edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
van de Molen TimTIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's a privilege to rise as the second to last speaker in this debate. The debate has been I think a very fulsome one. Can I start by acknowledging all those who have travelled here today from the Whakatōhea iwi to be a part of this momentous next step in the journey. It has been a long one and I think it's important to acknowledge—and we've heard from a number of speakers in this debate already—some of the challenges that have led to us being here today to be able to take this next step. It has been a difficult period and I think when we reflect back to the issue the brutal killing of Carl Völkner the brutal and devastating response from the Crown that had a crippling impact on Whakatōhea.These things have been a significant part of some of the most challenging periods in this country's history and it is appropriate that we address it. Whilst we can never fully compensate for that and there will always be difficulties and frustrations and upset and pain this can be seen as an opportunity to take the next step. That doesn't mean forgetting what has happened of course but indeed using that as a platform to help build the success for Whakatōhea into the future. I think that's what excites me the most about seeing the journey of these settlement bills as they come through the House; it's the opportunity that can provide to restore in part to help rebuild to help develop and create a better future for those iwi. Indeed in this situation in a beautiful part of the country I look forward to seeing that play out over the coming years. Of course we're going through this stage now the first reading here; we still have some way to go through the legislative process but we will be engaging in that in a collegial fashion. We will be looking to work together to get the best outcome possible.Now there are some aspects—one aspect in particular—that we will be examining more closely which is around the aquaculture aspect of the settlement which is a unique piece that we haven't seen before. It will be precedent setting so it will be important to make sure that we consider that and what the impacts of that will be and how that will play out in this situation. But we will do that in good faith and see how that aligns for the benefit of Whakatōhea and for everyone in that area. This is an important stage and we need to make sure we get it as best we can acknowledging of course as I myself and other speakers have said that it will never be perfect but there is an opportunity inherent in this and that I think puts the onus on us through all the challenge that has come before to now take up that opportunity and make it the best it possibly can be.So look we are looking forward to celebrating the passing of this at its first reading—that acknowledgment I suppose; a significant milestone of coming before this House as we take the next step on the journey to passing this legislation. We are very much engaged in that process. So Madam Speaker on that basis I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.
Rurawhe AdrianWHAKATŌHEA CLAIMS SETTLEMENT BILLFirst ReadingSPEAKER: Before I call the Hon Andrew Little can I ask members leaving the Chamber to do so quickly and quietly thank you.
Rurawhe AdrianPETITIONS PAPERS SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLSSPEAKER: A petition has been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.CLERK: Petition of Nola Blainey requesting that the House urge the Government to halt all Kāinga Ora social housing developments proposed for Kerikeri until a master and spatial plan has been completed.SPEAKER: That petition stands referred to the Petitions Committee. Ministers have delivered papers.CLERK: 2023-27 statements of intent for Heritage New Zealand Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa2023-24 statements of performance expectations for Creative New ZealandHeritage New ZealandMuseum of New Zealand Te Papa TongarewaNew Zealand Film Commission andNew Zealand Symphony Orchestra.SPEAKER: Those papers are published under the authority of the House. Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.CLERK: Reports of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on thebriefing on banks processes and consumer protections for scamsinquiry into the current and future nature impact and risks of cryptocurrenciesNew Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Controlling Interests) Amendment Billreport of the Controller and Auditor-General Co-ordination of the all-of-Government response to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020report of the Controller and Auditor-General Inland Revenue Department: Benefits Management for the Business Transformation Programmereport of the Governance and Administration Committee on the Statistics New Zealand Long-Term Insights Briefing 2023reports of the Health Committee on the petition of Associated Myalgic Encephalomyelitis Society Incorporated: Reclassification of ME/CFS to disabilitypetition of Tourette's Association New Zealand: Recognise Tourette Syndrome as a disabilityreport of the Māori Affairs Committee on the petition of Te Pāti Māori: Change our official name to Aotearoareports of the Social Services and Community Committee on the 2021-22 annual reviews ofthe New Zealand Symphony Orchestrathe Social Workers Registration Board and onthe Social Workers Registration Legislation Amendment Bill.SPEAKER: The bills are set down for second reading. The reports of the Controller and Auditor-General the inquiry and the long-term insights briefing are set down for consideration. The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of a bill.CLERK: Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill introduction.SPEAKER: That bill is set down for first reading.
