edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Simpson Scott; Parker DavidHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you Mr Chair. I want to spend a minute or two just on Supplementary Order Paper 389 clauses 52 and 52A. Clause 52 is titled Considerations relating to customary marine title area" and indicates that the responsible Minister must amongst other things "consider whether the limit or target would directly affect a customary marine title group and (if they agree that it would) consider that as a factor in favour of setting the limit or target regionally". Now that on the face of it appears to be understandable and potentially reasonable but there looks to me to have been inserted in the Supplementary Order Paper a new clause 52A which is titled "Protected customary rights may be exercised despite limit or target". It goes on to read: "A protected customary right may be exercised or continue to be exercised under the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 despite"—despite—"any environmental limit or target set in the national planning framework or a plan."So my question to the Minister is: why did he and his officials consider it necessary to strengthen clause 52 by the insertion of clause 52A and what essentially is the effect and impact of carving out a protection that would provide for an exemption that was despite a limit or target having been set? It strikes me that that is contrary to the overall environmental good that the legislation seeks to put in place by carving out an exception that is so specifically described and proscribed in the statute. So if the Minister could give some insight into the reason for the specific inclusion of clause 52A I would appreciate this opinion and view.Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): I did so last night but I am happy to repeat it: that was inserted on the advice of officials because neither the Resource Management Act nor the Natural and Built Environment Act when passed cut across Takutai Moana rights which are narrow—they are unextinguished customary rights of Māori that predate the Treaty actually. They are a common-law right not a Treaty-based right. They are generally very limited to things like collecting hāngī stones or the right to launch a waka. This House has been through many debates on those issues and the provisions that have been protected there is the legislation that was passed by the last National-ACT Government with the support of [Inaudible]"
Kuriger Barbara; Parker DavidBARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki-King Country): Thank you Mr Chair. With a piece of legislation like this there's a lot of words in it. You're more skilled than I am in terms of background on this sort of thing but I'm doing a bit of testing around what's likely to get tested and I'm looking at Subpart 10 in Part 3where the framework rules prevail unless exceptions apply. When you talk about when a plan rule is more stringent or when a plan rule is more lenient there is quite a good description in there but I just have some concerns around some of those sentences being able to be debated in terms of a legal structure around whether it is in fact in some people's eyes or in legal cases more stringent or more lenient than what might be prescribed in the legislation. So I'm just wondering if we could have a comment around how the Minister sees that particular piece of legislation being managed in a tested process. Thank you.Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Thank you for the question. Clause 89 of Subpart 10 talks about how you can have rules. There are two sorts of rules that come through the national planning framework for existing national direction. One is rules that are permissive to help enable things and an example of that is rules that allow telecommunication towers as a permitted activity. Now a permissive rule like that sets a minimum level of permissibility but there are areas and the Canterbury region is an example of this where because it's so flat you need higher cellphone towers because otherwise the signal can't get through to people using their cell-phones or working on farms who need to get an internet connection. So a rule and a plan for Canterbury can be more permissive than the background level of permission everywhere.If on the other hand it is a restrictive measure—so we say that the baseline for water quality is X that's not set at a level that would be appropriate for every water body. It's a minimum. But there are some spring-fed creeks that are actually gin clear that we do want to have actually cleaner than that baseline. So in that case a regional council or a future planning committee can have a rule that is stricter than the minimum standard and so that's what clause 89(1)(a) and (b) do.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 75New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 2; Kerekere; Whaitiri. Noes 38New Zealand National 28; ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.Bill read a second time.
12. Question No. 12—TransportHon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green) to the Minister of TransportQuestion No. 12—Transport12. Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green) to the Minister of Transport: Is reducing greenhouse gas emissions from transport still a priority for this Government?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Transport): Yes. For example both the Clean Car Standard and the Clean Car Discount are making a tangible difference to emissions. These two initiatives are now estimated to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by around three times the originally estimated reduction for the period 2022-25.Hon Julie Anne Genter: Will the new draft Government Policy Statement on land transport support mode shift from private cars to public and active transport in a manner consistent with the Paris Agreement targets and the emissions reduction plan?Hon DAVID PARKER: The Cabinet has not yet finalised its consideration of that matter but yes: mode shift is an important part of our response as is vehicle efficiency obviously. There have been significant investments by this Government in mode shift including unprecedented support for rail buses and other active forms of transport.Hon Julie Anne Genter: Will his Government commit to funding extensions to public transport services in tier 2 and 3 cities and towns in the next term of Government given it has deprioritised funding this term?Hon DAVID PARKER: The announcement of Labour Party policy for the next term on transport policy will be made during the election.Hon Julie Anne Genter: Will he commit to a Waitematā Harbour crossing that prioritises active and public transport options that reduce congestion and emissions?Hon DAVID PARKER: I certainly agree that the next harbour crossing for the Waitematā needs to include both public transport and active routes.Hon Julie Anne Genter: Will he commit to replacing the Public Transport Operating Model this term so that councils can ensure public transport services are operated for the public good of New Zealanders not just the private benefits of shareholders of private companies?Hon DAVID PARKER: I am not envisaging a substantial change to the operating model before the election.
