Natural Environment Bill

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just note that, as you just did, Part 2 is “Foundations” and there are no schedules to this part. In fact, I think all the remaining schedules go with Part 4, so we’ll leave the back of the bill for now.

Anyway, I want to get on to the goals. We were talking when the Minister was in the chair before, rather than the member who’s in the chair now, a lot about the interaction between the purpose statement and the goals and an absence of hierarchy, and how this is a big, in my opinion and the opinion of almost all the experts who gave advice to the Environment Committee, hot mess—my words.

I think we need to have some discussion on that, but before I go into that I will refer the chair to my Amendment Paper 687, and this is a replacement of the goals with some different goals. But, actually, the replacements are very similar except that they go to clause 11(1)(f), which is “to provide for Māori interests through—”, and my goal harks back to section 6(e) of the Resource Management Act; and then in clause 11(1)(d)—rather than what was originally “no net loss in” but changed in AP 710 “to protect … biodiversity:”, I have “to protect and restore … ecological integrity,”

I also have made a change to the first paragraph, which is paragraph (a): “to enable the use and development of natural resources, including for the production of food and fibre (including aquaculture):”, and the change here is to insert “, within environmental limits”. That’s important because, as the bill was introduced, there was the term “within environmental limits” and then this got taken out at the Environment Committee by majority. That is a real problem, because we’ve had the Minister in the chair earlier today talk about how he is committed to pieces of legislation that do allow for and enable development within environmental limits.

So here is that phrase. It was in the bill as introduced—“enable the use and development … within environmental limits” and that has now been removed. One of my questions to the member in the chair, Simon Court, is: why has that been removed, and does that use and development of natural resources still have to be within environmental limits?

I note that in question time just now, Lan Pham was asking the Minister responsible for RMA Reform about limits, and he was saying that this is “a massive step forward on the RMA”—that’s the quote from him—to have limits. But where are they in the goals now that they’ve been removed? That’s one question, and that’s a huge issue. I’m sure other people will have other amendments on that issue, as well.

Would he consider having the wording from section 6(e) of the RMA in there rather than what is in clause 11(f) of this bill, and then I have another change—which I also had in the Planning Bill—in Amendment Paper 687, and that is to insert a new clause 11(3A) at the end, which says, “Where goals are in conflict, the purpose of this Act (as set out in section 4)”—which I would have changed—“must be used to reconcile the differences between the goals.” That is an attempt—an inelegant attempt—to try to have some sort of hierarchy here which would go to the purpose and then the goals, rather than having to rely on the Minister all the time, through national direction, to try to resolve any conflict between goals.

Those are a few questions on it. I won’t address the term “no net loss in significant indigenous biodiversity” in this contribution, but I would like to ask the member in the chair to answer that question about why we have got rid of “within environmental limits” if that’s the whole purpose of the scheme. Can we bring it back, and can we bring back section 6(e), and can we also have my idea of having some sort of hierarchy at subclause (3A)? Thank you, Madam Chair.

Committee of the whole House

I thank the member the Hon Rachel Brooking for her questions. I’ll just start with her question around why the “within … limits” phrase was removed from the first goal, to “enable the use and development of natural resources, including for the production of food and fibre ( including aquaculture). It’s quite simple: limits play an important role in the system, but they are not the only way that the natural environmental impacts on the natural environment are managed. There are other tools.

If we conceive the system as a funnel—I know the member has proposed that maybe it’s not a funnel, but that’s how it’s conceived—we start with the goals, we move down to national direction, national policy direction, standards, spatial plans, and regulatory plans. There are many opportunities in the system to identify where impacts on the environment can be managed in the context of the Natural Environment Bill and the Planning Bill, which we discussed this morning. It is not all about limits; they are but one tool.

The member had a question about hierarchy. There is no hierarchy in the goals. We’ve been very clear—I refer the member to clause 11(2) in Amendment Paper 710, “Subsection 1 does not require a key instrument to seek to achieve all goals in all places at all times.”

Arena Williams: Hope you like that wording.

SIMON COURT: I invite any member who wishes to ask a question to ask that question, but I’ll respond to the member that I’m responding to in the first instance.

It’s important, when we consider that there are many things we do in the natural environment, which is what this bill is all about, that we still need to produce food, we need to operate infrastructure, and we need to have access to natural resources for social, economic, and health reasons. So, rather than trying to imagine that every time we seek to access natural resources for human wellbeing, we have to somehow work through a hierarchy of goals before we get to work out whether we should be able to access these resources and use them for human flourishing, we’re very clear that there are trade-offs to be made.

Those trade-offs are to be made at the national policy direction - setting level, and I urge those listening and watching the debate to have a look at the Ministry of Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport website, where an illustrative national policy direction setting out the key themes has been provided for non-statutory consultation, so that those interested in how this is going to work can see for themselves. I urge the member to download a copy and bring it to the Chamber. A lot of the questions that we’ve been getting over the past few days will, I believe, be resolved by looking at that document as a starter for ten.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s really great to get on to this “Goals” clause, because it does have implications for the entirety of the bill. I think the direction, which is under it—because we’ve established that the “Purpose” clause is a clause with no purpose, it’s really important that the goals themselves have potentially some form of direction. I’m really interested in the Minister’s responses to one of my first Amendment Papers proposed for the goals in clause 11. Really, this is around—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Which number is the amendment?

LAN PHAM: Sorry, the Amendment Paper is Amendment Paper 670. The aspect that I’m interested in is what the member’s perspective is about whether the goals are, essentially, meaningless if the Minister only has to seek to achieve all of them and can prioritise them in any manner they see fit.

My Amendment Paper would delete the words “seek to achieve the following goals”. I accept that in the national direction, the Minister has this huge discretion, but what could possibly be the justification of doing that if, basically, there is no other direction elsewhere in the bill other than that simply being the Minister’s whim? If there was further direction about the actual achievement of the goals, could this be one way forward where there is actually some impetus on decision makers to actually achieve something?

I want to pick up as well on the first goal, which is paragraph (a), and I want to pick up on this specifically because it was hugely disappointing at the select committee—and sorry, just for people’s understanding, this is the clause around enabling the actual use and development of natural resources. What came in, not actually at the select committee level but on top of the select committee—came straight in as ministerial direction—was this reference to “the production of food and fibre (including aquaculture)”. That was, essentially, a shout-out to these industry lobby groups.

The reason why it was that is that officials made it really clear to us at the select committee—and some of the select committee members are here and will appreciate and remember this—that this is meaningless. They said that the goal already includes the use and development of food and fibre, including aquaculture, but they still wanted it established at the heart of this legislation just as a shout-out.

My question to the Minister is: what is his perspective on the heart of our resource management legislation having such inappropriate shout-outs to industry, and whether he would consider my other Amendment Paper, which is to reinstate “within environmental limits” within that clause, because that is the one that was removed and that’s the one that would actually set up our country and our economy to function.

Now, I’m really interested in that. I’ve got other amendments on these clauses, but I’ll leave it there for now.

Committee of the whole House

I thank the member for her contribution. I know she has a great interest in the natural environment. The Natural Environment Bill is something that I know she wants to see improved. Now, her contention that the goals are meaningless—absolutely reject. The goals provide direction on the outcome sought under the Natural Environment Bill and support delivery of its purpose. It should be clear to all members of the committee. If I have to say it again, I’ll say it again, but that’s the purpose of the goals.

The member contended that in seeking to achieve the goals, instruments such as national policy direction are made on the whim of a Minister. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is an extensive process set out about the making of national instruments, including matters that the maker and decision maker must consider.

The member’s question around food and fibre: according to many New Zealanders, and it is the belief of this Government, that food and fibre production is nationally important.

The member had a further question around: would the Government be prepared to consider her Amendment Paper proposing to add back in the “within limits” phrase to the goal “enable the use and development of natural resources, including the production of food and fibre (including aquaculture)”? No, Lan Pham, we will not be prepared to consider that. As I explained to the member Rachel Brooking, in answer to your previous question, limit setting is one important feature of the system, but limit setting is not the only way that we protect the natural environment and allow for development and growing food and all of these other things to be done in a way that responds to community need, to our economic imperatives, and to the social outcomes that we seek to realise from being able to develop and use and enjoy our natural environment.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to ask the member in the chair, Simon Court, about clause 11(1)(f), which is the goal “to provide for Māori interests”. I have a couple of different questions about how that is intended to work when it is one of many goals. This might have made a little bit more sense in the planning context, but the environmental context it is a little bit different where you have, often, through the development of our resource management law, over many, many years, alignment between Māori interests and kaitiakitanga, that it was the formulation, I think, at section 6(e) of the Resource Management Act (RMA). And so we have built into our planning system a degree of those environmental protections, safeguarding, stewardship, those concepts being closely associated with Māori interests as well.

So, first question to him is: does he expect the courts to now pass that out? Is that going to be dealt with quite separately under his regime? Really, it’s a question about—we’ve spoken a little bit about how the goals are all given the same importance; that clause 11(1)(a), here, “to enable the use and development of natural resources” is meant to be of the same importance as the goal (f) “to provide for Māori interests” and the goal (e) “to safeguard against natural hazards”. With that in mind, how does he justify the Parliament not resolving, here, the conflict, but the Minister having a role in resolving that conflict? What I’m getting at here is, under the RMA, in the King Salmon decision, it was possible for judges to have what they called an overall broad judgment, because Parliament had already indicated its hierarchy of decisions, and so it was possible for the court to say, “Well, you can’t just say that economic development is the purpose that you’re relying on because they are similar”. So the court was able to use a broad judgment because there was that hierarchy. Now there’s not that hierarchy. So what I’m asking the member in the chair to clarify is whether in Parliament not resolving the conflict it intends for the court to provide, now, an entirely holus-bolus broad judgment, where it is required to make the decision or whether it’s intended to be looking at the national policy direction.

A follow-up question to that, in relation to Māori interest only, is could one Government’s national policy direction on how you’re meant to give effect to the Māori interest provision swing wildly between, say, a National-led Government and a Labour-led Government? This is a practical question because when we’re looking at how the courts are meant to interpret this, they would usually not make that assumption that Parliament’s job is to resolve how that goal is interpreted, not a Minister’s interpretation. And yet that seems to be what leaving (f) as a goal that is equally as important to (a) actually sets up.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): In so much as Simon Court knows what any Minister’s future interpretation might be.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair, for the guidance.

The question that the member asked was in relation to the Resource Management Act, section 6E, I think you described it as, where there’s a hierarchy. There is no hierarchy in the goals. When looking at clause 11(1)(f), in the way that the legislation intends to provide for Māori interests, the member points out that it is different to the Resource Management Act. That is true, that is intentional. We’ve been highly specific about that and we are confident that the way that Māori interests have provided for is in the spirit of Crown and Māori relationship.

Now, it says quite specifically, “Māori participation in the development of national instruments, regional spatial plans, and natural environment plans”. It’s very important. The member answered her own question. Do we intend that that is particularised through national policy direction? The answer is yes.

The member asked another question: do we expect the courts to make things up that are not in the law? No, absolutely not. The Attorney-General was clear in the speech that he gave to the Auckland Law Society, that it’s Parliament’s job to be clear in its law making, clear in its intent—

Arena Williams: That’s why there was a hierarchy.

SIMON COURT: —clear in its lawmaking, clear in its intent, which this legislation is, and the hierarchy or, potentially, if we had to rephrase it for the benefit of those listening or watching, I could, potentially, assume the member means resolving conflicts between outcomes and objectives.

So if the member thinks that every single potential conflict that we could possibly imagine could be resolved in legislation, that legislation would reach from the floor to the ceiling of this Chamber. We are not doing that for the member’s benefit, for Arena Williams’ benefit; we’re not doing it for anyone’s benefit. There certainly would be no benefit to New Zealand. So I urge the member to cast forward to when this legislation is implemented and when the national policy direction, that has the force of law and has gone through statutory consultation in the future and would provide for the conflict resolution that the member so desperately wishes to see in legislation.

I’ll come back to it: Parliament’s job is to make laws, make them clear; the courts’ job is to is to enforce the law. The Attorney-General was clear, I am clear, and that is our intention for this legislation.

Now, if members would bear with, I understand Minister Bishop wishes to return to the chair. If someone could go and grab the Minister, I would gladly vacate and let the members ask questions of the Minister.

Committee of the whole House

Point of order. Thank you, Madam Chair. Earlier today, I raised a point of order asking if we would be told when amendments from the Minister would be tabled. It appears that one has been tabled—I might have missed it; I don’t want to accuse anyone of not telling us that it had been tabled. We were given a nod or some noise in the affirmative that we would be told when amendments were tabled. It looks like there was one tabled at 2.11 p.m. on 27 August, and it is a very simple one: it is to delete clause 37. But when you go to the amendment bill—I guess it’s going back to the version as reported back from the select committee—there is no clause 37 in his Amendment Paper. So the point of order is whether we can have clarity on what the—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): We’ve accepted the point of order around when was it tabled in the House, and I understand it was 2.11—

Hon Chris Bishop: We were in question time then.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yes. But in terms of the remainder of the question, then we start getting into the question to the Minister.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Sure. OK, well, are there going to be any more tabled amendments?

Hon Chris Bishop: No.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: OK. That’s my point of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): And no.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: OK. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The Hon Rachel Brooking—we’ll start your five minutes again—

Hon Chris Bishop: There might be one.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Oh, there was just a response that said there might be one.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: OK, going back to the point of order—and I don’t mind about the time, because I’m not going to take five minutes—if we could be told—

Hon Chris Bishop: There may be one more.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: OK, if we could be told—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): There may be one, and I think the issue why the awareness wasn’t there with this one was that it was during question time today in the House, so we weren’t in committee. So as soon as we get it, we’ll let you know.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: That’ll be great; thank you.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The Hon Rachel Brooking. I think we’ll start your five minutes again, because we’ve been clarifying a few things—there we go.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. Going back to the goals, now that the Minister is in the chair—after I think being requested by the member to come back—I would be interested in what seems to be a difference of opinion between the Minister and the member, and that is that the Minister has been saying, throughout this, that he wants there to be development within environmental limits. He said at question time that it’s a massive step forward, from the Resource Management Act, that there are limits. But the member in the chair just said: “It’s not all about limits. It is but one tool.”, referring to limits. So if there is, in fact, a difference of opinion there, that would be useful to elucidate.

That’s one point. Now, going back to clause 11, “Goals”, I’ve already asked a question on it, but I have another published Amendment Paper, and that is 704, and it’s now changed again. My question relates to paragraph (d). So on page 44, paragraph (d), as it was reported back, refers to “no net loss in indigenous biodiversity”. I think my amendment was to get rid of the “net” there—“no loss in indigenous biodiversity”. But now it’s been changed by the Amendment Paper to protect “significant indigenous biodiversity”.

So it would be good for the Minister to comment on why that change has been made and what happens to the concept of net loss, when throughout much of the rest of the bill, there is talk of offsetting and compensation. How does that, then, link to the goals? Is it to do with protection or is it to do with something else? Do we, in fact, need no loss in indigenous biodiversity, and also its protection—do we need both of those terms? And then—

Hon Chris Bishop: I’m happy to take a call.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: OK, I’ll let the Minister go. I’ve got one more question on this.

