moni kua tukuna ki ngā iwi nei kua pātai rānei ngā iwi mō ētahi moni hai āwhina i ā rātou hei whaiwhai haere i wā rātou mahi nui nei ki te whakapaipai ake i te takutai moana pēnei i ngā iwi e noho mai rā ki runga o Mōtītī; mēnā āe he aha tā te Kāwanatanga whakautu i taua pātai mō te moni utu nama?[Have these tribes been allocated any funding or have they requested any that will assist them to follow up key tasks they have identified that will clean up the foreshore like the ones living over there on Mōtītī; if so what is the Government’s response to that question about funding to pay expenses? ]Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The owner has established a limitation fund through the High Court of some $11 million. This is available to meet claims for all private entities affected by theRena wreck provided they are able to prove that the damage they suffered or the costs they incurred related to the wreck.