10. Question No. 10—Commerce and Consumer AffairsHELEN WHITE (Labour) to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer AffairsQuestion No. 10—Commerce and Consumer Affairs10. HELEN WHITE (Labour) to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: What updates can he report about the New Zealand Claims Resolution Service?Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): The caseload of the New Zealand Claims Resolution Service has been steadily growing as people affected by the recent weather events turned to it for support. At the end of June the service had 972 open cases. In readiness for growth the service has taken on more case managers three of whom started work in June. Kiwis dealing with tricky insurance claims need support at this time and the New Zealand Claims Resolution Service is there to provide it.Helen White: How many households has the service been helping in the areas of recent extreme weather events?Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: With regard to the Auckland floods the service has 101 open cases and 222 cases it has already closed. In respect of Cyclone Gabrielle there are 150 open cases and 162 have been closed.Helen White: How satisfied have people been with the service they've received?Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: There's a very high level of satisfaction.Chris Bishop: Oh really?Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Well yes Mr Bishop and it's great that we can do this for New Zealanders who need help. There's a 90 percent satisfaction rate in the year to date.Hon Member: What?Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: I know—more than some on the other side of the House. Notably June had a 93 percent satisfaction rate. In the month before it was 100 percent. Homeowners have registered their thanks for the help and advice they've been given free of charge in this difficult time and I want to thank the team at the New Zealand Claims Resolution Service for the work they're doing in this space.Helen White: In what circumstances should people get in touch with the service?Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Anyone who's having difficulty with their insurance claim is free to turn to this service for help. For some people this is technical or legal advice. For others it may just be about feeling overwhelmed and needing assistance to navigate a tricky insurance pathway. Whatever the reason is if Kiwis have got stuck in their insurance claim they should look up the New Zealand Claims Resolution Service. It's free support: 0508 624 327 or nzcrs.govt.nz. Thank you Mr Speaker.
9. Question No. 9—CorrectionsTONI SEVERIN (ACT) to the Minister of CorrectionsQuestion No. 9—Corrections9. TONI SEVERIN (ACT) to the Minister of Corrections: Does he think it is acceptable that as at 31 May 2023 2191 sentenced prisoners had attended a rehabilitation programme during the 2022/2023 year 4140 fewer than attended rehabilitation programmes in the 2017/2018 year and how many sentenced prisoners attended a rehabilitation programme during June 2023?Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice) on behalf of the Minister of Corrections: There has been an anticipated reduction in the raw number of rehabilitation programme attends since 2017-18 as Corrections has refocused the rehabilitation programmes it runs. I can confirm that the number of attends has declined from 6588 to 2451 since 2017-18 as at the end of June. A significant proportion of this reduction comes from the 2019 discontinuation of just two alcohol and drug programmes that could each be completed in less than 24 hours. In reality these programmes were just too short to make a difference in offending but they did significantly pad the raw data statistics. There are also fewer people in prison and the department has been navigating the impacts of COVID-19 staffing challenges. I'm advised that in June 2023 666 sentenced prisoners attended a rehabilitation programme which is proportionately broadly in line with historic levels.Toni Severin: Why is it that as of 31 May 2023 only 1508 sentenced prisoners had successfully completed a rehabilitation programme in the 2022-23 year a decrease of 3993 compared to those who completed a programme in 2017-18?Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: There has been an expected decline in the raw number of rehabilitation programme starts and completes since 2017-18 as Corrections has refocused the rehabilitation programmes it runs by replacing those two high-volume but low-effectiveness programmes with more intensive programmes. They are rehabilitating a smaller prison population and of course they've been dealing with the impacts of COVID-19 and staffing challenges.Toni Severin: Why has the number of sentenced prisoners who successfully completed rehabilitation programmes decreased by over 63 percent and the number attending rehabilitation programmes decreased by over 65 percent on his watch?Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: On behalf of the Minister I refer to my previous answer.