Committee of the whole House

I’m happy to take a call on this one, but I think it’s an important point and I’m pleased the member’s noticed it. We received quite a bit of feedback, both through the select committee process and also, subsequently, in engagement with stakeholders from the broader environmental non-governmental organisation movement, or ENGOs, as they are known. The “no net loss”—

Hon Rachel Brooking: They’re great, aren’t they? Great resource.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: —OK—concept was difficult and confusing. I mean, it sort of begs the question: if your goal is no net loss, are you therefore saying that things are fine at the moment, because clearly they are not? So if the goal is, like, literally just to keep things so we can’t have any net loss—if your starting point is pretty bad, which I think most people would say it is, then the goal of no net loss is a relatively unambitious target. But then other people thought it meant other things.

So, anyway, we just took all that on board and said, “Well, OK, let’s just be clear about this. It’s a goal to protect”—which is a stronger, more directive frame, but obviously the devil’s in the details with the national direction and standards that flow from that. That is how some of the concepts that the member mentioned around offsetting and things come into it. It may be that in particular parts of the country, you don’t want to lift biodiversity protections over time, and in other parts of the country you’re prepared to make the trade-offs. I mean, the short answer is it depends, but the net loss concept was causing complications and confusions, and it’s a bit odd to have a quantification concept in a goal as well. If you look at the rest of the goals, it’s to protect, safeguard, enable, provide for, support—there are more active verbs rather than just to have no net loss. It just sat a bit uncomfortably. That was the feedback and we agreed, so we made the change.

Committee of the whole House

Just two supplementaries on that. My other question was around whether the “no net loss” concept does feed in to ideas of offsetting and compensation, and we can deal with that later, but if the Minister wants to comment on that, in a minute.

My second supplementary is: with this change, does it now need to be significant indigenous biodiversity, so the “no net loss” was just to indigenous biodiversity and there was no caveat or qualifier of “significant”? I take the point about what he just said in terms of verbs, and the like. Where does it fit with new paragraph (ca), which is to support and enable the enhancement of the natural environment? Does he see that the protection of insignificant indigenous biodiversity, or indigenous biodiversity that doesn’t reach that significance test—would that still be caught by (ca), which is “to support and enable the enhancement of the natural environment”?

Committee of the whole House

It’s a good question. The short point is, the way I would characterise it is the natural environment is a broad concept, indigenous biodiversity is a subset, and the goal is sending a message that the system should protect significant indigenous biodiversity, because that’s something special and unique to New Zealand, and something that’s worthy of protection and worthy of specific recognition and mentioning in “Goals” as worthy of protecting.

This is not to say non-significant indigenous biodiversity is not important—it is—but it’s just a marker. And you can see this through the national policy direction framing document as well—that significant indigenous biodiversity is something that is part and parcel of the system.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Lan Pham has indicated she has a supp.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair—absolutely, on this topic, and really keen to consolidate it in one, because it is a really important topic. Thank you to the Minister for his comments around accepting that the starting point, where we are at with biodiversity, is pretty bad—those were his words. Does he accept, though, that simply protecting only areas of significant indigenous biodiversity will, in itself, lead to a loss of biodiversity, particularly when we know that the bar for even identifying these areas of significant biodiversity is so much higher and has so much more cost and barriers for councils under the regulatory relief framework?

I don’t want to go to regulatory relief yet, because we’re going to get there more fulsomely, but what I am interested in is the Minister’s concept and understanding of that, in particular. He’s just said that significant biodiversity is important. The member Rachel Brooking talked about, well, what about that biodiversity that doesn’t meet that bar?

I have an Amendment Paper that would help with this so that we’re not only protecting significant areas but we’re protecting those areas of indigenous biodiversity generally. What I’m proposing, which I’d really appreciate the Minister’s feedback on, is in Amendment Paper 712, and this is the last bit of that. First, it’s about amending the goals to protect areas of significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna along with the protection of wetlands.

Now, why it’s so important to specify these things is we know that depending on the region that you’re in in the country, the remaining biodiversity is somewhere between 1 percent and at best 10 percent. There are some regions who are managing to buck that trend, like Te Pātaka-o-Rākaihautū / Banks Peninsula. We know that due to an incredible effort at the community level with councils and iwi and the papatipu rūnanga there, they are actually changing the biodiversity trajectory and getting more towards 20 percent biodiversity.

Now, what is critical with this Amendment Paper is that it’s actually changing the definition of “significant indigenous vegetation” and also “significant habitat of indigenous fauna”. Given we know that any shred of biodiversity that we have remaining in this country is important—sorry, is the Minister clear where I’m—

Hon Chris Bishop: Yeah. I thought you were amending the definition of Part 1, but you’re not.

LAN PHAM: Yeah. Thank you—thank you. I’m really interested in that, because what we’ve heard really clearly, even in the environmental non-governmental organisations responding to these last-minute Amendment Papers that have changed the settings with no net loss changing to significant indigenous biodiversity, they’re saying you can’t have one without the other. Now if you’re raising the bar to significant only being protected, if you don’t have that no net loss at least to hold the line, then we will be without the general vegetation clearance rules that, as I understand, are no longer available under these Acts. We’re in a real serious situation when it comes to biodiversity decline, so I’m really interested in the Minister responsible for RMA Reform’s thoughts on that.

Committee of the whole House

Yeah. I mean, I understand where the member’s coming from, but the short point is I don’t think we need the definition in the goals, as the member essentially proposes. Some of the stuff that she was talking about I would regard as falling within clause 11(1)(d), “indigenous biodiversity”, but also 11(1)(ca) which is “support and enable the enhancement of the natural environment:”.

The key is not so much the precise words in the goals; the key is the national direction that flows from that, and the key is that the goals are the hook for the national direction. You can’t do anything that’s not in the goals, but it’s very clear that the stuff the member was talking about would fall within both of those goals.

Committee of the whole House

Does the Minister responsible for RMA Reform accept that for biodiversity generally that does not meet the significance threshold, which is the majority of scraps of biodiversity—the remnant pockets that remain—biodiversity is at risk under these goals?

Committee of the whole House

No—no. No, I don’t, because for the reasons I just said, which is that it would fall within—I’ve answered this like three times now. It would fall within “support and enable the enhancement of the natural environment”, which is a broader heading of things. There’s a specific goal which I think the member actually should support, which is to say that for areas of significant biodiversity, that’s a specific goal of the legislation, to enable the protection of significant indigenous biodiversity, because that’s something that’s unique to New Zealand and is special and we need to protect, for the reasons that the member, I’m sure, agrees with around why biodiversity is important.

Committee of the whole House

So, Minister, are general protections for biodiversity that are not mapped available as a tool to protect those remnant areas, those scraps of a part of a wetland here or dryland ecosystem here—are they available under these Acts? Really keen on that.

Committee of the whole House

I just want to ask about these great words here. These great words: clause 11(2) uses the words “in all places at all times.” Simon Court, the member in the chair prior to the Minister responsible for RMA Reform, and I had a bit of a back and forth about this and he invited me to take a question on this. I do enjoy these words. They are likely your words personally, Minister. Where did they come from is the first question. Is that a permission to trade off? Where you’ve said that above from clause 11(1)(a) through (f) it doesn’t make sense to have a quantification concept, those are also not trade-off concepts. There isn’t a limit that needs to be balanced, and yet this does seem to introduce that.

Specifically, I want to ask about “places”. Are we to interpret places there to mean that there are places where the goal of safeguarding the environment’s quality is the goal and isn’t the goal? Like, are there places where the goal should be specifically, say, in line with clause 11(1)(a)? Is that the intention of that inclusion of the word “places”?

Then in the inclusion of the word “time”, do we mean, like, is there an example of a time when safeguarding, say, the life-supporting capacity of air and water would not be necessary? You can imagine the situation when this also sets up for national instruments to give preference in a non - nationally consistent way because that use of the idea that some places will, I guess, be of greater natural value than others and at different times seems to introduce an entirely new way of thinking about that. How does that compare—because this is broadly something that most people would agree with, but how are we meant to understand how that’s going to affect the places that communities really care about where they are seeking greater environmental safeguards when you might think that this clause 11(2) gave them more protections, but that they needed to be traded off against other areas? Is that what people can expect from that?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’m going to take a call from Steve Abel. I will just say that we’ve spent quite a bit of time on the goals, but I’m not precluding Steve Abel from asking a question in that space. This is my indication that I think we need to move on from the goals—and a wee one from Rachel Brooking.

Committee of the whole House

Yeah. The goals are very important. I hear your point, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I know they’re important, but we’ve spent substantial time.

STEVE ABEL: I still think we don’t have exact clarity, and I think Arena Williams’ question is important as well. The previous member in the seat, Simon Court, articulated that there was no intention to have a hierarchy in the goals. If the objective is to avoid trade-offs, which is a problem of the sort of death by a thousand cuts issue that we have with the environment—we’re constantly trading off economic activity for environmental protection—then I put it to the Minister responsible for RMA Reform that having at least a first hierarchy weighting given to clause 11(1)(b) is necessary. Lan Pham’s Amendment Paper 711 directly addresses this. It makes sure that the logic of the life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil, and ecosystems is the first goal or the most important priority in the hierarchy.

If that is not done, then I think, Minister, we risk the sort of hubris that there can be some sort of lasting human thriving without us first safeguarding the life-supporting capacity. We all agree we want human society to thrive, but it cannot reasonably do that without supporting a life-supporting capacity.

First of all, just the clarity as to why there is no hierarchy, and would the Minister consider making what is currently (b) something that needs to be achieved as the priority in the goals? That gives logic to the intention of the legislation, given it’s the Natural Environment Bill.

I have a second amendment, which specifically makes sure that in paragraph (d), to protect and enhance—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): What’s the number of the amendment?

STEVE ABEL: Sorry, 724. It’s another excellent one from Lan Pham—724, that (d), replacing clause 11(1)(d), becomes “to protect and enhance indigenous biodiversity”, including urban trees and urban biodiversity, to make sure that they are captured. The Minister laughs; he laughs so much that we love urban trees, but he’ll know all about it when they start disappearing even more. I wonder if he would consider that. But the greater overarching principle is the problem of a thousand cuts and that we need to protect the principle of life-supporting capacity as the priority.

Committee of the whole House

Yeah. I mean, I sort of feel like we’ve covered this a lot, including in the last bill and now this bill. There is no hierarchy, OK? That’s a deliberate policy choice, and we’ve sort of canvassed as to why that is. The member started his contribution by saying, “Oh, there seems to be a desire to avoid trade-offs.” The opposite is the case. That’s the point: all of this stuff involves trade-offs and there are trade-offs about the goals. This also deals with Arena Williams’ point, which is that that’s the whole point—that you may, as a decision maker, decide that one goal or one part of national direction that gives effect to the goals is more important in some areas than others at a particular time, and it integrates into the Planning Bill, as well.

The point is to confront those trade-offs at planning level—spatial planning and land-use planning level—and have those debates and discussions as communities. At the moment, a lot of those difficult trade-offs between—and there are trade-offs in all this stuff, right? I mean, we’ve talked about it in question time, we talked about it in the Planning Bill; there are trade-offs on all these things. If there weren’t trade-offs, we would just write a planning and environmental statute and we wouldn’t have the air-quality issues and we wouldn’t have nitrates in the water and all the rest of it. Everything would just be like “kumbaya” and happy days. There are trade-offs. I think we can all agree on that.

The point is not to avoid the trade-offs, because they exist. The point is, where in the system do you confront those trade-offs? The point of the system we’ve designed, which is reflected in the goals and the national policy direction and the funnel architecture—which is in this part of the bill, as well—is to do it at the spatial planning level. It’s just a statement of reality that you don’t have to do all at the same place and at the same time. And as Arena Williams says, I mean, it may be, for example, that in some parts of the country the natural hazard risks are so vast that you say “Well, you can’t build here and you can’t build infrastructure and you can’t build housing” and all the rest of it. That is not—that is not—achieving competitive land markets in that particular area, but it is prioritising the natural hazard goal.

To take the example from Steve Abel that maybe Lan Pham was keen on, it may be that there are real areas of significant indigenous biodiversity that are very special, or there may be a site of significance to Māori that is particularly significant to the local mana whenua—an old pā site or a mahinga kai food-gathering site or an old battleground site, for example, where there’s burial grounds and ancestrally important taonga. We might say, “Well, nothing’s going to happen there. That’s protected.” Well, that is giving effect to one of the Māori interests obligations, but it is also trading that off with development rights. That’s the point. You know, trade-offs are everywhere in the planning system. Every day you see them, and members can think of their own examples. That’s the point, is that you don’t have to—and if you boil it down to a granular level, clearly you can’t—achieve every goal all at the same time in the same place. So that’s what it means.

Arena Williams: What’s the time bit mean?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: What’s that?

Arena Williams: What does the time bit mean? Like, are you meant to have—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Stand up when you’re asking the Minister. I haven’t granted you another question, but you should just—

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I can’t believe I’m saying this, but it’s just, like, a question of temporal reality. Time goes by—I mean, we’re really sort of Through the Looking-Glass in a nomenclature sense, but it’s just a statement of fact.

Steve Abel: Madam Chair, is it possible to have a brief supplementary?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I promised the Hon Rachel Brooking one small question on the goals. We’ve had comprehensive answers on clause 11. After this question, we’re moving on to clause 12 and beyond.

Committee of the whole House

Yes—oh, I’m disappointed the Minister’s leaving the chair, because I did want to ask him a question about trade-offs.

Arena Williams: It’s a temporal reality.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: It is. Oh, I was hoping for the Minister.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): We’ve got a very capable Parliamentary Under-Secretary here.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: It’s nothing to do with the capability or not, it’s to do with the particular focus on trade-offs—and views on limits, where I think the two differ. I will go to my point about goals and save up my question for later. And that is—I’m interested in soil, Madam Chair, and I know that you are, too.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’m not in this debate.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: I know—I know, but you can’t help but be interested in soil, because it’s so important. I think everybody here agrees on the importance of soil, and particularly related to the food production element, as well.

We have production of food in clause 11(1)(a) and we have life-supporting capacity of soil in (b). My question is a simple one, and that is: with the demise of the national direction on productive soils, where in the system does preserving productive soils fit? I’m happy to be told that it’s in the Planning Bill; of course, the two overlap a lot. But here, we have the soil goals—two of them, if you take “production of food”, which, to me, reads soil; and soil being specified in paragraph (b). So that is my question, as to where it sits.

The other question that I would like to ask both the Minister and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary is about trade-offs—the Minister did quite a long contribution there. On trade-offs, I totally agree with the Minister that a whole lot of the resource management system is about trade-offs. However, if you’re then saying we’re going to introduce limits, isn’t that something different to the trade-offs? That’s a simple question.

Committee of the whole House

Just on the subject of soils, that’s covered in goal (1)(a) in clause 11: “to enable the use and development of natural resources, including for the production of food and fibre”. This concept of highly productive soils is currently covered by a national instrument under the Resource Management Act.

It’s quite clear that New Zealand does need to recognise and provide for growing, particularly for growing vegetables. There are some places in New Zealand which have incredibly good soils for growing, and so it’s important—as the Minister was describing—in terms of the key instruments seeking to achieve this Act and seeking to achieve the following goals. Providing for growing on highly productive soils will surely be one of the matters that planners and decision makers turn their minds to as they look at their regions, particularly when it comes to spatial plans and regulatory plans—identify places that are suitable for growing, are suitable for building houses, are suitable for building infrastructure, and, as Minister Bishop pointed out just a short while ago, where they are not suitable for certain activities or certain operations because of risks such as natural hazards.

