Natural Environment Bill
Yes, thank you, Madam Chair—that seems like a fair assessment. I’m just going to take a very short call here; I’ve had some more substantive calls. I’m going to go to Schedule 6, but we’ve had some conversation on Schedule 1, and Schedule 1 incorporates Schedule 11 of the Planning Bill. There were quite a lot of amendments to Schedule 11 of the Planning Bill that directly affect these issues in the Natural Environment Bill. Other speakers may have contributions to make about that; I think I’ve done my dash.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): That’s fine—just make sure I know what page you’re on, because you know this better than I do.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Yes, and I’m not there yet, but I will get there now. So Schedule 6 is at page 331, and it’s just a simple question to the member in the chair, Simon Court: this list of statutory acknowledgments—and I think it’s the same list that is in the Planning Bill as well—is it curtailed at all? Are there ones missing, and if so, why? Why are they missing, is my question.
To the member the Hon Rachel Brooking, it’s the same list as in the Planning Bill.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Speaking to that schedule, the bill does seem to draw directly on the schedule that is also appended to the Planning Bill, as the member in the chair, Simon Court, has said, but there are different considerations for the natural environment that are recorded in arrangements with iwi organisations. For example, the Tāmaki Makaurau settlement bill, which settles all 19 iwi and has statutory acknowledgments which are only about the natural character and the outstanding character of, say, the Tūpuna Maunga in Auckland and the Hauraki Gulf, are not planning considerations in nature. They have been left out of the Planning Bill, but it does not make sense to not include them in the schedule for the Natural Environment Bill when they will be directly engaged. Things like the Ruapehu settlements, things like the Aoraki Matatū maunga that is a schedulised part of the Ngā Tahu Claims Settlement Act, which is a 1996 Act, are much more similar to the Te Ture Whaimana arrangements, which have been agreed and lifted up to the primary legislation.
The question is not just about the cultural commitments that have been included in Schedule 1 and not just the commercial considerations, which are also in Schedule 11, but about those arrangements which are unique in nature, that exist, that are not planning instruments, that are about outstanding natural landscapes and are about the way that natural environment—say, visual amenity—will be included in a community’s regional plan. Those have not been included in the Natural Environment Bill because it has just been lifted from the Planning Bill.
So the question really for the member in the chair is: what else is missing? Did he consider, and was he advised on, the difference between just including this core group of arrangements which are purely planning arrangements? Was there a larger list that he looked at and struck out?
For the member Arena Williams’ benefit, yes, the Minister and I did take advice and consider it at length. The reasons why certain Treaty settlements should be specifically referred to in the bill, such as the Waikato River settlement, and why others which were less complex could essentially be resolved were the Crown has obligations to uphold Treaty settlement redress to the greatest extent possible—and we’ve provided time frames for that. It’s set out in clauses 9 and 10.
Thank you, Madam Chair. At the very close of the discussion before the break, we were talking about Te Ture Whaimana in Part 10. And there’s a specific question regarding that because, as the Minister articulated and acknowledged, the tension in the pausing of PC1—Plan Change 1.
My question is: given that Te Ture Whaimana is the vision and strategy for the Waikato and Waipā Rivers, which is legally entrenched for the Waikato and Waipā Rivers through the Treaty settlement legislation, including the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Act 2010 and the Nga Wai o Maniapoto (Waipa River) Act 2012—the Waikato River Authority was established through legislation as an independent statutory body to be the custodian of Te Ture Whaimana. It’s particularly crucial because the Crown has made a statutory settlement commitment relating to the rivers, including commitments that Te Ture Whaimana be given effect through the regional planning framework.
So the question is: how is it possible to give effect to that Treaty settlement while pausing Plan Change 1, which is the regulatory pathway developed to give effect to Te Ture Whaimana? And what assessment has the Government taken on the impact on that Treaty settlement, and what certainty does the Government have that it is not a breach of the Treaty settlement to stop the regulatory pathway for effecting Te Ture Whaimana?
Now, of course, the key issue here is that in the legislation, this section of it has the appearance of giving with one hand and taking away with the other, and that is certainly the way that it’s interpreted by Waikato-Tainui.
Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s always wonderful when a self-appointed spokesperson for iwi Māori turns up in the Chamber.
Steve Abel: Point of order, Madam Speaker.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Point of order, Steve Abel. I know what the point of order is going to be, and I don’t think that was a fair response, Simon Court. So I ask you—
Steve Abel: I am certainly not appointed as a spokesperson for Waikato-Tainui. We have had direct correspondence with Waikato-Tainui, and they appreciate any member of the House raising their profound concerns with this issue.
SIMON COURT: I’ll respond to the member’s question.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Simon Court.