Robertson Grant; Brown SimeonBUSINESS STATEMENTHon GRANT ROBERTSON (Leader of the House): Next week the Appropriation (2023/24 Estimates) Bill will receive a third reading. Other legislation to be considered will include further stages of the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill the Fuel Industry (Improving Fuel Resilience) Amendment Bill the Land Transport Management (Regulation of Public Transport) Amendment Bill the Land Transport (Road Safety) Amendment Bill the Legal Services Amendment Bill the Local Government Electoral Legislation Bill the Resale Right for Visual Artists Bill the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Community Participation) Amendment Bill the Taxation Principles Reporting Bill the Water Services Legislation Bill and the Water Services Economic Efficiency and Consumer Protection Bill. There will also be 11 valedictory statements next week.SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Will the House be in urgency again all of next week?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Leader of the House): Oh well the Government as I've just outlined has a very busy programme of work and we'll make decisions about those matters as we go. But if we continue to receive strong support from the Opposition as we did on the Taxation Principles Reporting Bill today we'll make excellent progress.
O'Connor GregTHURSDAY 17 AUGUST 2023The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.KARAKIA/PRAYERSGREG O'CONNOR (Deputy Speaker): 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 justice mercy and humility for the welfare and peace of New Zealand. Amen.
Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 5 to Minister
Parker DavidAMENDED ANSWERS TO ORAL QUESTIONSQuestion No. 5 to MinisterHon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Transport): Point of order. I seek leave to correct an answer.DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought. There is no objection.Hon DAVID PARKER: Out of an abundance of caution I've been advised to correct an answer that I gave in question No. 5 about local road speeds falling within the designation of Minister O'Connor. Because the final document hasn't been officially signed I'm advised that that should have been will" fall within the designation.DEPUTY SPEAKER: The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday 1 August 2023. Thank you for your sterling work this week ladies and gentlemen.The House adjourned at 6.02 p.m."
SpeechREPORT OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSECHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Mr Speaker the committee has further considered the Natural and Built Environment Bill and reports progress. I move That the report be adopted.Motion agreed to.Report adopted.
Bennett GlenGLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): I move That the question be now put.Motion agreed to.
Smith StuartSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): So the dumping and incineration in coastal marine areas—does that include wood fires on the beach? Because that's a coastal marine area and I'm not sure whether the Minister's aware but the American Environmental Protection Agency has just published a note stating that the wood smoke is 40 times more harmful than tobacco smoke in the same quantities. So it is actually a harmful harmful substance. I know that incineration of wood on the beach is quite common. People do get around the bonfire—they're breathing in the smoke not aware that they are inhaling smoke that is 40 times more harmful than tobacco smoke.
van Velden Brooke; Parker DavidBROOKE van VELDEN (ACT): Thank you Madam Chair. Look I'm really interested in the amendment on Supplementary Order Paper 389 at clause 857A when it talks about Regulations relating to dumping and incineration in coastal marine area". I know many of my colleagues have spoken about the wide-ranging powers that the Minister will have under this bill. However I'm really interested in understanding a little bit more about why this particular regulation-making power is restricted because it talks about how "The Governor-General may by Order in Council make regulations" to do with "deeming to be included in any plan rules that may apply generally or specifically" to do all of these things listed relating to waste and coastal permits. But then it goes on to say that "The Minister must not recommend the making of any regulations under" all of these sections unless they've consulted with the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Conservation and it's necessary to do a regulation because of obligations under international conventions protocols or to enable New Zealand to become party to an international convention or protocol or implementing an international practice or standard. And I'm quite curious as to why it's so specific that it's to do with international protocols and standards but not because the Minister themselves believes there is a need for a larger regulation.Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): I'm advised that that's in order to meet New Zealand's international obligations under MARPOL which is the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships."
Smith Stuart; Parker DavidSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you Madam Chair. So under clause 840(3) it says money spent"—I appreciate that the Minister just said it's a carry-over but that doesn't mean it's a good thing—but it says "Money spent or advanced by the Minister under this section must be paid out of money appropriated by Parliament for the purpose." Is it for that purpose specifically or is that out of the general appropriation? Because that sounds like it's quite specific in that clause and I doubt very much that it would be down to that level.Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): In respect of resource management reform there is an appropriation to fund that."