Committee of the whole House

OK, thank you. Moving on, then, away from clause 11 and on to clause 12, I would direct the member in the chair to my Amendment Paper 745, which adds in a new paragraph (d) to subclause (3), which is a “must”—so: “person exercising or performing a power, function, or duty under this Act in relation to a matter […] (d) must consider the polluter pays principle”. I’m interested, of course, in the member in the chair’s view on including the polluter pays principle, particularly as he is from a libertarian party; I would think this is something that he would support. If not, why not?

Then moving on to new clause 12A, which is natural resource permits, my first question on this is where it comes from. This clause is all underlined in this Amendment Paper 710. I’ve got two little questions on this. New clause 12A(1) starts with, “A person exercising or performing a function, power, or duty under this Act who is deciding a matter relating to a natural resource permit must comply with section 12(3)(a) in accordance with this section.” If you go back to clause 12(3)(a), that states that the person “must consider the relevant provisions of the key instrument that directly affect the matter”. OK. Why do you have to repeat that? Is it because it just relates to a permit?

But then it says, “For the purposes of section 12(3)(a),”—which is the one I just read out—“the person must first consider the provisions of the following key instruments”. The member can tell me if I’m right, but I presume the need for clause 12A is because it’s specifically about, what I would call, consents, resource permits, and it’s just trying to replicate what is in clause 12. But then it says—and this is the bit I don’t quite follow—at (3), it says, “This section applies despite section 12(3)(b).”—and 12(3)(b) is: “must consider any relevant provisions of a higher order instrument,”. It just reads to me that the new clause 12A is doing exactly what (3)(b) is saying, so why would you need 12A new subclause (3) saying “despite section 12(3)(b)”? I’m just curious as to why has 12A been added and how is it different from 12 and why do we need to have a “despite section 12(3)(b)”, when it seems to be that 12(3)(b) is the whole thing that the Minister and the member in the chair keep saying about how you don’t want to look up too high, you don’t want to go back to a purpose statement; you just want to look to the instrument above you.

Committee of the whole House

I’m pleased to answer the member’s question about “polluter pays”. The Government agrees that polluters should pay, but there are enforcement provisions in the legislation, which, no doubt, we’ll get to later on during this committee stage.

But, in response to the member’s Amendment Paper, which requires that a person exercising or performing a power function duty under the bill must consider the “polluter pays” principle or the funnel, which is the concept by which we see the implementation of the legislation and its delivery on the ground sets out how key instruments must be implemented or considered when making decisions and when the goals can be considered directly, but is not intended to include discreet decision-making principles, like “polluter pays” and the funnel. The principles the Government intended to be considered in decision making are set out in clause 13. The “polluter pays” principle is not required to apply to all decision making, noting many decisions are not related to pollution. Clause 323A already sets out that the framework for the management of contaminated land will be based on the principle that those who produce the pollution or contaminate the land should bear the cost of management and prevention.

Just coming to the member’s question about clause 12(3)(b) and its relationship with new clause 12A. Clause 12(3)(b) talks to the fact that there are a number of higher order instruments, national policy direction, standards, and plans; and 12A, which is “Natural resource permits” directs “person[s] exercising or performing a function, power, or duty” and so forth. When considering a permit, they must “first consider … following key instruments to the extent that the provisions directly affect the matter: (a) the natural environment plan and any proposed natural environment plan; and (b) national standards”, and so on. But it doesn’t talk about national policy direction, and that’s because, when considering the permit, what we intend is that many of the activities that are common, and where the effects are well understood and the way to manage those impacts on the environment on certain activities are well understood, they can be set out in standards which, essentially, provide for “If you comply with the standard, then the activity you’re carrying out has known controls, then you comply.”

So that’s why “Natural resource permits” at 12A refers to standards but not national policy direction, which sits above the standard. So there is a reason why 12(3)(b) talks about higher order instruments, but 12A talks specifically about natural environment plans and national standards, because when we’re looking up the funnel, we only want planners and decision makers and those performing the powers, functions, or duties to look up to the next most relevant instruments.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you. Just on this clause 12(3)(b) and looking up the funnel, my question is: why is that still a “despite”? I think it doesn’t need to be a “despite” to this, because (b) is “only to the extent that, the matter is not addressed by the instrument listed beneath it;”. Given what the member Simon Court was saying, you wouldn’t need to look up anyway, and the whole point of (b) is it’s telling you not to look up unless you really need to look up because it’s not addressed, and he’s just saying, “Well, it’s going to be addressed.” So I don’t know why you’d have a “despite (b)”. That’s the point that I was making because it seems to be doing exactly what he says.

Anyway, I’ll move on, and that is to procedural principles—

Hon Member: Oh!

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: —oh, although other people might have things to say about 12A.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Move on with your question.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: But I’ll move on to procedural principles. That is, in part, in answer to a question for the member in the chair. He agreed that the polluter should pay, but that clause 12 is about key instruments in decision making; it’s the wrong place to have a “polluter pays” principle. I accept that. So, then, does he agree that it should be in clause 13? I think I heard him say something about how “polluter pays” won’t apply to everything in this legislation, so you wouldn’t have it as a procedural principle. I do think, then, I’d be interested if there’s somewhere else that you could put a “polluter pays” principle. However, I would also challenge him that everything in clause 13, “Procedural principles” will affect every single decision made under this legislation. So I think there is still an argument for putting the “polluter pays” principle in clause 13, despite his counter-argument is one thing.

Then, I want to now move to my Amendment Paper 698, and that is, to “Delete clause 13(1)(e)”, which is to “act in a pragmatic way that supports practical solutions:”. Again, noting, of course, that we’re on a separate piece of legislation than the Planning Bill, the phrase “pragmatic” is very subjective and this is a regulatory regime that is being created here. I am concerned that by using novel language that is not often found in statute, if ever, that the Government is opening itself up to litigation and it could be easily avoided by deleting (e). I know that the member thinks that it’s good to have timely, efficient, consistent, and cost-effective processes—that is already provided for in (b). I think that the member would also want decision makers to act proportionately to the scale and significance of the matter to which the function, power, or duty relates. That is already included, and these are phrasings that are well understood. I’m sure the member, as well, in the chair would like to ensure that all documents are succinct and use plain language that can be readily understood by the public. That is already included, and I think—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): So the question is about the word “pragmatic”—is that correct?—and the Amendment Paper?

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Yes. So (e) is “act in a pragmatic way that supports practical solutions:” That came through from the Environment Committee and it could simply be deleted, because, if you delete it, then you are achieving (a), which is “ensure all documents are succinct and use plain language that can be readily understood by the public:”. So I would ask for the member in the chair’s consideration of my Amendment Paper 698 to delete 13(1)(e).

Committee of the whole House

I’ll just come back to the member the Hon Rachel Brooking’s question around the use of the term “despite”. It’s been clarified that that term is in there because, sometimes, national standards will apply without necessarily having a rule and a plan. The intention is that national standards that cover common activities, where the effects are commonly understood and can be managed in a consistent way, will not necessarily require rules and a plan. That is the reason for including the word “despite”.

I’ve answered the question that the member raised about the “polluter pays” principle; I think I’ve addressed that fulsomely in my previous answer. I do want to come to the member’s question around the use of the term “pragmatic”, in clause 13(1)(e). The member’s contention is it’s not a well-understood term. I can refer the member to the Merriam-Webster dictionary. Pragmatic means “dealing with the problems that exist in a specific situation in a reasonable and logical way instead of depending on ideas and theories”.

Arena Williams: That’s not an answer.

SIMON COURT: It means to take a practical approach, as opposed to an idealistic approach to solving problems.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Just to point out that when the member, or a Minister, answers a question, those asking the questions do not need to like the answer, and saying that’s not an answer—it was an answer; it might just not be an answer that the members like. Lan Pham.

Committee of the whole House

Madam Chair, thank you for that. I just want to pick up specifically on where the Minister was at, because I absolutely support my colleague Rachel Brooking’s concern about clause 13(1)(e). With procedural principles generally, we heard that, yes, it is standard to have a set of procedural principles, and it makes sense to. What we also heard is that they’re generally much shorter, and by lengthening them, and putting in subjective language, it will actually add complexity and potential for legal challenge, particularly in the council space. This is for any person performing functions, powers, or duties under this Act.

I’m really interested to hear from the member particularly about that council aspect, because I think due consideration has to be given to this. The member will know that there are certain individuals that like to attach themselves to council processes, and sometimes their concerns and problems are absolutely valid; and then there’s another kind, who are really out to tie up legal challenge and bureaucracy because they can: they have the money, the resources, but there isn’t much validity. This long list of procedural principles, which we heard from a number of submitters, and also the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment (PCE), could be greatly tightened if they actually wanted to reduce this risk—what is the member’s response to that? I understand that he, in particular, is very allergic to unnecessary bureaucracy, and this seemed like a classic case of where it could be streamlined.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. The member is absolutely right. In many cases, development applications or proposed activities and the way to manage effects on the environment could be readily accepted by a competent and capable decision maker, particularly in councils. Those decision makers are often very wary of making a decision, and then, faced with a litigious objector, they could find that decision being litigated through judicial review or other ways. That’s something that Minister Bishop and I have identified as one of the reasons why the resource management system has congealed, has slowed down, is costing so much money. It costs New Zealand about $1.3 billion per annum just to consent infrastructure, and a large part of that is because decision makers feel that they have to be overly cautious in the way that they make decisions or potentially choose to notify an application, when, actually, the way to manage the effects of an activity are well understood.

One of the ways we want to change the culture that decision makers exist in, and the culture of the organisations that support them—and we’re talking about councils—is to actually provide them with some defences against those type of—I wouldn’t call them vexatious, often they’re genuine objectors, but where those objections or the matters they raise can actually be dealt with in a pragmatic and practical way. This clause 13 was actually proposed by the expert advisory group. These are resource management professionals, planning professionals, who have experienced this time and time again, where it was described to us that the council planners, while they might know that an applicant’s proposed conditions would be eminently acceptable, are very wary of the risk of being challenged by objectors, and so they choose an overly cautious approach. We’re clear: we want to help decision makers; we want to help councils; we want to provide them with defences when they make good decisions. If they can demonstrate they follow these procedural principles, we’re confident that’s going to help to not just speed up the system, but actually provide a lightening of the load these decision makers carry, and provide some positive framing for them when they make decisions, and give them some support when they defend their decisions against objectors.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The Hon Rachel Brooking—I’m just keen to understand any tidy-ups from Subpart 1 before we move on to Subpart 2 shortly.

Committee of the whole House

Yeah, I’ve got some on clause 15. On this issue of “pragmatic”: the member in the chair has given a definition, and my only question to him is: does he agree with me that it is subjective? That’s one question. The second question is: he just inferred that this wording in clause 13 had come from the expert group. Now, we are looking at Amendment Paper 701—you can’t see the track changes from the select committee report, but the select committee report is on the Table, and I’ve just checked it, because it was my recollection that this came through the select committee process. It wasn’t in the bill as introduced, and my contention is it is subjective.

Anyway, going to clause 15, and I’ve got an amendment on clause 15(1)(a) as well, which I will go to. Clause 15 is “Considering adverse effects of activities”: “A person … who is considering the effects of an activity—(a) must consider how—(i) adverse effects are to be avoided, minimised mitigated, or remedied”, which is subparagraph (i). At subparagraph (ii), there’s “adverse effects are to be offset or compensated”. Now, in between these two subparagraphs, (i) and (ii), there is an “or”. I would like the member in the chair to say why that’s not an “and”, because at the moment it could be that the consideration is just about offsetting, and not also “avoidance, mitigation, remedy”. Why is there an “or” there, and not an “and”? That’s at clause 15(1)(a), between subparagraphs (i) and (ii).

It would be useful for the member in the chair to talk us through clause 15(1)(b), which is that they “must not consider a less than minor adverse effect except where their cumulative effect results in a minor or more than minor adverse effect”. “Minor adverse effects”: this is a common parlance of resource management. That’s not an issue, but it’s how you bring in the cumulative effect. How will you know that there might be a cumulative effect that would result in a more than minor adverse effect? How do you know that the “except” applies? Clause 15(1)(b) says, don’t consider minor adverse effects, except—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): There’s so much noise to our right, we can’t hear the speaker.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Oh, I’m happy to start again!

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): No, we don’t need you to start again, but we do need this side to be quiet.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: The question there is—[Interruption] Oh my goodness!

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Or go outside!

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: My question about the cumulative is: how do we know when the “except” applies? How do we know that there won’t be something cumulative going on? When will the “except” apply? So, two questions here. One is: can the “or” be an “and”, and when does the “except” apply? But I’ll keep going. Clause 15(5) states, “In this section, a less than minor adverse effect means an adverse effect that is objectively acceptable and reasonable in the receiving environment with any change being slight or barely noticeable in the receiving environment.” How does that definition relate to the cumulative effect, which results in a “minor or more than minor” adverse effect? A “minor” or “more than minor” is different from a “less then minor adverse effect”, which is defined.

So if the member can talk us through how this is going to work, and, in particular, in relation to those cumulative effects, because we know the cumulative effects are a major resource management difficulty. How you deal with them is a big headache for everybody who’s ever been in this space, but it is nevertheless very important because it is the cumulative effects that can end up doing so much damage.

Then, I do also have an amendment on clause 15A, which is “Considering climate change effects” before we move to Subpart 2, but I think I’ll come back to that one because I’ve got an Amendment Paper on it too. So my questions are about: is it subjective? Can we change the “or” between subparagraphs (i) and (ii) to an “and”? When does the exception in clause 15(1)(b) apply?

Committee of the whole House

Thank you. All good questions. The member did start off with a question around: is the definition of “pragmatic” subjective? Look, I quoted a definition from The Merriam-Webster Dictionary. There might be slight variations on that, but the point is we want decision makers to be supported, and when they find a solution that works, that manages environmental effects to acceptable level, that their decision can be defended.

Then, I just want to clarify procedural principles. When I described it as being derived from the expert advisory group’s advice, that was a concept that the expert advisory group proposed to Ministers. We sought advice from officials and it’s been incorporated into the legislation. I understand there’s been some changes since introduction. We’ve added some additional detail around conditions and technology—for example, using appropriate technology, including digital tools and systems, because we’re absolutely focused that the new planning system and the new natural environment system are supported by data, by digital tools, and when users come to the system, that they can easily access information, they can get rapid responses, and that we can have a much better understanding about the environment that we’re operating in, which will help when it comes to making decisions—those difficult trade-offs that are sometimes necessary about where infrastructure goes or where activities go, and their impacts on the environment. So just clarifying procedural principles: the original concept came from the expert advisory group. It’s been taken up by Ministers and developed as we’ve gone through the legislative process.

I want to come to Rachel Brooking’s questions on clause 15, which is “Considering adverse effects of activities”. In clause 15(1)(a), the member’s question was: between subparagraph (i) and (ii), rather than “or”, why didn’t we use “and”? Well, we want to be absolutely clear that there is no hierarchy in the way effects are managed in the new system. In an application for a development or activity, if an applicant proposes to avoid an effect or to remedy an effect after the fact, where that’s acceptable, they can do so. But if they propose instead that the effects are better to be offset or compensated for, particularly offset in another location, then that should be considered on the same level, without prejudice, by decision makers.