SIMON COURT: The legislation’s very clear. We’ve covered extensively in discussion on exactly the same mirrored clause of the Planning Bill that Te Ture Whaimana is intended by Parliament to be the primary direction-setting document for the Waikato and Waipā Rivers and so on, and it has the same effect in the new system.
The member raised a question: what about Plan Change 1 (PC1)? In the legislation, it says that when the Waikato is making a new plan, plan-makers, decision-makers will have regard to PC1. But we’re also clear: there’s a new system. We have concepts like environmental limits, and so, of course, when a new plan is created, Te Ture Whaimana will continue to be the primary direction-setting document for the Waikato and Waipā Rivers. It will be in the context of the new system.
That’s because this Government is very clear: we seek to have a system which provides transparency, particularly around the trade-offs for setting environmental limits, whether it’s fresh water or other domains; whereas currently, there is very little transparency. When an ecological limit or bottom line or standard is proposed by council and then adopted, it’s not clear whether trade-offs around economic prosperity, around social values, around community values have actually been taken into account.
Te Ture Whaimana is intended by Parliament to be the primary direction-setting document for the Waikato and Waipā Rivers. Decision makers will have to have regard to Plan Change 1 and that’s also in the context of the new system.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’m going to take a supplementary from Steve Abel, but I will warn we’re getting very close to the end of this part, to all members. And I just want questions.
You will recall, Madam Chair, a very specific part of my first question was what assessment the Government had made as to the risk to a Treaty breach the pausing of Plan Change 1 would be, given its vital necessity in fulfilling the obligations of Te Ture Whaimana, being it is the regulatory pathway to fulfilling that Treaty obligation. So it’s just asking the member in the chair, Simon Court, to clarify what evaluations and what advice has he received on the risk to a Treaty breach of the pausing of Plan Change 1.
I thank the member Steve Abel for the question. During the course of developing policy and taking decisions, Minister Bishop and I have had extensive advice on a range of matters, including the Crown’s obligations to Māori, including the Crown’s obligations to iwi who have a Treaty settlement with the Crown, and on how to make sure that to the greatest extent possible, we continue to give effect to the settlements. So I can assure the member that we have had extensive advice.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The only other person that was on her feet in the last call was Arena Williams. And I’ll take a question only, not a speech.
Yup, questions about clause 10B, inserted by Amendment Paper 710, at page 44. I want to ask the member in the chair, Simon Court, about the Te Arawa Lakes settlement and the regulations under it—that is a 2006 settlement. I think what’s happening with (c) and its insertion alongside the completely new insertion here, is to allow for—essentially, if any other instruments are inconsistent with those regulations, then the regulations prevail. But what we’ve got here in the Te Arawa Lakes settlement example is a set of regulations which are made by both the iwi and the council. So we have a way for iwi here to make rules which prevail not only over and above the national policy statement and the national coastal statement, but also the primary legislation—is that right?
And I want to ask: the six taonga ika, which are protected by that piece of legislation, which are kōaro, kōura, īnanga, tuna, morihana,and kākahi—is that intended to just be in the context of Te Arawa Lakes, or is it the case that those regulations prevailing over other instruments are intended to set a standard for fisheries which in a customary context are being protected by that 10B(1) provision, which the member has introduced?
I move, That debate on this question now close.
A party vote was called for on the question, That debate on this question now close.
Ayes 67
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 54
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Kapa-Kingi.
Motion agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I just remind members on both sides, and at the end of the Chamber, to be quiet while we’re voting. Thank you.
The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 710 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 67
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 54
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Kapa-Kingi.
Amendments agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking’s amendment to clause 3 set out on Amendment Paper 686 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 54
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 67
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Lan Pham’s amendments to clause 3 set out on Amendment Paper 712 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 54
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 67
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Hūhana Lyndon’s amendments to clauses 3 and 9 set out on Amendment Paper 739 are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.
The question is that Hūhana Lyndon’s amendment to clause 10 set out on Amendment Paper 739 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 54
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 67
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that that the Hon Rachel Brooking’s amendment replacing clause 4 set out on Amendment Paper 688 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 54
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 67
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Hūhana Lyndon’s amendment replacing clause 4 set out on Amendment Paper 714 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 54
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 67
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Hūhana Lyndon’s amendment replacing clause 8 set out on Amendment Paper 748 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking’s amendment inserting clause 8(1) set out on Amendment Paper 689 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 54
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 67
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Lan Pham’s amendment to clause 8 set out on Amendment Paper 703 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 54
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 67
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Hūhana Lyndon’s tabled amendment inserting new clause 10A is out of order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment.
A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 1 as amended be agreed to.
Ayes 67
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 54
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Kapa-Kingi.
Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Committee of the whole House
Part 2 Foundations
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, we come now to Part 2, which is the debate on clauses 11 to 90—“Foundations”. The question is that Part 2 stand part.