Simpson Scott; Parker DavidHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Without wanting to cast any aspersion upon your ruling we have been at this a long time and the enthusiasm for taking a call is maybe not as exciting as it was when we started this debate on Tuesday. However notwithstanding that thank you for the opportunity to speak. We are debating Part 12 which has—as my colleague Chris Penk made mention of when he was talking to the clause he was talking about—the alluring title of General provisions". And one of the more alluring general provisions under Part 12 is clause 840 and its alluringly titled "Minister may make grants and loans. And I am delighted to see that under clause 840(1) that "The Minister for the Environment may make grants or loans to any person to assist in achieving the purpose of this Act." I'd like to know on Chris Penk's behalf how he can apply for a loan or a grant because I think he would be a worthy candidate as would be probably Stuart Smith Ian McKelvie and Harete Hipango. So there are a number of people who might be able to take advantage of the general provision that entitles the Minister for the Environment to make grants or loans to any person to assist in achieving the purpose of that. That's actually a very wide provision. I'm not wishing to be too facetious but how does the Minister see this particular clause operating? It goes on in subclause (2) to say that "The Minister may impose terms and conditions on a grant or loan as the Minister thinks fit." And in subclause (3) "Money spent or advanced by the Minister under this section must be paid out of money appropriated by Parliament for the purpose." So that's a good thing. Presumably in future Budgets the Minister will envisage that there will be a line in future Budgets that he will have negotiated with a Minister of Finance and the line will say a provision for the Minister to make grants and loans. I kind of understand I think what the reason for it is but I'd be really happy for the Minister to maybe give us some background some insight as to why that is there and what it's all about and whether in fact that is an existing provision or a new provision. I'm not familiar enough with this particular clause to know whether it's new or whether it's existing from the existing Resource Management Act. One of the criticisms of this legislation is that it gives the Minister a very wide range of powers. And we think on this side of the House that maybe some of those powers and responsibilities given to the particular Minister for the Environment on any given day or week or parliamentary term are probably too wide. But I'm interested particularly in this one about giving the Minister the ability to grant loans and funding.Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): It's a carry-over of the same provision under the Resource Management Act. An example of where it might be used in the new system is to assist the first-tranche regions in their transition into the new regime."
Severin Toni; Parker DavidTONI SEVERIN (ACT): Thank you Madam Chair. I was just reading through again around the planned reviews and it's clause 839D Duty of local authorities to report." It's saying every threeyear cycle. Now as you know we have a lot of changes going on and needing a lot of land. Then I go further down through to clause 839G: 9-yearly plans as well. Do you think that this time frame is short enough or too long for us to be able to plan in advance for the needs?As we're saying the difference between Auckland and Invercargill—where I originate from—and Christchurch. We've all got so many different things going on in these different regions and different requirements and whether or not three years and nine years for the future looking is significant enough—especially when we have got a shortage of land getting built on as well as being able to build these properties. Also to see if things have been pulled out of that circulation as well because we've found something's wrong due to an adverse event and so forth and they have to look at replanning. Is that enough time or is it too short of a time for them to actually be able to be more fluent to be able to keep up with demand?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Look I think the sort of wholesale review of the plans every decade or so is about right. But I also think that every three years the duly elected councils should be able to tell the regional planning committee what they think their priorities are for things that need more attention."
Penk Chris; Parker David; Dean JacquiCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you Madam Chair. My question relates to the clause alluringly entitled in alluring fashion—should've done it that way round in the first place shouldn't I?—the word just simply Repeal" 860: when the Minister in the chair David Parker reads the words "The Resource Management Act 1991 … is repealed." how does he feel inside?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Well I would say that this Government has done what prior Governments promised they'd do but never did.CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you Madam Chair. Quick supplementary question: how does the Minister now feel to know that he is proposing to replace the worst statute on the statute book with one that is even worse?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Well if I thought that that were true I wouldn't be bringing this legislation to the House. It's undoubtedly not true as proven by the fact that plans go down from over 100 to 18 plan formation times drop from about 10 years to four permitted activities increase land markets are improved and cost savings to users are estimated to be many hundreds of millions of dollars each year in addition to the economic savings of avoided delay.Glen Bennett: Madam Chair—Madam Chair.Toni Severin: Madam Chair.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Yeah thank you.Toni Severin: Thank you Madam Chair. I—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): No no. No. Sorry I haven't quite called you. I was just thanking the member in front of you for their assistance. I'm listening very carefully to contributions. While I still hear new questions and new material and members are showing great enthusiasm to take a call then that is fine. But I'm also aware that this bill has been under consideration by the committee for quite some time—as huge as it is. So with those few words I call Toni Severin."