I’ll give the member an example. There are many places around New Zealand where we want to carry out, say, extractive activities like a quarry, which involve long-term operations, extensive excavation, and modifying the site by moving large amounts of overburden soil, often stockpiling it for many years at a time, and then progressively extracting quarry rock, which is absolutely vital for construction and industry and roads. During that time frame, rather than carrying out, say, an extensive replanting exercise to achieve one of the other goals for example, it might be much more appropriate to identify somewhere where, by investing—say, an indigenous biodiversity enhancement in another valley somewhere—you can get much more impact from that investment, either through offsetting or compensating on another location, than having to manage all the effects on one site, which actually might be better. It might be much more efficient, and make a lot more sense just to do the quarrying here and to invest in indigenous biodiversity or in building constructed wetlands to replace natural assets that might be disrupted from a quarrying activity.

So we want it to be absolutely clear that offset compensation and avoiding, remedying, or mitigating effects where practicable are all to be seen in the same basket of opportunities for applicants and decision makers. I’m sure there’s many members who will be able to think of places where they might have thought, “Why on earth are they planting zealandia along the side of the motorway when there is a valley up the road which could benefit much more greatly.”—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The member’s time has expired.

SIMON COURT: Madam Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Simon Court.

SIMON COURT: —where they could they could benefit much more greatly by investing in the planting of that restoration somewhere next to an existing forest park or next to somewhere that has already had some of that investment.

I want to address the member Rachel Brooking’s questions about cumulative effects. How would we know when cumulative effects in clause 15(1)(b) are to be considered? Well, I answered a similar question during the debate on the previous Planning Bill in this committee stage. The answer I gave was that when monitoring and enforcement data tells us that there may be an issue with communicative effects building up, and when planners and decision makers are looking at an activity, trying to decide whether that additional effect is going to potentially lead to an effect greater than is permitted, they will have monitoring and enforcement data. I’ll give an example there. You look at councils that have issued consents from multiple small water-takes, lots of bores in the region. They have lots and lots of information about the impacts of all of those small water-takes cumulatively on groundwater, and potentially on the natural environment. So there are some examples that I’ve given. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Committee of the whole House

I thank the member in the chair, Simon Court, for his fulsome answer. That was a very useful answer, as well, to the questions around clause 11, too, and how places and times are meant to work together. I want to quickly take him through some questions about the procedural principles. The thrust of it is that there’s no requirement here for the information that’s thought to be the best available information. So I want to just test out some of what that means for the new system and in the context of the Natural Environment Bill. It’s a bit different to the planning context where the information is standard form. We’re now talking about environmental consents, which will rely on expert advice. I also want to flag that there are a couple of questions on clause 15A—one from me, one from my colleague the Hon Julie Anne Genter.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I do remind the member that the previous person in the chair did give notice to move on to Subpart 2.

ARENA WILLIAMS: Yes, that’s why I’ll make it very, very quick.

Lan Pham: Point of order, Madam Chair. I just want to clarify that at that point, we hadn’t even been on clauses 15 or 15A, and we haven’t had any calls over here about both of those very significant sections. I just want to flag that for the chair—there are very important things there.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I’m just reminding members of the previous advice given to the committee.

ARENA WILLIAMS: Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m just asking—as quick as I can—who bears the uncertainty of the requirement that it doesn’t have to be the best available information? In the situation where you’ve got environmental information and you know that the discharge is going to affect the aquifer and the effect on the aquifer is going to have a significant impact, over time, on a mahinga kai, but the council knows that it will cost $5,000 to get a report on that, is it available to them to know that it is an unknown but to move on?—that’s the question.

Then, about clause 15A, my question on this is that it’s not an instrument here; it’s a person. So if that person is proven to have considered, say, greenhouse gas emissions, that would seem to invalidate the decision. The problem here is that that’s not written information, that’s not a series of emails; that’s what’s in the head. Did we mean that in the formulation of a person? Because a person considering the effects of climate change is quite different to including it in an instrument.

Committee of the whole House

If I could just quickly respond to member Arena Williams’s questions around “Procedural principles”, clause 13(1)(d), “sufficient and necessary” means exactly what it says. There will be cases where, as the member raised the issue of the impacts of, say, a groundwater take on a nearby river where you have an active hydrogeological connection between the water take, the underground water, and the surface water, then, no doubt, a decision maker will need to be satisfied that they have sufficient and necessary information about the impact, say, of an increased water take or a new water take on the likely flows, and, therefore, the life-supporting capacity of the water. Hopefully that satisfies the member.

The member also had a question around clause 15A, “Considering climate change effects”. What’s the difference between a person exercising or performing a function, power, or a duty, or an instrument? Well, we’re talking about considering adverse effects of activities, and unless the member’s proposing that we outsource the whole thing to artificial intelligence, humans are still going to be involved in considering effects.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. This is my first contribution on this bill in the committee of the whole House stage, and I specifically wanted to speak to and ask questions about clause 15A. It’s a follow-up to what the member in the chair has just replied to Arena Williams. What I’m interested to know is, does clause 15A prevent any national guidance or policy instrument set by the Minister or the Government from explicitly seeking to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? I know we’re allowed to take in, according to this clause 15A, that it’s possible to consider positive effects of an activity, and I’m just wondering, could there be a national policy statement or other national standards on reducing emissions, or does that fall afoul of clause 15A(a)?

Committee of the whole House

Just for the member’s clarification, in the new system, we’re referring to national policy direction as opposed to national policy statements. We’re not about making statements. This Government is about signalling clear intent and providing direction. That is what national policy direction means. The member’s question was, could a subsidiary instrument to primary legislation essentially provide direction and create a standard for doing something that primary legislation doesn’t provide for? No.

Committee of the whole House

But it does say that they “may consider any positive effects of activities that are associated with avoiding, reducing, removing, or displacing greenhouse gas emissions.” Well, one, we did, at the Environment Committee, my colleague Lan Pham asked officials if there is anywhere else in the world that only looks at positive effects of reducing greenhouse gas emissions without taking into account negative effects of increasing them, and the answer was no. Maybe the member in the chair has some place they’d like to refer to that does do this.

If I understand from what the member in the chair has said, it’s impossible for Government to have national direction that provides for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Even though it would be taking into account the positive effects of reducing emissions, they couldn’t do that without in some way also considering the adverse effects of increasing greenhouse gas emissions. If they’re doing a planning standards or guidance or direction that’s informing regional spatial plans, is it possible to only take into account one part of it and one side of the coin? And if not, does that prevent a future Government, under this legislation, from providing any sort of planning guidance that might lead to reduced emissions? Finally, I’ll just speak to Amendment Paper 722, which would delete this clause. That’s in the name of my colleague Lan Pham.

Committee of the whole House

This jurisdiction has a number of legislative and regulatory tools to consider both positive effects of an activity associated with avoiding, reducing, removing, and displacing greenhouse gas emissions. That will be this legislation when it passes, we anticipate. We also already have legislation and regulations that manage adverse effects of climate emissions. That is the Climate Change Response Act and the emissions trading scheme (ETS), and the Minister and I have been very clear that we are seeking to remove scope overlap, and that’s why this clause is clear.

I want to give the member some confidence that, in the Resource Management Act (RMA), it’s been very, very difficult to be able to justify or get acceptance to, say, modify a natural water course in a way so that it becomes a wetland, or so that a wetland can be constructed and associated with a natural water course. It’s very difficult to get consents to work in a water course. I have personal experience of that as a civil engineer trying to get consents, but in the new system, and if we look at the national policy direction (NDP), the illustrative NPD that we’ve put out—the non-statutory consultation—it provides some guidance as to the role of constructed wetlands. Because if there’s anything that can help take up carbon, it’s building wetlands, and so I hope the member can take some heart that we are considering how we might mitigate our impacts from greenhouse gas emissions by building things such as wind farms and installing batteries around the network, but we’re not intending to regulate or have councils consider the adverse effects of those emissions. In the planning and environmental management system, they’re properly dealt with under the Climate Change Response Act and the ETS.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just one little, tiny question to the member’s response then when he said that a great thing you can do for climate change is to build wetlands, How about not destroying them? That’s my one question. Does he agree that that’s useful to do as well?

Anyway, moving on. Generally, on subpart 2, “Duties and restrictions”, and my first question is just a very general question to the member—an easy question—and a lot of this follows the same format as the Resource Management Act, and if he can confirm that to me, because as I read through it, it looks very familiar, and I probably, therefore, can’t read it quite as correctly as other people would with fresh eyes. Anyway, I have a question. I’m jumping along to clause 25, and this is the only one I have questions on at the moment, but I don’t want to say that other members don’t have questions on subpart 2. I just had the one question and that is about existing activities, and existing activities are allowed.

Now, I know that there will be changes to the time frames of permits, but in general, existing uses for things that come under the Natural Environment Bill are very different from existing uses for things that come out of the Planning Bill, and to think in terms of what district councils deal with as opposed to what regional councils deal with—and this is the regional council bill—but where you can get an existing use right for a house that is on a piece of land and it’s not going to change, that is quite different from an existing use right for a water take, say, because water takes do not last forever. They last for up to 35 years under the Resource Management Act, whereas, for a land use consent, once you’ve got it, you’re done.

That is the difference with the types of consents with the new name now, “natural resource permits”, and existing activities. What I’m interested in is, at clause 25(1)(a), this enables an existing activity to continue if a new rule comes in, and before that new rule comes in, the activity was permitted, or “could have been lawfully carried out” and “was lawfully established;”, and the effects are the same or similar, and “the activity has not been discontinued for a continuous period.” That is all similar language to what we find in the Resource Management Act, but I just want to know how long that certain existing activity can be allowed.

Normally, you could say it could be allowed for 35 years, say, or until it’s going to be reviewed by a review process or something like that, but at the moment it looks to me—and I would be very happy to be corrected—as though that there is not a temporal element to this. The question is: how long can someone continue with something that has been permitted but a new rule has come in to say that it’s not permitted any more and that you need a natural resource permit? That’s my question on Subpart 2.

Committee of the whole House

I’ve been advised that clause 25 is largely a carry-over from the Resource Management Act.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to ask about clause 19. This is another clause which is similar in many ways to section 13 of the Resource Management Act (RMA), but it has a difference in that it doesn’t have the second tier, but the RMA section did have it. The member in the chair will know that I’m enthusiastic about wharves and I know that he knows a lot about wharves, and so I want to ask him about this. The difference in his new provision seems to be that the old protections of not being able to disturb the lake bed, say, when you are doing maintenance on your wharf now no longer apply, and so the first question to him is: is that a deliberate choice?

Really, the question is an ideological one. Does someone who owns property that adjoins the lake have a bundle of property rights that now include being able to maintain their wharf? It is very contentious for some councils who have to manage that type of asset. At what point does maintaining your wharf, which is already existing, then become disturbing of the natural area and how is that going to be managed now that there’s not the sort of second tier prohibition on disturbing the lake bed that there was under the old system?

This is also a new formulation of it. Instead of that being prohibited under the old system, but a national environmental standard or a consent could expressly allow for it, it now goes for broke, but you must either be following the regulations or have a permit. What I really want to know with regard to those existing use rights, how do they port over, because we’ve now got wharves that needed to be expressly consented and they have been, but the maintenance of them was not something that you needed to deal with, because if you were maintaining them and not creating an adverse effect on the environment around it, then you were in the clear. Now, this is a different system, where you need to follow the regulations.

It’s a bit more interesting when you get to the question of those lakes which are not always surface water, and there is a temporal aspect to this, too. There are some lakes that have either been drained and now have significantly less under-water, and the effect of that is that an owner now has a bigger area which is their property under the new formulation, I think. But in the situation where you have any that was, say, farmland but that is not covered by water, does his new regulation apply, because under the old system you didn’t need a new permit to create any structures on that. But under his new system, it actually seems more restrictive in that situation because now he’s set out what kind of regulations will apply where surface water on a farm now creates a lake.

Committee of the whole House

I just want to come back to an answer I gave to a question on clause 25, which I’d said was largely carried over from the Resource Management Act. The member asked a question around how long an existing use might continue. That’s in clause 25(1), and it is until that rule becomes operative, and then if a rule, for example, required that the activity that was previously permitted or was lawful required a consent, it could continue until that consent decision was arrived at.

I’ll just come to the member’s question on, was it on clause 18 or clause 19—but let me answer them both. Let’s cross them both off because the answer is the same. These activities would be provided for—and the member mentioned a wharf and maintenance and various things—in a national rule, or a rule and a plan. Any rule or proposed national plan has the legal effect of a water services standard on the basis that where effects are well understood and where the way those effects are managed means that they can be managed to an acceptable level. If we can specify that in a water services standard and a national rule, or a rule and a plan, then it doesn’t make sense to force people to apply for consents for things—in the case of the Natural Environment Bill—when the way to measure effects is already well understood and we can establish those at either a national or a regional level.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m moving on to the next clause, clause 20, “Restrictions relating to water”. I have a few specific questions on this clause. My question is around clause 20(4), where a person is not prohibited from taking, using, damming, or diverting water any water, heat, or energy, provided if, in the case of fresh water, two aspects apply.

I have a specific question about the second aspect of that, being the prescribed level and what that means. Just for context, the test which it’s talking about is that “if both of the following apply:”, and the first one in subclause (4)(b)(i) is around “water, heat, or energy” and the “individual’s reasonable domestic needs” or, potentially, stock water needs for animals, but the second part of it, in subparagraph (ii), is around “the actual or likely adverse effects on natural resources of the taking or use are no more than minor or do not exceed any prescribed level;”.

Now, that prescribed level is what I’m really interested in understanding, because, as it makes it clear—or I presume it’s saying this. Further down, it talks about the prescribed level being able to be—sorry, this is in subclause (5)(a). It means: “adverse effects that [may be] more than minor; [or] prescribed in national standards.” Now, the concern with this is that we’re seeing across the board throughout this bill environmental protections that would be standard that are actually, essentially, having their scope widened and widened and widened in different ways. I want to check: what are some examples of this prescribed level—which I think is clear. Could you prescribe a level where effects are more than minor, what are some instances that are actually contemplated, and why is this allowance enabled? Thank you, Madam Chair.

Committee of the whole House

I don’t have any tangible examples for the member right now, but at the moment consents are often required for activities—as I’ve pointed out in a number of my answers—where the activity is well understood and the effects of that activity on the natural environment are well understood, and so the purpose of clause 20(5) is to be clear that where a level of adverse effects is not more than minor, then a person is not prohibited from these activities set out in subclause (4).

“More than minor” is a threshold that has been chosen to reflect the level at which we wish to protect water. Further details will be able to be prescribed in national standards—which, again, will be open for consultation—after taking on feedback from stakeholders and making sure that any national standard that is arrived at and promulgated under this legislation will manage effects to an appropriate level.

Committee of the whole House

I want to move on to clause 21, “Discharges”. The thrust of the question is about the fact that the regime has ported over some of section 15 from the Resource Management Act, but it now makes the goal of Māori participation at the same level as the use or making of discharges.

The question is: if the discharge regime is working properly, is it possible that it will comply with the relevant numerical limit in the national rule but it still might contaminate tuna [eel] or other traditional kai that mana whenua are trying to protect, to the point that they can no longer safely use them for kai, or that they will be dead and not there to be protected in the future? In clause 21, which is the provisions governing discharge permits, the consent authority is required to protect the continuing ability of mana whenua to gather and consume mahinga kai, rather than simply protect water against specified levels of contamination. That would be a more effective role in this regime, where there isn’t a balancing of those goals, but that’s not what is presented here.