7. Question No. 7—HealthMATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri) to the Minister of HealthQuestion No. 7—Health7. MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri) to the Minister of Health: Does she stand by all of her statements and actions in relation to the release of health data by Health New Zealand?Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister of Health): Yes in the context in which they were made.Matt Doocey: When she said yesterday that staff in her office had asked Health New Zealand to not release health data on 5 July because of other announcements which health data was she referring to and what were those other announcements?Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: The data was the data integrity review and clinical performance metrics report and there were a number of announcements made in the week of 5 July which included a large announcement on the health workforce on nursing placements on pay equity for midwives on pay equity for nurses and on one other which I will have to reply to that member on—and wait times for cataract surgery.Matt Doocey: Was the Prime Minister's office or any other Minister's office involved in the decision to request the delay of the health data to avoid a conflict with other announcements and if not when was the Prime Minister's office first informed of the delay?Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: Could the member please specify which delay he is referring to?SPEAKER: I'll give the member another go at the question.Matt Doocey: Thank you Mr Speaker. Was the Prime Minister's office or any other Minister's office involved in the decision to request the delay of the health data on 5 July to avoid a conflict with other announcements and if not when was the Prime Minister's office first informed of the delay?Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: No. The conversation was between my office and Te Whatu Ora and the Prime Minister's office would have been aware of this matter yesterday.Matt Doocey: Just to confirm there was no other Minister's office involved in the discussion or decision to request the delay of health data on 5 July?Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: No not that I'm aware of.Matt Doocey: Point of order Mr Speaker. I didn't actually hear that answer.SPEAKER: Can you repeat the answer?Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: No not that I'm aware of.Matt Doocey: On what other occasions if any has her office requested the release of public health data to be delayed?Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: None that I am aware of.Matt Doocey: When did she find out what she said yesterday was wrong in relation to her office's request that the release of health data be delayed and who told her?Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: A member of my office team—the one who had sent the message to Te Whatu Ora—at approximately 4.30 p.m. yesterday.
6. Question No. 6—ImmigrationCAMILLA BELICH (Labour) to the Minister of ImmigrationQuestion No. 6—Immigration6. CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) to the Minister of Immigration: What recent announcement has he made regarding working holiday visas?Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Immigration): Recently I announced a range of changes to the United Kingdom Working Holiday Visa scheme which entered into force on 31 May. This was the result of successful negotiations alongside the New Zealand - UK free-trade agreement and I acknowledge the work of my colleagues the Hon Damien O'Connor and indeed the Hon David Parker in that respect. Working holidaymakers from the UK will now be able to spend up to three years in New Zealand and will also be able to work for the full duration of their visas; previously they could work for only up to 12 months during the time they were here. The age limit has also been extended from 30 to 35 years old because being younger takes longer. These changes are reciprocal; New Zealanders at least up to the age of 35 will also be able to stay and work in the UK for an extra year. These changes underline the strength of the relationship New Zealand has with the UK and it's great that we're able to further enhance the people-to-people links our countries share.Camilla Belich: How many people are likely to benefit from these changes?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: We know that around 10000 people each year come to New Zealand from the UK under this scheme and thousands of New Zealanders take advantage of the equivalent scheme in the UK. Since the new settings were introduced just three weeks ago Immigration New Zealand has received over 850 applications and approved just under 470. There are also 3250 UK working holiday visa holders already in New Zealand who will be able to extend their stay thanks to the extension to the UK working holiday visa. To be clear: both those who are currently in the UK or New Zealand on a working holiday will be able to take advantage of these extensions as well.Camilla Belich: How will this help ensure businesses have the workforces they need?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: We know that working holiday visa holders play a vital role in our overall workforce particularly in the regions and in industries like horticulture and hospitality. Since the borders opened we've seen over 47500 people arrive here on working holiday visas—an impressive figure given the intense global competition for migrant labour at the moment and proof that we've been successful in reopening to the world. Particularly now it's vital we do all we can to ensure New Zealand is an attractive location for working holiday makers. Earlier this year we also announced an expansion of the Spain Working Holiday Visa scheme with the number of places increasing tenfold from 200 to 2000.Camilla Belich: Were these changes brought in on schedule?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I have to say no they were not brought in on schedule. I am however pleased to report to the House that they were in fact brought in well ahead of schedule so that we were able to support businesses and regions experiencing labour shortages as quickly as possible.