Simpson Scott; Parker DavidHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): A new part of the legislation that hasn't been brought over from the existing resource management legislative framework is clause 839C Regional monitoring and reporting strategies". This is a clause that requires one of the newly established—well probably won't ever be; given an opportunity they won't be established! But anyway hypothetically "A regional planning committee must prepare a regional monitoring and reporting strategy to describe how the local authorities in its region are to carry out their monitoring functions under this Part." Then subclause (2) of that clause goes on to include the essential components of what that regional monitoring and reporting strategy needs to include.My question to the Minister is: how can we be sure that these requirements to provide regional monitoring and reporting strategies are going to be similar in the different regional planning committee territories? I think one of the stated goals and objectives of this legislation is to try and get things more standardised not necessarily an identical template every year but to have a smoother faster process. And it just strikes me that if regional planning committees are required to prepare their own regional monitoring and reporting strategies and then insist on the local authorities that operate within the area of a regional planning committee the potential for having regional differences and disparities is actually quite high. For instance it could be that the regional planning committee in the central North Island is going to have a different set of monitoring and reporting strategy requirements of their local authorities to one perhaps in the deep south of Southland and that area.So I'm interested from the Minister if he could let us know: does he envisage that regional planning committees will have largely similar or near identical requirements of this sort so that individual local authorities within a region might be similarly the same? Because I can envisage a situation where potentially local authorities in some regions might face and be tasked with far more onerous regional monitoring and reporting requirements than in other parts of the country. If that was to be the case I'm not sure that that would actually go very far to achieving the overall objectives that the bill seeks to achieve.Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): There are a number of ways that could be done. It could be through informal guidance from the Ministry for the Environment. It would also be possible too under the provisions of the Act to set out a way in which that reporting had to be done in a way that is consistent. That's not to say the priorities might not be different from one part to the other. For example the Southland region doesn't have the same housing pressures that Auckland does. Housing supply is a bigger issue to address in Auckland than it is in Southland and accordingly you'd expect there'd to be more focus in the monitoring function there to make sure that they'd made enough land available to build houses in Auckland. It would be a bigger issue than that same issue in Southland."
Severin Toni; Parker DavidTONI SEVERIN (ACT): Thank you Madam Chair. I'm now just going to System performance and monitoring" clause 837 around "Reporting". I was reading here that once we get the Spatial Planning Act 2022 involved with this as well there's going to be reporting every six years. So I'm assuming—because this is not my bill but to clarify for me who like many other people may be wanting to build something in the future—that every six years that the chief executive is going to submit and respond to Ministers with a report and I'm assuming it's the efficiency and operation of how these bills are working together to get things moving a lot quicker around building and so forth. I could be completely wrong but I'd just like it all clarified because the thing is six years is also a very long time so I was wondering if there are interim reports that are going to be showing up if there's anything in particular that's going to be a problem or if there's something that is good that we could move a bit faster especially when we want to build more houses and we need to know if there are going to be problems—especially with this new bill which is a complete replacement to the Resource Management Act even though some pieces have been placed in there. There's going to be a time of confusion for a lot of people but I would hope that there would be some form of early monitoring to pick up any problems or any good things that are occurring already in these bills.Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Yes there will be. That will in part be through the lessons learned of the first-tranche regions into the new system. The funding of that transition is assisted by central government to make sure that we have good quality first-round plans and that we run efficient processes and the lessons learned will be carried forward into subsequent processes. It's one of the lessons from implementation of the Resource Management Act where that wasn't done and they had two systems running side by side very inefficiently."