I want to ask this in this specific example. At other points in the legislation, the Te Arawa Lakes settlement is provided for, and that allows iwi to set regulatory levels alongside their local authority. But in the case of other iwi—say, Ngāi Tahu, which have a particular interest in tuna [eel] in Lake Ellesmere, or other iwi who have particular interests that are recognised in statutory acknowledgments—what is the power of a local authority to consider the discharge regime that’s set up here alongside those procedural rights of Māori, which are only “to participate” and not to actually have the right to continue to protect and use kai, alongside those of other users who would make discharges into water?

Committee of the whole House

I thank the member Arena Williams for the question. Māori interests are provided for in the goals. Treaty settlements are provided for in the legislation. Where those settlements have identified, say, places that are suitable for traditional mahinga kai gathering areas, if they’re in a settlement, it’s highly probable, if not certain, that those areas identified in a settlement will be matters that must be taken into account by plan makers. I think we can be confident about that.

There is also a provision for sites of significance to Māori to be identified in addition to what is in a Treaty settlement or in a statutory acknowledgment, so I think we can have a great deal of confidence that the concerns that the member has raised can be addressed through the provisions already in legislation.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to clarify—and I think this is what the member said. In Lake Rotorua, if Te Arawa is guaranteed in their settlement that they have rights specifically designed to protect the customary gathering of those taonga species, and if the discharge is authorised under clause 21 and it meets the numerical requirements that are set, as he says, at the plan level, but those koura and those eels become unsafe to eat or, indeed, are gone in the future, is the regime working?

Committee of the whole House

It’s envisaged that where, say, the provision Arena Williams has described in the Te Arawa settlement include places that are identified for mahinga kai, those should be provided for and the water quality in those areas protected so that those values which support mahinga kai can be achieved.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m going to jump along now, but I do want to thank the member in the chair, Simon Court, for pointing out for me the word “until” in clause 25 for me. I might be a little bit tired—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I don’t know why!

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: —but it’s helpful. Classification of activities is at clause 32, and I have Amendment Paper 706 for a permitted activity and this is to change the “or” to an “and”. That is that something can be a permitted activity, or a decision maker should consider classifying an activity as a permitted activity, if “(i) the activity is acceptable, is anticipated, or achieves the desired level of use, development, or protection;”—and this is the change—“and (ii) the adverse effects of the activity are understood and can be managed:”. I would like the member in the chair to consider this amendment, please.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to pick up specifically on clause 32, where my colleague Rachel Brooking was. This is a really significant part of the bill, in terms of a change which has huge implications. That’s particularly around permitted activities. I really would like to understand from the member in the chair, Simon Court, because we did have quite significant changes to this clause as part of the select committee process, and it was really disappointing to see where the committee actually got to on this.

I particularly want to understand the permitted activity thresholds, and the first one is in clause 32(2)(a), which classifies where a decision maker should actually consider these permitted activities. The first is whether the activity is acceptable, anticipated, or achieves the desired level of use, development, or protection. I think that’s pretty uncontroversial. The part that I’m really interested in is the second part, which is the aspect where the adverse activity, or, sorry, the adverse effects of the activity—it’s been a long day—are understood and can be managed.

Now, as to the words “can be managed”, I’m interested to hear from the member and his officials: is that specifically about them possibly being managed, or is it that to qualify as a permitted activity, they are being managed or they must be managed? This is really significant when it comes to so much more of our consenting framework under these bills being permitted. I think it’s a really important aspect that I’d like to clarify.

The other aspect which I’d really like to hear the member’s comments on is this. When the bills were first introduced, there was another aspect to the permitted activity rules, and that was one where it was “where there is sufficient allocation for any anticipated cumulative effect without breaching an environmental limit”. This was absolutely key to permitted activities not being entirely opened up to cumulative effects that do breach and impact environmental limits. If you want to summarise one massive problem and issue that is yet to be adequately addressed, it is that one.

When we had submissions, Federated Farmers, in particular, singled in on this, saying that they wanted this gone, and it disappeared. I would like to hear from the member why, when there is such change in the system, why was this bottom line around actually ensuring that we don’t fall into the same mess that we have been in for the last few decades—why did this have to be removed? Thank you.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. Clause 32 is around guidance for classifying activities. Just to answer Rachel Brooking’s question, I think it was, about why it says “or” when considering whether a classifying activity is permitted, it’s to retain flexibility, and so we won’t be accepting the member’s proposed amendment.

Coming the member Lan Pham’s question about a decision maker considering classifying an activity as a permitted activity, there are many activities that are common and well understood, where the impacts can be anticipated and are accepted, and the activity achieves the desired level of use, development, or protection. We might look at gravel extraction from rivers. There are many members of this House who have spoken around the challenges of extracting gravel from rivers. This isn’t gravel that’s always been there. If you drive up over the Remutakas, north of Wellington, and you drive down the other side into the Wairarapa, you will see multiple channels, enormous gullies, on each side of the Tararuas, which generate a constant discharge of rock on to the plains below. Because we’ve built cities and roads and we’ve developed the land and we now live, mostly, healthy—most of us—and, for some of us, wealthy lives, we have to accept that if we’re going to let the mountains fill the rivers full of gravel, we’re going to have to get some of that out, or it’s going to cause the bridges to be washed out, it’s going to cause towns to be flooded, it’s going to end up spilling after flood and storm events all over productive farmland and wrecking the productive farmland.

Now, it may well be—and I’m not foreshadowing what the national standard could look like—that we can develop a permitted activity criteria when classifying activities, that removing gravel from a river is acceptable as a permitted activity on the basis that if we look at 32(2)(a)(ii), “the adverse effects of the activity are understood and can be managed:”. What this Government intends to do is to reduce the number of activities that require consents where the effects of those activities are well understood and can be managed at an acceptable level. The questions the member has asked, and my responses in reply, sum up the problem that we’re trying to solve and the clarity we’re trying to provide.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank the member Simon Court for his very fulsome answers; they are very helpful to us on this side of the Chamber to understand his reasoning for pieces of this legislation.

I would like to just go to clause 21, “Discharges”. My interest is around biosecurity responses. I’m interested to know where—I assume this would be the part in this legislation that would cover this—if not in here, in this piece of legislation provides for flexibility for biosecurity responses that might involve chemical treatments if we have an emergency biosecurity response where we need to, for some reason, discharge a chemical into whether it be the air, land, whatever, sea—where in this legislation allows the flexibility for that to happen?

Committee of the whole House

In response to the member the Hon Jo Luxton’s question, in terms of discharges, we have covered that at clause 21, which, basically, says that “A person must not discharge any of the following unless the discharge is expressly allowed by an instrument specified in … a natural resource permit:”. I urge the member to refer to clause 21, which provides quite a high level of detail about the process around that.

Committee of the whole House

Sorry, I just have a follow-up question. I’m sorry, the member Simon Court may not have heard my question in full because I think he was speaking at the time, but my question is: with regard to when you have an emergency biosecurity response, where in this legislation provides the flexibility to allow an emergency biosecurity response that might require involving chemical treatments, and whether they can be discharged? Whereabouts in this legislation might provide flexibility for that to happen?

Committee of the whole House

I’ve been advised that provision for that is in clauses 301 to 304, or thereabouts. If the member the Hon Jo Luxton wants to come back and further questions about that, I’m happy to answer them.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Or we could move straight to that now!

Committee of the whole House

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I had a question about the Amendment Paper 710. In Part 2, Subpart 3, clause 29 is deleted. Clause 29 had definitions of “Objectives, policies, rules, and methods”. Now, the definition of “rule” or meaning of “rule” has moved to clause 31. It seems like there’s no clause 29 now; it just goes 28, 30. “Objective” is not defined in the definitions, in this particular use it means. “Policy” and “method” were in the definitions but have been deleted, but clause 30 still refers to “Application of objectives, policies, rules, and methods”. I was just wondering if the member in the chair, Simon Court, could help us understand these drafting decisions, and if this specific meaning of “objectives”, “policies”, and “methods” is elsewhere in the new Amendment Paper. I can’t find it.

Committee of the whole House

Yeah, I’m happy to respond. Look, that clause was deleted. It sets out what an “objective”, “policy”, “method”, and “rule” is. It was deleted because it was considered unnecessary and added complexity at the stage of the legislation. It can be redirected through national standards or non-statutory guidance, if such matters are still required.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you. On this point, I’ll just take us through it for a wee second. Clause 37, “Rules relating to restricted discretionary activities”—37 in the report back from the Environment Committee is struck out, OK? Then, we get to what we’ve been going through, which is Amendment Paper 710. In 710, we’ve got clause 36 followed by clause 39, so there is no 37 or 38. But then we have this tiny little Amendment Paper that I did a point of order on earlier, which was at 2.11 p.m. today, 27 August 2026, and it says, “Delete clause 37”. So that is why we’re confused. There’s something here about—it says, “This proposes to delete the rest of clause 37 of the Natural Environment Bill. The substantive clause in 37(1) and (2) was struck out in the bill that was reported back in the Environment Committee.”

Arena Williams: But there’s no rest of the clause.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Yeah, it’s all struck out, yeah. So that’s the question. Just what are we doing?

Committee of the whole House

The member the Hon Rachel Brooking raises a valid point. I understand that the Minister Chris Bishop, in his time in the chair, explained that—

Hon Rachel Brooking: No, he didn’t.

SIMON COURT: Well, in that case, I shall take the opportunity to explain that when the bill was reported back, it had a number 37 and, what I understand, what officials have explained to me is that in preparing this legislation for tabling, the number was removed but the clauses haven’t been removed—but the number has been removed; there was no content associated with it. OK? Thank you.

Committee of the whole House

Got it. Thank you, Madam Chair. So it’s not really “delete clause 37”; it’s delete the number 37. That’s my great drafting coming through!

OK. I’m going to move to clause 39, and that is—which would have come after 37 and 38, but that’s also disappeared—yeah, what’s happened to 38? Clause 38 was not in it as reported back, either. Maybe there’s never been a 38. Who knows? I know, of course, the numbers will be corrected before we get to third reading, so I’m not being rude about the numbers.

But new clause 39 is “Permitted activity rules that require registration”, and this “requiring registration” is all in track, and there are some changes. So just if the member in the chair, Simon Court, can explain what’s happening here.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you for the question. Permitted activities require registration in the Amendment Paper 709—that was redrafted to better reflect policy intent, to clarify that the scope of permitted activity rules and other requirements where a permitted activity requires registration, such as where an applicant needs to pay a fee or provide a certificate, a qualified person in order to demonstrate that they qualify for that status.

Committee of the whole House

I think the answer to that was it was more of a redrafting than anything else. I’m getting a nod. Thank you for that. I think now it would be sensible for us to move on to Subpart 4, and that is environmental limits. It’s an important part of the bill in the whole scheme of things, because as we’ve heard, this is where Minister Bishop has been saying—and he said in question time today—that there’s a big difference from the Resource Management Act.

On that, my first question would be does the member in the chair, Simon Court, agree with the Minister that the Resource Management Act has not set any environmental limits, and, if so, does that then mean that he thinks that the National Policy Statement on Freshwater Management (NPSFM) doesn’t contain environmental limits? If he thinks that, in fact, the freshwater national policy statement does contain limits, will he agree with my Amendment Paper 699 to establish what is found in the NPSFM as the freshwater limits so that we can get off with a roar and a hiss and have the freshwater limits described in some form early on in the process, and, if not, why not?

Committee of the whole House

We’re not here to debate the Resource Management Act; we’re here to debate the Natural Environment Bill. I just want to make it clear that the Resource Management Act is not required to have limits; this legislation is.

Committee of the whole House

That didn’t answer my question. The point is, if he can agree with me that there are limits in the National Policy Statement on Freshwater Management, then my question is: why not include them in this bill so they’re ready to go? That was the question.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you for that focused question on the Natural Environment Bill. Environmental limits are in the new system. The methodology for their purpose and the methodology for setting them out is found in Subpart 4. There is a distinct and important process for establishing limits for both human health and ecosystem health, which does not exist in the Resource Management Act. It’s important that as we go through the process of developing national policy direction, national standards that will describe a standardised approach for setting limits—one of the matters that we’re proposing is included as a standard in the new system—that that substantive work on secondary legislation, regulations, and instruments be allowed to happen so that we get the limits right.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a quick burning question before I also move on to environmental limits at clause 40 and 41 on page 63. The thrust of the question for the member in the chair, Simon Court, is that this is a deceptively important provision which sets out how regional councils, councils need to respond to national rules, and it gives us something of a hierarchy there. The question is: can a local council respond to local environmental conditions when there is a national rule in place? How is it possible for, say, the Waikato Council to respond to its badly degraded river catchment in future when there is a national rule and, indeed, a rule in primary legislation around setting a national rule for all of those other councils that want to create higher standards of protection, and that would have some impact on, say, freshwater discharges? Are they still empowered to be able to do that?

Committee of the whole House

In the case of the Waikato, Te Ture Whaimana o te Awa o Waikato will prevail, but in relationship to other catchments, clause 41(3) is quite clear: “If a national rule allows an activity and states that a … permit is not required … or states that an activity is a permitted activity, the following provisions apply:” Basically, it sets out that if a plan states that an activity is permitted on the conditions specified in the plan, the conditions can only deal with the effects that are additional to or separate from the effects managed by a national rule. That’s because we don’t want, in the new system, to see councils making rules for matters which have already been covered by a national standard. That is intentional. We want to simplify the system and we want all system participants, whether they be councils, decision makers, planners, applicants, resource users, people working on the land, growing stuff so they can feed New Zealand. We want them, if at all possible and if it’s practical, we want to have national rules that say how effects can be managed to an acceptable level. That is the reason that we have provided for that. Again, that’s clear in (c): “if a plan’s conditions deal with effects of the activity that are the same as [the national rule] … the national rule prevail[s].” We want to avoid duplication, double-ups, councils making rules for stuff that at a national level we have already agreed how effects can be managed.

Committee of the whole House

Oh, thank you, Madam Chair. I want to go to clause 48B. This is new from the Amendment Paper 710. It’s “Considerations for anticipated breach of environmental limit”. It says, “ For the purposes of this subpart, a decision maker may consider that a breach of an environmental limit is anticipated”—so it’s an anticipated breach—“only if satisfied that the breach”—so it sounds good; if you’re worried about there being too many breeches, it’s limited—“(a) is likely to be caused by a historic activity, an activity authorised by a natural resource permit, or both; and (b) is highly likely to occur; and (c) cannot be prevented by taking reasonable steps.”

Now, there’s a lot in this clause and I would like to invite the member Simon Court to start us off on it in terms of why it has been included here and what “a historic activity” is and if the historic activity can also be a continued activity. That’s the first question there.

Committee of the whole House

I’ll attempt to deal with that now. I might need to take further advice on that. Clause 48B defines an anticipated breach as one which is locked in by past activities—historic activity or activities authorised by a natural resource permit. It’s highly likely to occur. That’s why we use the word “anticipated”. We anticipate it will occur. And it can’t be prevented by taking reasonable steps. To the member the Hon Rachel Brooking’s question: will that activity still be allowed to occur? There are provisions for activities to occur on the basis that there is an overall trend towards environmental improvement, but, again, there are other provisions in the Act where the system needs to respond to an anticipated breach by taking action. I’m sure we’ll get into that.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. My first question on environmental limits is about clause 45, definitions of “best attainable information”. It also relates to clause 57B, so I’ll deal with those together. Clause 57B is on page 77. The question that this is trying to solve is: how much information does an environmental decision maker need before making a decision? But the usual standard in the Natural Environment Bill is not the best obtainable information or the best available information at the time; it’s just enough information in the procedural principles, and the regulations also repeat that definition. We’ve got this problem here—I think that arose at clause 13(d)—where councils and decision makers could move on if they anticipated that in future there might be some information that they didn’t know and that there was an unknown, and yet that known unknown would mean that they could move on and not seek that information. But here, with the environmental limits, the standard is much broader. I want to ask the member in the chair, first: is that the appropriate standard when then setting the limits become challengeable?