1. Question No. 1—HealthSORAYA PEKE-MASON (Labour) to the Minister of HealthORAL QUESTIONSQUESTIONS TO MINISTERSQuestion No. 1—Health1. SORAYA PEKE-MASON (Labour) to the Minister of Health: Tēnā koe e te Mana Whakawā. Te mea tuatahi e ngā mate e ngā anahera tapu haere haere haere atu rā ki te torōna o Ihowa o ngā mano. E mihi ana ki a koutou ngā mihi aroha ngā whānau pani. Tēnā koutou tēnā tātou katoa.[Thank you Mr Speaker. The first thing are the deceased the sacred angels go go go on to the throne of Jehovah of the multitudes. I acknowledge you an acknowledgment of compassion to the bereft families. Greetings to you greetings to all of us.]What announcements has the Government made about its long-term vision for the health of New Zealanders?Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister of Health): Can I briefly join colleagues in the House in expressing condolences to the families of the shooting victims and extend our recognition to the ambulance and hospital staff caring for the casualties. Last week the Government released the Pae Ora strategies and our long-term vision for health where all New Zealanders can live long and healthy lives and unfair differences in outcomes are a thing of the past. These strategies contain an ambitious vision. It requires new partnerships and a shared commitment to long-term action. The launch of the Pae Ora strategies is a significant milestone in the transformation of our health system. The strategies will help us create a health system that is equitable sustainable and responsive to the needs of New Zealanders.Soraya Peke-Mason: What population-specific strategies have been released?Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: The New Zealand health strategy addresses the health of all New Zealanders and sits alongside five population-specific strategies: the rural health strategy hauora Māori strategy the Pacific health strategy health of disabled people strategy and the women's health strategy. This is also the first time Pacific peoples women and rural communities have had their own health strategies.Soraya Peke-Mason: What impact will the strategies have?Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: The strategies will address underlying barriers which may have held back progress. They will give people whānau and communities greater control over decisions about their health and the design of services. Change of this scale will take time; however health isn't just a short-term outcome. These strategies provide the direction for lasting change.Soraya Peke-Mason: Why has the Government released Te Pae Ora strategies?Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: We've heard from New Zealanders that we need to end the one-size-fits-all approach to health services and focus on what people actually need. The old health system had become remote and detached. Pae Ora strategies and our wider health reforms are designed to tackle this and support greater community-driven participation over health service delivery.
Court Simon; Parker David; Salesa JennySIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you Madam Chair. Minister I want to come to clause 58 National planning framework must provide direction on certain matters". Now you've mentioned earlier that there are provisions under this part of the bill which essentially translate the concerns of the Infrastructure Commission into a set of provisions which enable infrastructure to be built in a quicker way and delivered in a more efficient way. I think Minister if I'm not misquoting you you might have stated at one point that this bill will enable infrastructure to be delivered quicker faster and cheaper or something along those lines. Well the Infrastructure Commission has pointed out that under the current consenting system it is costing $1.3 billion just to consent infrastructure in New Zealand every year. That's without building it or even putting up the silt fence or establishing the temporary sediment control pond.So Minister I'm interested in what clause 58 on the national planning framework—what direction would enable infrastructure and development corridors to be provided for? What direction would enable renewable electricity generation and its transmission to be provided for? Minister I want to ask you that in the context of the amendment that ACT proposed to clause 7—actually I'm just going to grab it here—of the bill which—in fact that's the wrong bill. We've got so many bills here—we've got so many bills here Minister. Basically if I was to paraphrase it the amendment that ACT proposed to clause 7 would allow for connection to the grid for smaller renewable generation to the local transmission network or the grid without having to go through all of the consenting frameworks. So Minister given that the national planning framework must provide direction on certain matters could you just enlighten us as to how that might work when it comes to enabling infrastructure and development corridors and enabling renewable electricity generation and its transmission so that the members here and those watching at home can watch Parliament suspend tonight at least having felt that we've achieved something. Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): I can confirm that the existing national direction in respect of transmission and renewable generation will be transitioned into the national planning framework as will the updated form of the national policy statement on renewable generation which is currently being consulted upon. In addition to that there are provisions relating to the encouragement of renewable electricity. In respect of the member's point as to electricity connected to local lines distribution rather than to the national grid there is a Minister's amendment to similar effect. We agree with the member on that point. CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members the time has come for me to leave the Chair. This sitting is suspended and we will resume the committee stage at 9 a.m. tomorrow morning. Pō mārie.Sitting suspended from 10 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Wednesday)"