Severin Toni; Parker DavidTONI SEVERIN (ACT): Thank you Madam Chair. Just going to clause 821: Administrative charges and additional charges (1) A local authority must fix fees or charges (administrative charges) payable in respect of the following functions performed under this Act: (a) receiving processing and granting any certificate authority approval permit or consent: (b) carrying out any inspection monitoring" and we go on right through. Now the question I've got around here is is this bill going to make it cheaper for people to be actually able to get their consents and able to get their certificates? Because to build these days the cost is just going up and up. So is this bill the Natural and Built Environment Bill actually going to speed up this process and have our fees come down? So when we are applying for this process so that we can get our certificates and permits and consents will this add more red tape and councils will have to add more to their fees to be able to cover additional staffing to go through the new Natural and Built Environment Bill as well as I believe the Spatial Planning Bill which is connected with it? Because to me it seems that it's going to actually add more compliance and more cost for the average person that needs to get consents to be able to afford around this bill.Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): That's largely a carry-over of the existing provisions because the existing system is a user-pays system. Although it does slightly change in respect of the monitoring of permitted activities. But the new system has been modelled and those assessments have been independently verified and many hundreds of millions of dollars will be saved by applicants in the system every year. And that's actually just process cost savings to applicants. They are in part because there will be a lot more permitted activities under the new system. Activities envisaged through a spatial plan coming through a Natural and Built Environment Act plan might be quite significant like a new area opened up for subdivision and associated roads and hospitals and police stations all of which could be permitted activities whereas currently it would be very unlikely that they would be.In addition to that the ways in which plans are changed are much more efficient. The time to change a plan will change from often 10 years down to a four-year maximum and there'll be savings there too. So every dollar spent in the new system is estimated to be saving users $2.58 to $4.90 at the mid-range estimate but they total hundreds of millions of dollars each year."
Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Thank you. In terms of repeated requests for information I know what that feels like. Hey look this here is one of the most practical things in this bill which for 20 years has bedevilled the current system. I get repeated complaints from councils from applicants complaining that they don't know who they should be dealing with in respect of issues that affect Māori interests.At the moment there is a list maintained by the Crown through Te Puni Kōkiri (TPK) of iwi hapū and other Māori interests in an area. But it's not a code so people can use that list maintained by the Crown and then someone can second-guess it and say I should have been on that list. You haven't done it properly." and then injunct the process. This does happen. It sometimes happens very late in the process and sometimes the delays that are occasioned by this cause cost increases through the delay that total hundreds of millions of dollars. This is a big issue.Now speaking to my Māori colleagues within the Labour Party they recognise this and they agree that no one wants that inefficiency—no one. So we are doing what with respect the prior Government over nine years didn't which is we're making the TPK list a code. So if an applicant or a council wants to know who they should deal with in a certain area what iwi hapū other Māori interests—this is covered at clause 819(2)—They can actually go to the list that the Crown has to maintain and they can rely upon it.Now that list might change for the future—next time someone accesses it—but at the time it is accessed and relied upon it is a code and can't be second-guessed. So this is a very very important; very simple; very practical improvement to the system."
Penk Chris; Parker DavidCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much Mr Chair. I should actually rise to acknowledge for the record that the Minister is correct. In my defence I hadn't read the schedule which is not really a defence so much as a guilty plea I suppose if anything. But in my defence it is pretty long but of course the Minister is right. I would note however that in relation to the way that those emergency provisions have been set out in this bill—and I flipped back a couple of pages to clause 854 Emergency response regulations"—I hope it is the case that they have learnt the lessons from Cyclone Gabrielle and other recent weather events. I'm conscious that the gestation of this bill has been long. Certainly you know it starts pre-dating—including the expert panel that pre-dated the drafting or the passage of the legislation itself. And so no doubt it was compiled including in this section long before we knew of Gabrielle in the context of that wretched cyclone that's wrought so much havoc. So if the Minister can please assure us that the lessons learnt from that and the ability to respond have been captured in the emergency response regulations in addition of course to previous events such as Canterbury earthquakes Kaikōura earthquakes and so on that would be very helpful indeed.Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Although clause 854 does contemplate some emergency response regulations being able to be made they would not be nearly as broad in scope as those enabled by the response to Cyclone Gabrielle which are "Henry VIII" writ large. I would just draw the attention of the committee also to a late Supplementary Order Paper to Schedule 15 of this part and I'm advised that this is necessary. There are already amendments in the Supplementary Order Papers before us to slightly change the way in which the farm planning regime works which is transitioned into this Act in an improved form. And this amendment makes it clear that that same amendment is made to the same provisions under the Resource Management Act."