He made a very impassioned case for why the expert panel had suggested to him that these procedural rules should be set out in the primary legislation, and I agree with him that we should make it simpler for environmental decision makers to make decisions and not have to defend the procedure which they used. The availability of information is one of those procedural points, but here they’re held to a much higher standard than the one that was required under the Resource Management Act, and a much, much higher standard than the one that’s required in any other process in his bill. “Best obtainable information” means information which you could have gathered from any source that exists up until that point that you are requiring that. Even though he suggested to the committee earlier that the systems are much improving, the central government is making a big investment in the information that will be available, still “best information” then makes it contestable and makes it reviewable if the decision maker has not got some part of the information which someone challenging the decision has access to and didn’t take that into consideration.

So it would just be useful, I guess, if he would take the committee through why he’s used this much, much higher standard than the other information standards in the rest of the bill. Thank you.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. That was a great question. Look, the definition of “best obtainable information” is right here in 57B(2). The member asked, is this a much higher standard or do I consider it a much higher standard? Look, it’s the appropriate criteria for decisions in this context. Best available information means “information [decision-makers are] satisfied is as robust, transparent, and accessible as reasonably possible; obtained from information that is available or can be reasonably—reasonably—obtained at the time; and is obtained in a manner that is proportionate to the effects of the decision.” Because we do not want to carry over the behaviours and culture of the Resource Management Act, where decision makers are confronted with the risks, say, of judicial review or objections that come out of left field because they’re accused of not having had the information to make the decision properly. That, if the risk can be managed in an appropriate way, and they have the best obtainable information, here is a defence for them when they make their decision.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. Really pleased to be able to talk to this section on environmental limits because this truly is what should be the heart of a functional resource management system. We heard very clearly from submitters across the board that they were really concerned about the entirety of the environmental limits section being insufficiently protective. This is really important and should be really important to the Government, who keeps insisting that these bills are not going to take us backwards when it comes to environmental protections.

So the aspects that I want to get to is, firstly, around the expression of environmental limits themselves—this is at clause 48. I have an Amendment Paper on this, which is about—because it makes it clear in the bills that these are states and attributes that can be expressed numerically or in narrative form. Now, what I’m really interested in is whether the Minister would consider a very minor amendment to open that up to environmental limits being able to be expressed spatially. Why that’s really important is because we want to get somewhere with this new system. And what is often the case is that because limits are often in tables in the back of, like, 800-page documents and what not, they’re completely inaccessible to the public.

Now, what is really important, and what I’d love to hear the Minister’s responses to, is if they are enabled to be expressed spatially, this could really open up people’s accessibility in understanding of—for example, where you had a critical source area or where you had a drinking water protection zone, people would be able to see spatially how that area around that specific point where the measurement is taken, is directly related. I think just allowing that kind of scope could help this really be something that is not just buried away in a table or what not.

The other aspect that I would like to understand is about the defined terms in environmental limits, because—and this relates to some other Amendment Papers that I have—I’m interested as to whether the definition of ecosystem includes air or atmosphere, because it talks about biological life—and I’m not going to repeat all the words that it says with that. It talks about physical and chemical habitat and it talks about ecological processes. What I’m really keen to understand with that is whether our atmosphere or our biosphere or however you want to describe it, but that tiny, tiny part of our Earth, that allows us to live and have a functional air that we breathe and ideally a climate that offers us a livable future; I want to understand whether human health limits or ecosystem health limits can be set for our atmosphere or biosphere, because I think, increasingly, we are seeing not only the impacts of climate change, but an increasing awareness of how vulnerable and precious and how protective we should actually be being about this very specific part of the world that enables literally everything else. So I’m really interested.

Committee of the whole House

Look, I do appreciate the member’s interest in setting ecological and human health limits and would take the definition of ecosystem as read under clause 45, “ Defined terms”. The member’s question: can limits be set for air quality or air? Yes, we have existing limits, say, for particulate or for different emissions to air. We already have standards for those things under the Resource Management Act. We want to make sure that we have appropriate limits in the new system.

For the biosphere, as a concept, where limits are provided for ecological health. The matters that limits can be set for are set out in legislation—and just to be clear, for human health, it’s freshwater, coastal water, land, soil, and air; for ecosystem health, it’s freshwater, coastal water, land and soil, and indigenous biodiversity.

Lan Pham: Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Is this a follow up question?

Committee of the whole House

Yes, it is. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to round that out—thank you to the member for clarifying for air; completely aware of that—specifically, I’m interested in atmosphere. This is the subject of two of my amendments. I don’t believe they have numbers, but they were tabled at 11.53 on Wednesday. They are both proposing to change clause 50 and insert “atmosphere” into “Where ecosystem health limits must be set”, and the same when it comes to human health limits in clause 50A(3)—so both of those aspects. The reason why I, specifically, am interested in atmosphere as opposed to air is because of that protective layer, and because it is so necessary to everything else that happens on the planet.

Committee of the whole House

I can provide further explanation to the member. Is atmosphere in scope of the Natural Environment Bill? Partly. Air is defined as to be part of the atmosphere. We live in the troposphere part of the atmosphere, where the air is, that we can breathe; but it does not include in the Natural Environment Bill, the outer atmosphere. So limits can only cover this aspect, the troposphere.

While effects on the atmosphere are technically in scope, as they are under the Resource Management Act, there needs to be evidence of an effect which substantially limits the circumstances under which that could be considered. Again, I note that the adverse climate change effects from greenhouse gases are specifically excluded from being considered in this legislation, because they are already dealt with under the Climate Change Response Act and covered by emissions pricing under the emissions trading scheme.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. This is truly a very significant piece of reform, and I congratulate the member in the chair, Simon Court, and also share his enthusiasm to introduce these limits. That’s why this new part of the legislation—the definitions—is so important.

I’m at page 67, at the bottom of Amendment Paper 710, for “ecosystem”. There are two things that this is missing, and I’m making a pitch to the member in the chair, for you to include them. Firstly, to paragraph (a), “biological life”, the test here is “Are there eels in Lake Ellesmere?”, not “Are there eels in Lake Ellesmere which are edible?” The goals now have changed. There are Māori interests at the same level—I’m at clause 45, page 67—and so—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Can I just check which clause you’re speaking to?

ARENA WILLIAMS: Clause 45, page 67.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I’m kind of reluctant to keep heading backwards. We did say that at the beginning.

ARENA WILLIAMS: I will make it very brief. So that’s the first thing that seems to be missing here. Does the member in chair have any interest in including that here, because it’s not included in a goals hierarchy any more?

And, at paragraph (c), it doesn’t say “ecological balance”; it just says “ecological processes”. His definition at paragraph (c) seems to have an unintended consequence here. Taking the example of Lake Forsyth at the moment, which has a local rāhui because of the algal bloom in the area, that is also a biological process and there is biological life in the lake—abundant biological life in the lake. It doesn’t mean that the lake is healthy, but his definition of ecosystem includes a definition which is overrun with algal bloom and thus killing the other life forms in the lake. Why doesn’t his definition have a sense of balance and sustainability in there too?

Committee of the whole House

Algae are important—they are one of the original creatures that lived on Earth—but algae in the wrong place, and too many of them, is bad.

Arena Williams: So say that.

SIMON COURT: We do not want to be so specific in the legislation about which algae are good and which algae are bad, but we certainly have provided for a definition of “ecosystem”, including biological life, which includes microbes, invertebrates, plants, fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals, and fungi. The member’s question was whether we should include eels specifically. I understand that eels are amphibians.

I’m going to grant the member some slack, because I don’t usually take heckled questions, but I would eat pretty much any of that stuff. I don’t think defining them as “edible” or “not edible” is helpful. They’re all edible. So if we could just move on from definitions to the member’s next question about a subsequent part.

Committee of the whole House

A question from me. I am intrigued by what the member in the chair, Simon Court, counts as food, and I won’t think about it any more!

I made a contribution earlier about clause 50 and my Amendment Paper 699, making the freshwater limits those that already exist in the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management (NPSFM), and the member in the chair said something about how he doesn’t want to go back to the Resource Management Act (RMA) and he wants to go through the processes that we’re going to be talking about for the setting of the limits. As we are nearing the dinner break, it might be useful for the member in the chair to do two things: one is to give an overview of the things that have changed since the select committee reported back that are found in this amendment, as a preview for us going into those different clauses. I think that would be useful. Another would be if the Minister could comment on how he sees different limits working for fresh water versus coastal water, versus land and soil, versus indigenous biodiversity, and versus air.

It seems to me that we are already familiar with limit setting for fresh water and air—we’ve had different instruments that have done that, and people can see numbers on a page and see it as a limit—but indigenous biodiversity is quite different, and land and soil can be different too. In terms of whether it’s a human health standard to do with contamination of soil, that’s clearly a number, and we can deal with that as a limit, but where does the member see the limits going on things that are not limits that we’ve seen any version of in the RMA before? Then, where we have seen limits in the RMA before—he might say they’re not limits, but something that looks like numbers that are a limit where you can’t get a consent; if there’s a number and you’re already meeting the number, you can’t get a consent if you go above the number.

To talk in speed limits—and this is a bad metaphor, probably—we’re used to speed limits: if it’s 100 km/h, you can’t go 120 km/h. Those sorts of numerical limits are quite easy to consider. Where does the member see the freshwater limits going, departing from the NPSFM? That’s part of the question. And where does the member in the chair see those other limits going that might be more descriptive—and going back to Lan Pham’s contribution about her proposed amendments, I think it would be a useful set-up for the rest of the discussion on limits. Also, going back to my original question, if the member could take us through the changes that have been made, at a high level, so we know where they are actual substantive changes and where they’re not.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you. I thank the member Rachel Brooking for the question. In terms of key changes made by the select committee, would the member indicate whether she would like me to take the committee through those or move on to key changes made by the Government through this Amendment Paper?

Hon Rachel Brooking: Government.

SIMON COURT: The key changes in the Government Amendment Paper is simplifying the environmental limits framework by removing requirements to set separate resource caps and streamlining the action plan provisions, giving councils flexibility to decide how best to manage resource use before a limit is at risk of being breached. That’s the overall direction in the changes in the Amendment Paper.

The member raised a really interesting question around what are examples of limits, and we acknowledge that air and fresh water already have limits provided for them. For example, I mentioned air has particulate matter, and air must not exceed 50 micrograms per cubic metre, expressed as a 24-hour mean, more than once in a 12-month period. It sounds very technical, but if you’re running a business like a sawmill or an operation like a quarry, it’s important that there are limits established for air quality that can be measured, because if those limits are exceeded, that’s a potential risk, say, to human health. But, when it comes to coastal water, the member is correct, there have not been any limits for coastal water. What are some of things we might want to see expressed as limits? This is an opportunity, I think, where across the House we can agree that we’re actually moving the environmental management system in New Zealand in a really positive direction.

I’ll give the example that’s been provided to me: at least a certain percentage of the 2025 seagrass extent must be maintained in each estuary management unit. That sounds like quite a high-tech way of explaining what is something we could all get around: sea grass is a really, really important habitat. I can see the member Lan Pham cheering about seagrass, and if you think about habitat, I mean, I’ve done a lot of diving over the years. There are places in the world where creatures like manatees depend on sea grass. Now, I’ve never seen a manatee in New Zealand. But maybe, maybe—

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Looks a bit like you.

SIMON COURT: —maybe, Dr Duncan Webb—

Glen Bennett: “Honourable”.

SIMON COURT: —the Hon Dr Duncan Webb in perpetuity—maybe if we get enough seagrass, we can attract manatees to New Zealand. How would that be? How good! Again, that’s not one of the goals of the Act, but, if we cast forward, potentially.

The member asked for another example about land. This is one which we don’t currently have limits for, for land and soil. It’s been suggested that there could be a limit prescribing that average soil loss from hill country must not exceed so many tonnes per hectare per year. There are many concerns raised, and I remember them being raised around the Hauraki Gulf marine protection bill, during the select committee hearings on that bill, which is now an Act of Parliament. Many submitters were concerned about soil loss and sediment entering the Hauraki Gulf from land development and other activities like forestry, for example, and that there was no way of controlling that. So in the future, under the Natural Environment Act, as we intend it to become, there will be scope to provide limits for land and soil so that some of those—what we might call—wider ecosystem effects can be managed.

It is not to say that competent and experienced developers aren’t already fulfilling their legal obligations in terms of managing soil loss and managing erosion and sediment control from large-scale activities—earthworks, for example, in a subdivision, or forestry: cutting down the trees and making sure that they don’t lose sediment. But, at the moment, that’s all been managed on a site by site basis. The new system will be able to take a step back and have a wider look, say, at a region, and then it can be broken down by management units.

Another example that’s been provided for me that I can share with you is a limit for indigenous biodiversity. I might state that at least a certain percentage of the 2025 indigenous vegetation, and a certain type of indigenous vegetation, must be maintained. One of the privileges of being a member of Parliament is that I get to fly around the country talking to people to learn more about the problems in their regions or cities. Occasionally, I get to sit by the window and look out. It’s quite clear that there are large parts of New Zealand that are uninhabited that are full of forest—take the West Coast of the South Island, for example. Occasionally, when the plane’s gone off track, it might end up over Fiordland—but that wouldn’t be common—where, essentially, the land is uninhabited and is full of forest.

The question might come around to say: well, what would be the right percentage of indigenous vegetation to maintain in those areas? There’s probably scope for a bit more flexibility on those areas, but there are other places, and I have discussed this—I’m sure the member Lan Pham won’t mind me raising this: we had a conversation about the fact that when you look out the window and you look down at the Canterbury Plains, you can see these fantastic braided rivers coming down from the mountains, and you can see all the wonderful primary production activities, the fantastic pivot irrigators, you can see the cropping, and you can see the wonderful cities like Christchurch and all of those great places to live that I visited recently, like Selwyn and Darfield and Methven—Methven’s quite hard to see, but it’s there. You’ve got to get a bit lower; you got to get down to about 15,000 feet to see Methven.

One of the things you don’t see is extensive indigenous biodiversity—vegetation—along those river corridors. There are a number of reasons for that. At some point, following initial human discovery of New Zealand, the entire east coast of the South Island caught fire. So a lot of the vegetation that might have been there once is no longer there. So there may well be a case that when establishing a limit for indigenous biodiversity and the extent that it must be maintained, that could well become a positive limit; in other words, something to seek to achieve, over time.

I think that’s important context, because I recall, earlier this afternoon, Minister Bishop, when asked a question in relation to a previous part, said a lot of these matters are temporal; the things that we’re trying to achieve have a time scale. Sometimes, when our aspirations are too urgent and the cost of achieving the objectives, whether they be to protect indigenous biodiversity or to achieve a limit, become far too expensive and the trade-offs are simply not feasible. So one of the important things that we seek to do in the new system when setting environmental limits is to provide that they be achieved in a time frame that is aspirational, potentially, but practical and pragmatic in other ways.