Simpson Scott; Parker DavidHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you very much Madam Chair. I want to focus in on clause 44 on exemptions. Clause 44 Exemptions from environmental limits or minimum acceptable limits may be directed" provides for: "(1) The responsible Minister may on request direct in the national planning framework an exemption from—(a) an environmental limit relating to ecological integrity; or (b) a minimum acceptable target that has been achieved." Now my question to the Minister primarily around exemptions is: what will be the parameters of the granting of an exemption and as Minister what are the sorts of things that he will be looking for in a practical sense that might embolden him to—if he is requested—agree to an exemption on the basis of the other parts of clause 44? It strikes me that there is a reasonable likelihood that there will be requests for exemptions. It's obviously a clause that has been put into the legislation for practical reasons but I'm keen to know what the sweet point will be for the granting of an exemption once one has been requested what sorts of things will he as Minister for instance take into account and what assurances can he give that a future Minister might respond in the same manner or style that he might consider appropriate?It strikes me that as we've discussed in the previous parts in the bill the Minister has very wide powers under this legislation and this is another area where a framework has been put in place a set of time frames and other limits have been put in place and there are some targets and there are some mandatory minimums and so forth and yet here is an immediate out where if the request is made the Minister can create an exemption. So Minister if you could please just explain a little bit about how you see clause 44 working and what the considerations might be and that will include perhaps a discussion about clauses 45 and 46 as well. Thank you. Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): The member is correct that the essential features of an exemption are set out in clause 45. An exemption from a minimum limit must be designed with the least possible loss of ecological integrity and there are areas where an exemption can't be granted. When it is the Schedule 6 process for changing national direction must be followed."
Boyack RachelRACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): I move That the question be now put.
Court Simon; Parker DavidSIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you Madam Chair. Minister I want to come to clause 52A Protected customary rights may be exercised despite a limit or target". The ACT Party absolutely supports the right of iwi Māori and hapū to exercise their protected customary rights particularly those that have been recognised through Treaty settlements and where they have a role in managing the natural environment or in making decisions about natural resources because that has been agreed by Parliament as a solution to past historical wrongs grievances loss of land and loss of access to resources. But this is really interesting because this says that those rights may be exercised despite a limit or a target—I mean when you're trying to imagine how this piece of legislation might work in practice which many many people are many organisations are wondering "How on earth are we meant to operate under this new legislation after it may be passed in this term of Government?" Thinking about when it comes to the marine and coastal area what are those resources that might be covered by a limit or target Minister and how is a decision maker supposed to balance the needs of all of those people or organisations who might have themselves a right to access those resources which are covered under the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act? How are they supposed to have their rights for access protected for example where potentially they have a wharf or a port or a jetty or a boat ramp or some other feature in the coastal marine area which is impacted by the provisions of the Takutai Moana Act? So what the ACT Party is interested in is how would a decision maker be expected to balance where limits and targets are set that might unintentionally but excessively impact one group of resource users over another whose customary rights are protected? Isn't it the case that all humans exist on this planet Earth? Even in this bill at clause 13 we discussed previously in fact with the Minister in the chair at the time the Hon Rachel Brooking that all people have an obligation to protect the health of the environment. So how is it that when protecting the environment and expecting to uphold te Oranga o te Taiao there's one group of people whose customary rights are protected and another group of people who when a limit is set have to bear the weight of all the imposition of that limit? Minister would you describe how that is supposed to work in practice?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): I can confirm that all humans exist on this planet Earth. There is the occasional space cadet but they generally come back after a short period of time. In respect of the issue of customary rights under the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 there is a narrow set of unexpired customary rights and interests under that Act that are a pre-existing property right. They're not a resource consent; they are a communal property right. They're generally very narrow. For things like an area where you're entitled to launch a waka or collect tangi stones these are pretty narrow and those are not affected by either the Resource Management Act or the new Act."