Severin Toni; Parker DavidTONI SEVERIN (ACT): Thank you Mr Chair. Minister I'm just reading through here on clause 811 Vesting of reclaimed land." Now this is a big issue that we've had around Christchurch especially around the Avon River. After the quake there was a lot of land that had been built on that had been reclaimed and so forth. Now I noticed through here that those that feel that they are vested and the person owns that land they have to Gazette it. The thing is that the majority of people wouldn't know what gazetting actually means and how to get that information. As we're saying especially around the riverbed and lake bed and especially with reclaimed land and with natural disasters that we have these places are more prone to actually flood or liquefaction which is a new term that everybody in Christchurch now loves. This is the other thing: there was also the unlawful reclaimed land because I know that there was also—where these subdivisions had been there was a bit of dispute with the Environment Court versus also council giving consent around this. This is I think a huge concern and making sure that people do actually understand where they can possibly get this information—I know from the Minister for Land Information but just sometimes the Gazette notice if there are other people involved they may not realise how to get that information. You'd hope lawyers and so forth would inform people that are possibly going to be involved with these reclaimed lake beds or riverbeds. Areas that have had water receding from and they're now building on which I hope they're not—learn from previous experiences. But just clarify for those that are listening out there what a Gazette notice actually really means because unless you've been involved with Parliament most people wouldn't know what that means.Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Thank you. This deals only with riverbeds or lake beds not areas of the foreshore and seabed or what's called the coastal marine area—that's not covered by this. It's only reclaimed land that might formerly have been a riverbed or lake bed. In that situation as the member points out yes if there is a title to be granted to that land there has to be a process to convert that from land that someone doesn't own to being land which is owned by someone. That clause says that it's the Minister for Land Information that makes that and the action that does that is a notice in the Gazette. But you'll see that before the Crown does that the Crown determines whether an appropriate price has been paid by that person. Because you know until that time really the Crown is the custodian of that land on behalf of all people. That is essentially a carry-on from the existing provision clause 355 of the Resource Management Act."
O'Connor Greg; Parker DavidPart 12 General provisionsCHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Members we come now to Part 12. This is the debate on clauses 803 to 861—general provisions—including Schedules 13 14A and 15. The question is that Part 12 stand part. Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Responding to the earlier question of Stuart Smith on clause 807 about the service on ships. Of course it's pretty hard to catch up on a ship if it's been away from port for a day or two. It's unreasonable to expect someone to chase it and clamber up the side of a moving ship with a grappling hook so as to serve the ship with a process or a document. So that's what clause 807 says. It sets out different ways in which that can be done either through serving on the agent of a ship—normally a ship does have an agent. I don't know whether they're a stevedore or whether they have someone who they act through locally to employ wharfies and the like when they unload the ship. And in addition to that there's some flexibility built in by subclause 3 of being able to apply to the District Court who might allow the service procedures set out in the Criminal Procedure Act to apply.
Severin Toni; Parker DavidTONI SEVERIN (ACT): Thank you Mr Chair. It's about excess noise—clause 714. Coming from Christchurch we've had a little bit of a problem where we've got existing events places pubs and now we've got a whole lot of new rebuilds occurring. A lot of these people are realising that they've built their new homes or have ended up buying an apartment close to the excess noise.I know this is back to councils on that but the thing is that these people have built these houses near these bars or excess noise or new subdivisions closer to the airport but then they come back and they're complaining about the noise that these places have. The thing is it's really hard because we want to build more houses but it doesn't help if these are built in areas where these people are going to see that there's excess noise and how this could be circumvented before we end up having all these complaints coming through to the council saying Oh look you allowed X Y Z to be built here but we already had these places built 10 or 20 years ago."It's been a huge issue especially downtown because we want to revitalise that Christchurch downtown but people are not prepared to put up with this noise. To me this here it's not combatting to say "Yeah you've got excess noise" but what happens if you buy something—what's the recourse of them saying "It's your onus. It's on your onus. You bought that property that bar or event place is just there even though it's a new build." So that's about the excess noise because it's happening a lot.Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Fair points that the member Toni Severin raises. It can't all be planned for in advance because circumstances change over time but I do agree as does the statute at clause 714(1). It says: if the noise is excessive it has to be unreasonable. What is unreasonable depends upon the circumstances. Obviously the noise that you would expect at night in the middle of an industrial suburb would be different to in the middle of a residential A zone. Similarly the noise that you have to put up with if you're living in a rural area that has a lot of cherries being grown includes bird guns and you can't shut down bird guns just because you move in next door and subdivide the land.Having said that if the whole area eventually turns into residential what used to be acceptable—you know the standards change. It is a thing that worries the likes of airports. Airports if there are subdivisions too close to them suffer what are called reverse sensitivity effects. Those sorts of things are required to be taken into account under the statute so as to protect the operation of infrastructure like airports."