The member asked for me to provide some additional comments and framing as we approach the dinner break. What I hope the members in the House will take away from this is that Minister Bishop and I have taken a thoughtful approach, we’ve taken good advice, we’ve considered the ambitions and the aspirations of many people, particularly, when it comes to improving our natural environment, and we look forward to continuing this journey, with all of you, as the legislation is passed—we anticipate in the next few weeks—and then implemented through national policy direction when we put that out for statutory consultation next year, setting the standards that will apply to all of those domains, limit setting and so on, and we start to see some real progress towards these environmental ambitions we all have.

Hon Members: Madam Chair!

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, I know how enthusiastic you are, but the time has come for me to vacate the Chair for the dinner break. We are suspended until 7 p.m.

Sitting suspended from 5.56 p.m. to 7 p.m.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Right, good evening, members. We are now resuming on the committee stage of the Natural Environment Bill.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to start off with where the member in the chair, Simon Court, left off before the dinner break. I’d like to thank him from the bottom of my heart for his beautiful display of his love for the natural environment and the importance of seagrass. It was great.

My question does relate to the member in the chair’s explanations of what some different sorts of limits might be. I do thank him for discussing the difference between those numerical limits that we are used to, such as for fresh water and air, and then these different—what he was describing as—limits for, say, indigenous biodiversity. The example given was the corridors surrounding braided rivers in Canterbury and how they don’t seem to have much biodiversity around them, and how that would be a good thing to have; and that we could also do better in our coastal environments with the seagrass and other things.

So my question is quite a simple question, given his explanation of what could be in these limits. I agree with everything that the member was saying in terms of how these are outcomes that I would also like to see, but they just seem to me—some of them; not the water or the air—to be more like targets or outcomes or something that is not yet achieved. Like, great, we want to get there; I in no way want to stop anybody from trying to achieve the things that the member in the chair was talking about. But when I think of limits, the limit is that if we’ve met the limit, then computer says no or the police car is coming to chase you or—you know, that is what the limit is, rather than how can we approve everything.

I was just wondering if he could comment on that difference between—he was talking about air pollution and you’re in a factory and you need your PM10 to be below a certain level; you can measure that. The member was talking about the importance of being able to measure these things, which I also agree with. That is clearly in limit. If you go above a certain PM10 limit, then you might stop what you’re doing. Whereas if you are saying, “We need more biodiversity along the braided river corridors in Canterbury.”, then that’s not going to stop you from doing something. I’m just trying to work out how he sees that sort of limit—the corridor around the braided river—applying to a planning framework and a framework whereby, as the Minister has described it, the development is enabled within those limits, and if, in fact, they should still be called limits or they should be called something else. I don’t disagree with the ideas, I’m just trying to work it through.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you to the member for asking that question. Limits, as I have outlined before, are but one tool in the system provided for in the Natural Environment Bill by which to achieve the goals of the Act. I’ll refer the member back to—we are going back, and I appreciate we’ve moved past this in the debate; I’m going to go back for clarification, since we’ve just started again this evening after the dinner break—clause 48, “How environmental limits are expressed”. I believe that’s the clarification that the member has asked for, either as a state attribute or a stress attribute: a “state attribute, being an identified biophysical state of the natural environment”, or a “stress attribute, being an identified level of biophysical harm or stress on the natural environment that is allowed within the management unit”.

Clause 48(1)(c) says a limit “may be expressed numerically or in narrative form subject to subsection (2)”, where a state attribute is clearly measurable, meaning it’s expressed in a way that readily enables the assessment of whether the limit is breached, in accordance with any requirements prescribed in regulations or the national standards. In the current resource management system, we do not have a way of describing and achieving a state which that limit—which, again, is not provided for in the Resource Management Act—is intended to achieve.

This is a new way of looking at things, and so we will have the ability to describe a state attribute that the limit is intended to achieve on the basis that it’s measurable. Simply describing an aspiration without being able to identify a pathway to get there or milestones along the way that we can measure and calibrate and potentially change the way we’re doing things is no more than a slogan. This legislation is not about slogans. It’s not about announcements. It’s about providing the technical tools—the legislative tools and regulations and national policy direction standards—that enable us to achieve these limits. As we have canvassed that extensively, I would appreciate questions on matters further on in this part.

Committee of the whole House

Just a small follow-up to that. So is his understanding that a limit is not necessarily a backstop; from his description, it can be a whole lot more than a backstop? It can be a forward look, as well?

Committee of the whole House

Yes.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair. Yeah, I’m really interested in continuing on in the bill, and the clause that I’d like to pick up on now is clause 49A. These are about the considerations relevant to developing the human health limits.

Now, what we heard really clearly from submitters—across the spectrum, really—was concern about how weighty ministerial influence is in the actual setting of these human health limits. What I’m interested in, firstly, is the very start of clause 94A(1)(a), because this outlines that the Minister must be satisfied that the proposed human health limit will, as a minimum, prevent significant or irreversible harm to people and communities. Now, that sounds very reasonable. We want the Minister to be able—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Did you mean clause 94 or 49?

LAN PHAM: Clause 49A—thank you. I’ve also got an Amendment Paper, Mr Chair, just while you’re situating yourself: it’s Amendment Paper 752, and that’s what I’ll be referring to now. Thank you.

What I’m interested in understanding from the member is in relation to the “satisfied” test for the Minister. We have a number of Government members currently—but, also, I don’t want to assign this to any one side of the House; there is risk in any one Government for people to be, shall we say, more flexible with their interpretation of what information and evidence actually is. I’m interested as to the member’s directions about what that test of “satisfied” actually means. Could it, for example, conflict with scientific evidence? I think what’s really important with this is that we’re talking about human health impacts. These aren’t political matters. They are clear health concerns which are usually, in some form, measurable.

Why I’m really interested in that is because I’m proposing, in my Amendment Paper, an aspect that we heard consistently not only from submitters but, particularly, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, who encouraged us, as the select committee members, to take this setting of health limits—of ministerial direction generally, but particularly when it comes to these human health limits—out of the political sphere and put it with more independent bodies.

One way that I’m proposing to do that, which I’d appreciate the member’s comments on, is actually establishing a human health limits board, that is independent of Government. In that, I’m outlining that the Minister must consider in the appointment of that board—sorry, I’m losing my voice; that’d be terrible, wouldn’t it?—things like the type of matter that the board will be considering, the local community, public health, legal expertise, technical expertise, tikanga Māori—really basic things that could constitute an option to get this whole system out of political influence and just have a bit of an arm’s length between the Minister and this independent human health limits board.

The Minister would still have the ability to publicly notify the human health limit. There would be relevant health guidelines either published or advised by the Ministry of Health. Once the board had met the requirements that are outlined in my Amendment Paper—I’m not going to go through all of them—but then at that point, the board itself would be the one that decided on the setting of the proposed human health limits. I think this would be a really great application for such a serious issue and what the country desperately needs.

Committee of the whole House

I appreciate the member’s suggestions, but what I refer the member to in clause 49A, “Considerations relevant to developing human health limits”, is there is a very thorough set of criteria that the Minister must be satisfied by. While I appreciate that the member might consider that technocrats might be able to work through the same process, the difference between outsourcing it to technocrats and having a Minister responsible is that the Minister in a Government is responsible. From a democratic point of view, it’s preferable to hold a Minister in Government to account for a process than it is to technocrats. There may be a difference of opinion across political parties, about whether democratic accountability for decision making sits best with elected members and a democratically elected and formed Government, or whether a bureaucracy should be making a decision.

To the member Lan Pham, I’ll just cover some of the matters. Clause 49A(1): “[When preparing a human health limit], the Minister must—(a) be satisfied that the proposed human health limit will, as a minimum, prevent significant or irreversible harm to people and communities;”. That is a very high threshold. It carries significant responsibility for the decision maker. Clause 49A(1)(b): “consider the relevant health guidelines;”. Once those criteria are met, that is essentially a gateway test.

Clause 49A(2): “the Minister may then decide the level at which the proposed human health limit is set”. With reference to clause 49A(3), firstly: “the proposed human health limit is set at an acceptable level above the minimum requirements by having regard to—(a) the relevant health guidelines”—so we can expect that they are evidence-based—“(b) the existing capacity of the natural environment to withstand or recover from pressure and disturbances”; and I’ll refer the member to section 57(1). There’s “(c) the impact of the proposed limit in accordance with section 56;”. These are interrelated, and there’s a lot of detail about the matters that the Minister has to take into account.

Most importantly, clause 49A(3)(d): “a cost benefit analysis of the proposed human health limit.” While we all expect that “significant or irreversible harm to people and communities” is avoided as the purpose of developing the human health limit, there is a cost to adopting limits that are far more risk-averse, far more conservative, than are needed to achieve that outcome of preventing “significant or irreversible harm to people and communities”.

I just want to refer the member to a recent event where decisions were made around projected risks to human health in New Zealand, during the COVID era, where decisions were made that it turns out were not risk-based, and had extraordinary cost, and for which the benefits were not realised. In many cases, the costs were concealed.

Now, here is a process that a Minister, a democratically accountable elected member, in a Government, will be held to account for, that actually tests all of these matters. I would propose that this framework is more robust than any other process in New Zealand’s law, for establishing a human health limit.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): I will just make a comment, that we’ve run for three hours now on this particular part. The fact that the member is giving fulsome answers shows evidence that we are still addressing new material. I will be asking members to start prioritising as we move through here. Arena Williams.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m at page 72/73, at clause 50A and clause 50B. I’ll ask them all in one go. Firstly, I want to ask the member in the chair about clause 50B. This is a genuine question. How does this clause interact with the regulatory relief provisions, because it seems to impose a positive requirement on councils to be satisfied that the proposed limit protects “life-supporting capacity of the natural environment”. There seems to be a positive requirement that they set a limit which might impose costs on those people that the member has outlined. But then, I guess the only protection that they have is if they don’t invoke a limit at all. Is that right, and therefore, does it create this disincentive to applying any limits whatsoever?

To move through my other questions: on the issue of regional councils setting the freshwater limit; the ecosystem definition seems to have restricted this to where there is biodiversity at any given time, not necessarily increasing that, and being agnostic as to what sort of biodiversity it is, and what health it has. The member in the chair misunderstood my question when I was asking him about whether the eels would be edible. The question that he seems to pose, in the definition of ecosystem, and in the application of clause 50, is if there are 50 eels at one stage, and then in the future there are another 50 eels, then that is the system working. The question is: is there a requirement for these limits to improve the health of the eels? In the context of Māori rights and interests in a lake like Lake Forsyth Te Roto o Wairewa, Māori have an interest in that area, being a mahinga kai area. Those eels being of sufficient health—it’s not in the human health limits, but it’s also now not in the ecosystem limits. I just want to him to explain how a council was meant to take that into account, because obviously they do. Plan Change 6 of Environment Canterbury’s plan allows for bespoke rules for setting the limits around Lake Forsyth.

This is a third question for him: his system now doesn’t allow councils to be able to set their own methodology. But in the case of something like Lake Forsyth Te Roto o Wairewa, it is a shallow lake, one that is particularly phosphorus enriched, which is subject to occasional scion of bacterial blooms. The issue here is that it is unlike the lakes around it and is also not comparable to other deeper lakes in the North Island. When he speaks about braided rivers, that is a consequence of the lake now being in the state that it is, that those braided rivers are getting shallower, and the sediment run-off into the lake is affecting its health and the biodiversity within it. Wouldn’t it be reasonable, in that case, for a regional council to set its own methodology. I understand that he is trying to design a system which has one national role for the methodology, but there will always be these outlier cases where it doesn’t make sense to follow the national methodology. There doesn’t seem to be any way out for a council who have a generally unique ecosystem that is not being contemplated the national level.

Committee of the whole House

Really good question. I’ll answer that first, and then I’ll come back to the member’s question about interaction with regulatory relief.

The system does provide for communities when contributing to council’s limit setting, which we must accept will follow a national methodology. It is intended that be prescribed in standards, which are available to be developed under this legislation. The methodology is intended to be prescribed. We cannot have 67 territorial authorities, 12, 14 regional councils—forgive me, I’ve lost count of how many there are in New Zealand; there’s so many—coming up their own methodologies for determining limit setting. It’s going to be a standardised process, but within the process is the opportunity for communities, particularly whether there are important ecological or cultural values to provide more weighting, so that if the matter of eels in a shallow lake with impacts around nutrients or, as a member described, nitrification or algal blooms, if the community wishes to set a limit that focuses on ecological health for the benefit of creatures in the lake—eels—and then they can choose to do so.

As part of the process, they will be forced to confront the costs of that. Whereas in the current system, in the Resource Management Act, a council can choose a limit. But then it comes to, well, what does that mean for the rest of the community, in terms of people who grow food, businesses, your local council’s needs for infrastructure, and, potentially, to have somewhere to discharge waste water. I’m not saying that’s appropriate. I don’t know enough about the conditions of the particular lake, but the community will have an opportunity to make those trade-offs through the limits setting process, rather than saying “we want this really, really, really strict limit and we’re just going to ignore all the downstream or second order effects of that”. So communities will have the ability, at place, to protect important ecological values, if that’s the value they wish to protect, on the basis that they have confronted all of these other potential knock-on effects. We believe communities should be in control and have a say.

I’ll just come to the member’s question around clauses 50A and 50B around whether, when setting limits, our councils will be exposed during the decision-making process to, potentially—if the limits they set around indigenous biodiversity, which is the domain that the member raised—and if they seek to apply those limits to private property, will that application be subject to regulatory relief test? Absolutely. Again, that provides really, really important tension in the system. So again, it’s about exposing the costs and the benefits. There’s a benefit-cost analysis required in the limit setting process, so that if the costs of imposing such a limit are very high, that can be discovered through the limiting process. Then communities, planners, and decision-makers will have an opportunity to make choices and make trade-offs. If these values are so important, which in many communities ecological value is very important, in fact it’s the most important, then council’s decision-makers can proceed, but they will be confronted with the cost. It’s important that that’s known upfront; not something that’s kicked down the road to future generations or the next council or just left hanging out there as a fiscal or other type of liability.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair. I really appreciate the member’s answer. That’s not quite what I anticipated because of the formulation of 50B(1), where it’s before designing the ecosystem limit. So I guess, the only way, I think that the member was saying, the councils have out of paying that regulatory relief is to have no limit, which is not what I thought.

Can I ask him just two examples related to Lake Forsyth. Isn’t the way that the current market works for land in that area that because the water discharges are limited because of Plan Change 6, the value of the land is lower; that new landowners pay less for that land because its commercial value is lower now? Isn’t the value of those discharges already included?

Committee of the whole House

I do appreciate the member’s broad and deep knowledge of many specific issues around New Zealand. The member’s made a very valuable contribution with her questions in this debate. I’m not familiar with that specific case. The information you’re seeking from me, I can only provide it in relation to this clause.

I’ll refer the member to clause 50B(1)(c), the “cost-benefit analysis of the proposed limit”, must be had regard to when developing ecosystem limits. Now, the costs might be the cost of choosing a particular limit and what that might require, in terms of if it’s applied to private land, are the costs of providing regulatory relief to the landowners whose use of that land is impaired in the way provided for in the legislation. So I hope that’s clear. We have covered this extensively and I don’t intend to go back to it.