Simpson Scott; Parker DavidHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you Madam Chair. I've followed the contribution of my colleague Simon Court with great interest particularly his references to Archey's frogs which are prevalent in debatable numbers in the Coromandel. Some say they are endangered and some say they are in a larger number. But while he was talking I particularly was thinking of Thames-Coromandel district councillor Robyn Sinclair who often refers to the skull of a duck being an issue that she is most often conscious of.But I want to come back to the actual legislation. There is a provision under clause 40B(3) which relates to the determination of a time frame for the responsible Minister or regional planning committee to consider any relevant matter". Now in the original bill that clause went on to say "including any cultural social wellbeing or economic considerations." Under the Minister's Supplementary Order Paper 389 the words "cultural social wellbeing or economic" appear to have been dropped and simply replaced with the wrap-all word "well-being". What I'm keen to know from the Minister is why that change has been made and particularly why the word "economic" has been dropped when determining time frames. I would have thought that that was a factor that should have been included—and yes wellbeing may well include that. But I think the clause actually had far better meaning and was more useful when the longer form matters including cultural social wellbeing or economic considerations were included. So if the Minister could advise why that truncation has been included and why particularly the word "economic" has been dropped from clause 40B(3) please? Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): It's because on page 65 of the bill "well-being" is defined to mean "the social economic environmental and cultural well-being of people and communities and includes their health and safety". So it's effectively just a technical correction."
Potaka Tama; Parker DavidTAMA POTAKA (National—Hamilton West): Just in relation to clause 35 in Part 3 Te Ture Whaimana"—which are remarkable sets of legislation to do with the Waikato and Waipā rivers—has there been any consideration given to the Te Papakura o Taranaki arrangements that are about to be settled with the various iwi of Taranaki and any future arrangements that may be curated in the Treaty settlement - scape in the event that other iwi or other organisations are set to have their settlement arrangements at an elevation higher than the national planning framework? Or is that going to be something that in the event there is an ongoing Labour-led Government they will not permit? Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): There are general propositions that are set out in other parts of the bill and not this part of the bill under which the Crown promises to uphold all Treaty settlements."
Simpson Scott; Parker DavidHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you Madam Chair. I'm just carrying on sort of a discussion on clause 38 Environmental limits" because I think the chair of the select committee raises some good questions. Particularly I'm interested in what happens where there are conflicts between limits and I'm thinking that maybe there could be situations where there's a conflict between coastal water and estuaries for instance. How are those conflicts or potential conflicts going to be managed? Secondly I'm keen to know from the Minister with reference to clause 38(2) which states "Environmental limits may be set for any other aspect of the natural environment in accordance with the purpose of environmental limits."—I'm interested to know what the Minister imagines could be included under clause 38(2): what they might be how they might be determined who decides and what the process is for inclusion of any other aspect of the natural environment in accordance with the purposes of the environmental limits. Thank you.Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): In respect of conflicts between or tensions between different national directions the national planning framework can provide direction on the resolution of conflicts about environmental matters including those between or among system outcomes and that's provided for in that clause 33(b). In respect of other environmental limits I'll take advice from the ministry before I respond to that."
Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): The management unit for the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management (NPSFM) is being protected so it's not re-litigated. So that management unit carries on into the first version of plans. In respect of the rules relating to the existing limits that we have in other national direction like air quality we're not proposing to change that in the first version of the national planning framework (NPF); we're just transitioning everything in as is. But there is work under way to the ministry to update that air standard in the future. In respect of estuaries again the first version of the NPF will just carry forward the NPSFM and it won't change that.
Sage EugenieHon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Thank you Madam Chair. I'm just continuing that discussion on environmental limits which are an important part of the bill and which the select committee did quite a lot of work on to strengthen them because of the concerns of submitters that it was locking in existing degradation. The bill requires minimum acceptable limits to be set if ecological integrity is unacceptably degraded and that environmental limit can be set in the national planning framework (NPF). I'm interested Minister in what work the Ministry for the Environment (MFE) has done to date around management units because the limits need to be identified in the management unit where the environmental limits might be set. We've seen recent coverage of the major air quality problems because of the industrial area in Mount Maunganui and dust is quite a significant issue there. We have national environmental standards for air quality which deal with the bigger particles—PM10—but not as I understand it the smaller particles—the PM2.5—which are more dangerous because they can get into the lungs. So in terms of those environmental domains that the Minister highlighted from clause 38 which of those is the ministry going to prioritise in terms of setting environmental limits recognising that a lot of those existing national policy direction and national environmental standards are going to come across—except when they're being reviewed—into the transitional NPF? So what work has MFE been doing on identifying management units what is the time frame for getting those identified and what out of those environmental domains is the ministry going to prioritise for setting new limits? The Minister mentioned sediment. Sediment is a major issue in the Hauraki Gulf. We continue to get a lot of sediment run-off from earthworks. Is the impact on coastal water and estuaries of sediment going to be one of those areas where there might be some strengthened limits?