Smith StuartSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Oh thank you Mr Chair. Wise choice. Clause 807 Mode of service of summons on master or owner of [a] ship". It goes on in (1) to say that "if it is delivered personally to [an] agent of the ship on behalf of the defendant or is brought to the notice of the agent if the agent refuses to accept it on behalf of the defendant; or if it is sent to the agent of the ship by [a] registered letter addressed to"—etc. But it may not have an agent and what defines a "ship"? Because does that include—people live on boats and I don't know where the line is drawn between "boat" and "ship" but it doesn't seem to be—CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): I think the member's getting ahead of himself. Think this is Part 12 you're looking at are you not?STUART SMITH: No I'm not. Oh am I? Oh hell I am too. Sorry. In my enthusiasm I turned too many pages.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Well we could get there as soon as he would like."
Severin Toni; Parker DavidTONI SEVERIN (ACT): Thank you Mr Chair. I'm just looking through this and I was just reading through the abatement notices and I came across the cancellation of abatement notices. Now I'm assuming that they'd only be cancelled once the person or company has achieved what they have had that notice on before they're cancelled because it doesn't actually say that here. I might be misreading it but it doesn't actually say that they have achieved what's in the notice that has been put on them. Would that be correct—that they would have to go through whatever the notices had to be able to get that notice of abatement removed before the cancellation occurred?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): I would say that's normally the case but I could also contemplate the possibility that an abatement notice is given to a company rather than a real person and the company might go into liquidation and have no ability to do anything in terms of the abatement notice. I can imagine in that circumstance even though the abatement notice hadn't been adhered to eventually it might be cancelled.
Smith Stuart; Parker DavidSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Oh well thank you Mr Chair. I wouldn't mind if you used the Hon" bit. That would be fine.Hon Scott Simpson: Soon!STUART SMITH: Ha ha! Soon. Clause 716A "Water shortage direction" Minister—particularly "(2) A direction may relate to any specified water to water in any specified area or to water in any specified water body." and "(3) A direction may not last for more than 14 days". I don't see anything in here that requires that direction to be hierarchical. So you could foresee Minister a situation where those with different water-take consents—for example some with a primary consent so that they can go to A-class water. Depending on what the class situation is on those consents you would not expect they would have to go off at the same time as say a B or C class water-take and there doesn't seem to be any direction at all for a hierarchical approach to be taken. Am I understanding that correctly?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): No I don't think so. With respect I'm informed that that is a carry-over from the Resource Management Act (RMA) section. So if the local council in the way they deal with water shortages is to put some people off first that will continue to apply. I know that as a matter of fact it depends sometimes on the nature of the water consents. Sometimes if they're old pre-RMA deemed permits they prevail over RMA water permits. I would also note one other important change in this part of the bill: until now as a matter of general legal proposition you can't insure against criminal penalties. So I can't get an insurance company to pay my traffic fines or cover me if I do something in breach of the criminal code. That is a matter of public policy; you can't take insurance against that. Until now you've been able to insure against Environment Court fines and some people have—and they've deliberately paid an insurance premium rather than the fine—so that is made illegal by this part of the bill."
Simpson Scott; Parker DavidHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you. Same initials—it's all right. It's not the first time.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): You're not even sitting together this time!Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: Ha ha! Mr Chair your good humour is appreciated as well. But I think it's worth teasing out this point because these are practical real situations that occur in New Zealand sometimes at the hand of large international corporates. I think the Minister makes a useful point but surely shouldn't it be that there should be some kind of legislative regulatory control or ability to put into effect responsibility for the primary polluter having responsibility for the toxic waste that they may generate rather than just relying on a bully pulpit response from our Parliament?Notwithstanding that the bully pulpit may be effective but wouldn't it be better to somehow try and create a legal framework and maybe within this art of the bill could have been an opportunity to have attempted to do that. If this part of the bill can't do that is there another part of the bill that could or should and was that kind of prospect considered by officials or the Minister in his consideration of this Part of the bill?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): When I said Rio Tinto before I should have said the New Zealand aluminium company of which the majority shareholder is Rio Tinto. Look I'm not going to go much further into that instance because it is very complex because some of the things that happened way back when down there were actually permitted activities and were legal. So you've got to be careful to distinguish between what happened when and what was the legal status of things when it happened.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The Hon Scott Simpson. This is short sharp questions to the Minister and back.Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): The short sharp question is notwithstanding historic cases why couldn't we have put into this legislation something that would prevent future cases?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Well the polluter pays" principle is enshrined in this legislation and so you would expect that if in the future someone sought a resource consent—and you would need it for something as complex as a large smelter—the conditions of that resource consent would apply the "polluter pays" principle and require them to take financial responsibility for the hazardous substances produced as a consequence of their industrial process."
Simpson Scott; Parker DavidHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you Mr Chair. Can I just say that I'm very much appreciating the Minister for the Environment's willingness to engage on the detail of this stuff. It's really helpful and it's an indication of I think a good committee of the whole House process and he's been very patient and very generous with his explanationsBut I want to come back to this clause 718. Before the Minister's earlier explanation I for one hadn't actually fully understood I think the potential impact of that change. So I want to just think for a minute and if the Minister can maybe give us an interpretation. How would this clause 718 the Monetary benefit orders" help in a case for instance like that that occurred at Mataura after the aluminium smelter sent toxic aluminium waste to a third party and then the third party shipped it to the Mataura—well the storage place close to the Mataura River which occasionally floods. This toxic waste had the potential for causing great damage if it got wet.The ability then for the principal polluter to then essentially subcontract out responsibility for the waste to an entity that may subsequently become insolvent or unable to meet demands and the bad stuff is still there—what is then the nexus and causal responsibility of the original polluter notwithstanding that they had legally attempted to contract out of their responsibility for the ultimate safe disposal of that waste? Does this clause cover that situation where there is a chain of commercial transactions each one potentially negating further and diluting further the legal responsibility of each entity as that progresses through the commercial chain? Does this clause meet that kind of situation?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Look I actually don't think it would in that—I was also involved in that particular instance. It might apply if the storer of the material had taken money from the smelter to store and dispose of it properly and then took the money and didn't do the job. Then you might get an order against the company or the person that was the contractor that didn't do what they were meant to do but I don't think you'd get a monetary order under the smelter in respect of that.There might be other remedies against the smelter for not properly taking care of their materials but that would be dependent upon the facts. In actual fact what caused the smelter to take responsibility for that was what in America they call the "bully pulpit" because we publicised through this Parliament the poor behaviour of Rio Tinto in that case and it was reported in The Guardian and came to the attention of the audit committee of Rio Tinto and then they paid attention and started to take responsibility for the problem.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Honourable Stuart Smith—sorry the Hon Scott Simpson."
Kuriger Barbara; Parker DavidBARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki-King Country): Thank you Mr Chair. I've just got a question on clause 732(1) on page 573 where it says An NBE regulator may require a person undertaking a particular activity to provide a financial assurance." My question around that is that one of the three really big things that came up when we were taking submissions on this was the term of consent and the 10-year consenting—and I know it's a topic that's come up several times before. One of the points that was always made was that if the consenting process was too short then the project may be viable on a longer term but you wouldn't get the bank to be able to fund it on a shorter term. So I just want to test the Minister for the Environment's understanding I guess on how this clause with any shortened consenting may affect people's ability to get financial assurance.Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Look I don't think that this would impact upon that; I think that's an unrelated issue which has been partially addressed by amendments that have been made. But this relates to the term of bonds. These are effectively financial guarantees that have been provided by someone when they're going to do something that's risky for the environment. Again we've had real examples where bonds haven't been taken and taxpayers have been left with bills sometimes of $100 million in respect—and this is a recent occurrence—of the remediation of some of the former oilfields in the Taranaki basin where the corporate has left a mess behind that the company has been insolvent and we've been left with no one to pay the bill and it's fallen to taxpayers."