Simpson Scott; Parker DavidHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you very much. That was a useful elevator pitch. I'm not sure though that an ordinary citizen going about their day-to-day life and work would necessarily still be any more informed as to the purpose of the planning framework. But still none the less it was a useful exposition. Clauses 37A 37B and 37C propose firstly minimum acceptable limits then clause 37B proposes the purpose of mandatory targets and then clause 37C proposes the purpose of discretionary targets. I'm interested to hear from the Minister about the rationale and practical application of those three clauses and what they might mean in real terms for someone for instance who wants to—I don't know—build some apartments in an urban environment or maybe a house in a rural environment and what those practical applications are in terms of the limits the targets and the standards. Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): The areas for which there must be environmental limits are set out at clause 38(1) and that's air indigenous biodiversity coastal water estuaries freshwater and soil. The rest are discretionary. In respect of what that might mean for someone building a house well probably not a lot unless you were building a house next to or in an estuary. If you were building a house next to an estuary and you were likely to have a disturbance to the land that would cause a lot of sediment to flow into the estuary you might breach a limit. But other than that I would have thought it's unlikely to have much effect on someone building a house.
Salesa Jenny; Parker DavidPart 3 National planning framework CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members we come now to Part 3. This is the debate on clauses 32 to 94 which is the National planning framework" including Schedule 6. The question is that Part 3 stand part. Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): I thought the committee might be interested to understand why clause 35 is in the bill. Clause 35 records that "Te Ture Whaimana is intended by Parliament to be the primary direction-setting document for the Waikato and Waipā Rivers and activities within their catchments" and you'll see that there's reference at subclause (3) to the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Act 2010 the Ngati Tuwharetoa Raukawa and Te Arawa River Iwi Waikato River Act 2010 and the Nga Wai o Maniapoto (Waipa River) Act 2012. Now all of those are Treaty settlements. All of those Treaty settlements were agreed by the last National-ACT Government and they include promises to Māori in respect of the national direction under the Resource Management Act (RMA) where the national direction under the RMA is not allowed to be inconsistent with Te Ture Whaimana which is a schedule to those agreements and which sets out the aspirations for the Waikato and Waipā rivers. So what that provision does is it carries forward the primacy of that. The principle that's been adopted by the Government in respect of all Treaty settlement obligations is that we are neither writing them up nor writing them down. We're just transitioning them into the new system like for like updated for the new processes under the new Act. I mention that because it's of considerable importance to those iwi that have those provisions in their Treaty settlements. There are other provisions in the schedules to the Act which we'll come to later that have more general promises by the Crown to uphold Treaty settlements."
Mooney Joseph; Parker DavidJOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you very much Madam Chair. Minister thank you for your answer before. I just want to clarify that point you made around clause 30ZZA and the Time frame for settling Mana Whakahono ā Rohe" which must be "not later than 12 months after the date on which the invitation is received". What happens if prior to that 12 months a dispute does arise between parties say with an overlapping area of interest—say two or more hapū or iwi—and then this mediation process has to happen?What happens to that provision that it must be "not later than 12 months"? Will that Mana Whakahono ā Rohe still have to be concluded not later than 12 months notwithstanding the dispute that hasn't been resolved or will that dispute have to be resolved and therefore they have the section 30ZZA specification of "not later than 12 months" become void to some degree?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Clause 30ZZD says that if a dispute arises amongst the participating authorities in the course of negotiating one of those agreements they "may undertake a binding process to resolve the dispute; but if they do not agree on a binding process [they] must undertake a non-binding process of dispute resolution.""
Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): In respect of the question around joint management agreements it's similar to the provisions found in the Resource Management Act at sections 36B and 36E so it's a carry-over of that—or similar to it.In respect of the question that Simon Watts has just asked around clause 30P of the bill—soon to be section 30P of the Act—discharges of sewage for example or stormwater are required to have a Resource Management Act consent now; in the future they will require a Natural and Built Environment Act consent for that discharge. So there's no change to that.In respect of the interface with the regulator the regulator can set minimum standards for the drinking water that comes out of a tap and they will but the permit to extract the water from a river for example that might then be treated to a standard that comes out of a tap has always been dealt with under the Resource Management Act and will continue to be dealt with under the replacement legislation.
Watts SimonSIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much Madam Chair. It's a pleasure to make a contribution in regards to this bill. I'm interested in particular around clause 30P Matters for which regional councils responsible". In regards to that clause in particular 30P(b)(iv) which is the aspects around discharges of water into water which is relevant in the context in terms of how this clause which is in regards to matters for which local authorities are responsible. I'm interested in the Minister's contribution in regards to how this interacts with the legislation which actually has quite a lot of similarities to this the three waters legislation and the Water Services Entities Act in particular. But I'm interested in regards to how that clause interacts with that other aspect of legislation in regards to this saying that these are matters for which regional councils are responsible for but obviously the water services entities now have responsibility for particular aspects around the discharge of water into water. Further to that subclause 30P(e)(i)(B) which relates to maintaining and enhancing the quality of water in the water body again has a significant overlay in regards to the water services entities roles. I guess the question there is around what the alignment is between these two aspects of the legislation that have to be considered in terms of the fact that the water services entities actually will be taking responsibility for that which are not regional councils. And where's the demarcation line in regards to those accountabilities and responsibilities lie—in regards to that? The enhancing of water quality in the water body will no doubt become part of the responsibility of Taumata Arowai which is the water quality regulator as well. Again not the role of regional councils. No doubt you know through the process that consideration would have been made but I'm interested around some clarity in that regard. Thank you."
Kuriger BarbaraBARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki-King Country): Thank you Madam Chair. I just want to go to clause 30ZB and ask the Minister if a local authority or regional planning committee receives a request for joint management if there's something that they see goes across border—must firstly notify the Minister" in subclause (1)(a) and then "(b) satisfy itself that each possible party to the proposed … agreement" does certain things—given the geography of our country and the 16 regional planning committees that the Minister talked about before how often does the Minister envisage having a Minister having requests in terms of people or organisations and groups wanting to cross borders? I'm just questioning whether it's seen that it may become an onerous task or maybe an occasional happening."
Potaka Tama; Parker David; Smith StuartTAMA POTAKA (National—Hamilton West): I just wanted to follow up the professorial comments regarding the vexed issue of Māori politics but in relation to Subpart 5 and the interaction that that has with clause 5(10) and clause 6(2) because the comment that was made is that there was an accommodation for iwi corporations trusts and every other man and his Māori through the National Māori Entity and the establishment of that. That's already drawn the ire of the Māori Freshwater Forum leaders. But the understanding when you interpret between clause 30 and the National Māori Entity and you revert back to clauses 3 4 5 and 6(2)—my understanding from the materials was there was a commitment to uphold the kawa and mana and tikanga of iwi and hapū. But now we're told actually the National Māori Entity is more about accommodating every man and his Māori. So I'd like to get a commitment from the Minister for the Environment that actually we are focused on the kawa and mana of iwi and hapū as espoused in those early clauses in Part 1 rather than some pan-tribal notion of what kawa and tikanga happen to be.Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): I believe I addressed that in my earlier comments.STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Well thank you Madam Chair. Minister for the Environment in 30T Minister of Conservation has certain powers of local authority" "(1) The Minister of Conservation—(a) has in respect of the coastal marine areas of the Kermadec Islands the Snares Islands the Bounty Islands the Antipodes Islands the Auckland Islands Campbell Island and the islands adjacent to Campbell Island the functions powers and duties that a regional council would have under this Act if those coastal marine areas were within the region of that regional council". Firstly is that the case under the current legislation? Secondly would this have any impact on a Kermadec sanctuary when the Government brings that bill to the House? Yeah that'd be great.Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Yes it is the case. It's found at section 31A of the Resource Management Act—it's a carry-over. There is no regional council that covers those areas therefore the regional council functions that affect those uninhabited islands fall to the Department of Conservation. And in respect of the Kermadecs were there to be a marine reserve in the areas around the Kermadecs I don't think that would affect the outcome of that."