When it comes to the other matters that the member raised, if with existing planning controls being applied to land—I think the member mentioned Plan Change 6—if somebody buys a piece of land with existing planning controls on it after this legislation takes effect, and they willingly accept those controls in the sell and purchase process, caveat emptor, buyer beware. That landowner will not be eligible for regulatory relief. We do not intend that people arrive and go “now, I want regulatory relief because of this thing”. You have purchased the land with these controls on it. So we’re trying to be pragmatic and practical in the way we approach it. But absolutely appreciate the member’s concern that particular communities, they might want to set ecological health limits that protect a particular value, like the habitat of eels, for example, or tuna, and they will have the ability to do that. Where there is a cost to doing that, that will be transparent and available to the community planners and decision makers at the time.

Committee of the whole House

A small question on this point at clause 50B. The member in the chair was talking about regulatory relief and that applies to biodiversity, but regulatory relief does not apply to water standards, freshwater quality. Please tell me if I’m wrong. And so is he then saying that when he’s talking about costs, he’s talking about 50B(1)(c), that cost-benefit analysis of the proposed limit, or is he saying that regulatory relief applies to every ecosystem health limit?

Committee of the whole House

No. In the scope of the bill, it only applies, in the National Environment Bill, to indigenous biodiversity.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair. And noting your guidance to keep moving and I’m directly keeping moving.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Good.

LAN PHAM: My Amendment Paper, which I want to touch on in this, what should be a short call, is number 674. This is of absolute relevance to the bill because this is where the environmental limits framework fails and it fails to deliver. It’s in the space in the consideration of the actual setting of these environmental limits. And it’s the fact that the so-called environmental limits are not actually environmental limits because there are numerous clauses throughout the environmental limits section—including 49A, 50B, 56, and 57A—where it makes it really clear that these so-called environmental limits are only considered when you look at social and economic factors.

Now, this is a fatal flaw when it comes to, you know, the attempt at this being any form of an enduring framework. I would like to hear from the member whether he would consider the fact that environmental limits can stand alone as they are, as environmental limits; the social and economic factors can come into the timing of the achievement of those limits. That is how it has played out and absolutely can play out in the future, instead of compromising the environmental limit itself by those factors.

What is really deceptive when you have social and economic factors coming into the actual environmental limits themselves is that it is really hard for communities to know what they are actually aiming for, and the biophysical state they’re aiming for, and why they are aiming for it, which is another really clear part of this whole system. It’s: why are we trying to aim for that, and under what time frame?

My amendments that I’m proposing are: let’s simply leave the environmental limits framework, but let’s uphold its integrity. I’m interested in whether the member in the chair, Simon Court, would consider this and uphold its integrity by having environmental limits that are environmental limits, because we know that clouding it with these social and economic factors is not going to get us anywhere.

Committee of the whole House

The member Lan Pham raises a really good point, so I just want to clarify the intent of the legislation, but before I do, I want to reflect on the member’s concern that limits set under this new framework will not be enduring.

Let’s be clear: none of the attempts to establish national bottom lines for water quality, whether it’s nitrogen or any other matter, has been enduring. Despite 35 years of the Resource Management Act, national policy statements for freshwater, national environmental standards, none of them has endured. It’s because setting an aspirational limit that covers the whole country, or even a region, in the absence of confronting the trade-offs—who lives in the community, who benefits from a certain limit, who pays the cost, what opportunities are forgone in terms of economic growth and change, in terms of social development, in terms of social mobility—by selecting a limit that is so constraining that the activities that are reasonably expected to occur there—remember New Zealand is still largely unoccupied. We have developed large parts of it for primary production and forestry and our towns and cities, but it’s still relatively unoccupied and undeveloped. To establish environmental limits that severely constrain people’s social mobility and ability to provide for their families and to assume that that is the only thing that matters has not worked. It has not endured.

I do appreciate the member’s concern that we provide for environmental limits that are enduring, that continue to have social licence, but in order to do that, the intention of this legislation, the intention of the Government, the clear intention of Minister Bishop and I, is that we confront those matters at the time the limits are set, not choose an aspirational limit and then look the other way and wonder why there’s so much noise, there’s so much grit, the environment continues to degrade in places because it’s impossible to implement the tools that we have to implement. Very specific limits, particularly around fresh water—we simply don’t have that level of specificity in the way that we have inputs into the natural environment and responses. Now, we might know, for example, how long it takes for a drop of water to land on a mountain top, say, above Pupu Springs—forgive me; that’s the term I’ve always known it as—in Tākaka. We know roughly how long it takes for a drop of water to land on top of the hills—Minister Potaka might be able to help with my pronunciation.

Hon Tama Potaka: Waikoropupū.

SIMON COURT: I’m struggling. We know how long it takes, roughly, for a drop of water to land on top of the mountain and end up in those springs? It’s about eight years. But there are very few places in New Zealand where we have that level of detail, and it’s very, very difficult and expensive to get.

It’s important, when we’re setting limits, that we aspire but that we confront the costs of what setting certain levels of limits might mean to the community that we operate in, to our local economy, to our social aspirations and social mobility, and that we make the call then, because, if we provide communities with that opportunity to have that conversation and to make those trade-offs, it is far more likely—and, in fact, that is our intention—that environmental limits are enduring and that communities will then be able to plan a pathway to achieving them. If they are aspirational or if they are more close to the status quo, there is a realistic and practical pathway to achieving them. I absolutely get the member’s concern, but I am confident, this Government is confident, Minister Bishop is confident, that what we have set out here—the methodology—is the best way for achieving enduring limits and durable and achievable aspirations for our environment.

Committee of the whole House

Does the member in the chair, Simon Court, accept that taking into account social and economic considerations in environmental limits compromises the environmental limit as a concept?

Committee of the whole House

No, absolutely not. We all exist in the environment. We live in the environment, we have houses in the environment, we build in the environment, we dig minerals out of the environment that we use to turn into things like cell phones, which I’m sure the member has at least one of, as does every member in this Chamber.

What else do we do in the environment? We fish, we hunt, we drive—sometimes we like to drive off road. We actually like to drive on the actual environment, not on the road. All of these things are part of who we are as humans, and this is an opportunity to challenge ourselves about what is important, because we are going to have an opportunity to be very clear about what our social and economic and cultural aspirations are when we set a limit relating to ecology. When the member uses the term “environment”, I’m assuming she means ecology, because the environment is either the built environment, as defined in the Planning Bill, or the environment as defined in this bill. We need to be specific—we’re talking about ecology—and there’s a trade-off between choosing an aspirational ecology limit and balancing against all these other factors.

Now, if I go and explain this outside of this Chamber and I go to a public meeting or I go and meet with farmers or I go and meet with environmental NGOs, or I talk to young people—I talk to people at, say, a home show, where, you know, because of the career I’ve chosen, sometimes I get to spend many days standing on the cold concrete floor of the Invercargill Licensing Trust Stadium, at the Southland Home Show, where I get to meet many people who might challenge the way that the member Lan Pham and I see the world—what they want to know is that we understand the environment, the ecology of the place they live, what values they seek to protect, but also how important it is that they continue to have social, economic, and cultural opportunities to express themselves and live their best lives.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): I appreciate the difficulty of asking the members on my left to keep moving when the member in the chair, Simon Court, is very fulsome in his replies and probably giving more material to remain around this level.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair. To the member in the chair, Simon Court, I was speaking very specifically about biophysical ecosystem health and human health limits that are measurable. I wasn’t talking about aspiration. I was talking about pure ecosystem health function when it comes to human health and ecosystem health. But I take the member’s comments about desiring that there are pragmatic steps along the way. His own words just before were that we need to take hold of this and make sure it’s not something that’s kicked down the road.

Now, when we’re talking about the limits themselves, whatever they are, why, then, are we crippling ourselves when it comes to actual progress and time frames? My amendment, which doesn’t have a number on it but was tabled—one of the amendments tabled on Wednesday, 26 August under my name—simply, within these clauses, changes the interim limits from 10 years to five, which is what was in the original bills until they were pushed out by the majority of Government members on the select committee and the Government. The reason why that is so important is because then we would actually get somewhere.

The example that I want to give is directly related to later in the bill, where the Government has again dropped these last-minute amendments that squash Plan Change 1 and Plan Change 2 in the Waikato and Manawatū. Within that very material, it says the bills will be in place for the Waikato in 2033.

Now, what that means is that the first interim limit that comes into this system will be in place for 2043. That has got to be, to the member, an absolute failure of this system, and would he please consider a system that actually functions in a direction and a drive for some form of environmental or human health improvement.

Committee of the whole House

I’d just refer the member to the limit-setting process in the legislation. It’s been carefully thought out. I won’t be accepting the member’s proposed amendment. We have received reams of advice about the matters that the member refers to, and the Government’s decision, the Minister’s decision, and my decision is expressed here in the legislation through drafting. I invite the member to read it, but it’s all there.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair. I note that the Minister has said my questions are related to clause 55 and 56, and I note that the Minister has said that there’s been a fair bit of thought that has gone into setting limits and the methodology that is used to set limits and so on and so forth. However, in clause 55(1)(d), it basically says that the Minister, when preparing national standards to set human health limits or ecosystem health limits will need to “specify a methodology”, and it goes on to list the “management unit”, “ecosystem health limits”, and so on and so forth.

There were a fair few submissions to the Environment Committee on this whole piece about limit-setting and how Ministers will set limits, and the concern that was raised by many was that it needs to be a methodology that is specified and based on science, basically scientific baselines for these limits. I wonder if the Minister could share a little bit about what the specification or the methodology that the Minister needs to specify will be based on.

I’ll wrap up in a minute, but I’ve got a couple of other questions, particularly around whether there will be ecological modelling that needs to be done before the methodology is set, whether those will be peer reviewed, and what sort of baseline data sets will be used? I particularly refer to the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, who has repeatedly raised the fact that we don’t have baselines when it comes to measuring ecological health nationwide, so what sorts of data sets will the Minister be basing that on?

I do also have some questions for the Minister around safeguards. A fair bit of the anxiety that was expressed by submitters across this whole bill is the concentration of ministerial powers through this legislation. That is also seen when it comes to setting the methodology and establishing limits as well. What safeguards can the Minister point to in this legislation that will prevent, potentially, say, future Ministers from further weakening limits and changing methodologies as well that lead to the limit-setting?

Committee of the whole House

I’ll answer the second part of the member’s question first. In terms of safeguards, under clause 58A, “Specifying methodologies for setting ecosystem health limits”, subclause (2), “The Minister must be satisfied that the methodology protects the life-supporting capacity of the natural environment to an acceptable standard after having considered—” a number of matters. There are significant safeguards, and in clause 58A(4), “The Minister must consider, when developing national standards that specify a methodology or minimum acceptable level, how the standards can allow for future improvements to science and … [modelling] methods in a timely manner”; in other words, by incorporating material by reference. The last thing we want is to set standards that essentially ossify. We want the system to be agile to be able to respond to new information.

In response to the member’s questions on criteria for decisions relating to environmental limits, they are set in standards in terms of clause 55, and “the Minister when preparing national standards” has to specify a methodology, and that’s in accordance with the matters in clause 58A. There is extensive detail on primary legislation, and it will be further particularised through national standards.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair. Going to the conversation and the bit of back and forth about the role of the economy, and I want to just to ask a simple question to the member in the chair about the relationship between clause 56, which is, “Considering impact of proposed environmental limit or methodology”, and that includes a list of things that “economy” crops up in, as does “(e) the efficacy and cost of available methods to manage effects within the proposed limit:”, and how that relates back to clause 50B(2), which is the cost that he was talking about to communities that’s not regulatory relief in terms of things that aren’t indigenous biodiversity. I want to know how those two relate to each other, and, in particular, any costings to the community, because the member in the chair was talking about how there’s going to be some transparency and there will be some costs and there will be trade-offs, so his version of limits is very different from my version of it being a backstop.

I’m then going to jump ahead to clause 79, which is in a different subpart, but it’s relevant to this line of questioning. I have a published Amendment Paper 747 that would delete clause 79 because that is, “National standards may authorise specified activities to breach the environmental limits”. There’s been some amendments to what was reported back from the Environment Committee, and this clause was not in the bill as introduced. It popped up somehow in the select committee process by the majority, and now it’s been amended in this Amendment Paper, and even if you’ve gone to all this trouble of setting an environmental limit and you’ve done your cost benefits and you’ve paid your regulatory relief, if it’s indigenous biodiversity or whatever it is, then even then, if the Minister is satisfied that there is a net public benefit in authorising the activities after having considered the public benefits of authorising the activities, and the public costs of authorising the activities, and then some harm, then you can get around these limits.

In an earlier contribution from the Minister, he said—I can’t remember what it was in relation to, but he said, “Oh, you can’t just get around these limits because there’s got be a public benefit.” But the test for the net public benefit has to include a consideration of, I guess, the public costs of authorising the activities, which I think would be some of the costs that the member in the chair was talking about before.

The bigger point of this contribution is for the member to be clear about the relevance of all the costs when setting any limit, because it seems that the cost factors crop up throughout, and that, in fact, any decision on the limit can be undone by the cost. To say, as the Minister has been saying, that this whole scheme of new legislation is going to have these environmental limits—limits that, as Lan Pham said, might not happen until sometime in the 2040s—they might just not ever exist because communities will say, “Oh, well, we can’t afford them.”, even if regulatory relief isn’t relevant given what the member has been saying about the costs and the community bearing the cost. When we hear “community bearing the cost”, that means ratepayers, and I’m happy for the member to tell me that I’m wrong and that it’s not ratepayers, that the community is devised in some other way; but I would like an answer to my bigger question as well, which is, can environmental limits always be knocked out by economic factors?

Committee of the whole House

Just in response to the member’s question around how does clause 56 relate back to clause 50B and the cost-benefit analysis, clause 56 is considerations a Minister must make in relation to the impact, and the cost-benefit analysis is an additional requirement.

Just coming to the member’s questions on clause 79 about national standards which might authorise specified activities to breach a limit, there are some extensive criteria that the Minister has to satisfy, particularly around the net public benefit in authorising activities, after having considered the public benefits of authorising the activity versus the public cost. One of the things this Government is very clear about is we are not going to be hiding the cost of different options when communities and, in this case, Ministers are making decisions. For far too long, decisions about protection of environmental values have been taken in isolation from the impacts of that decision and the consequences on communities. This Government is clear: we are not hiding these costs. Communities need to know. If they choose to face the costs, they can protect values in the case of this provision. The Minister will be confronted with those costs when choosing whether a national standard may authorise a specified activity in breach of an environmental limit.

I have come back to this theme repeatedly. It is our intention that trade-offs are transparent and costs and benefits are revealed so that New Zealanders, on the whole, have an opportunity to understand what choosing different limits and choosing different courses of action means. If we don’t have that opportunity, we will be surprised when things happen that we weren’t expecting.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to pick up specifically on the Minister’s comments just then about the impacts and costs. Is his intention, for example—because I can appreciate that he’s talking about the cost of environmental protections. Is he also talking about the cost of a lack of environmental protections?

The reason I’m asking that is specifically in Canterbury, we have, for example, Ashburton, Tinwald, Selwyn District Council, and Christchurch City Council all looking on various scales at millions of dollars at the lower scale to hundreds of millions, if not in the billions, to treat drinking water or source drinking water sources that they can no longer rely on because they are too contaminated with nitrates. Is the member, when he talks about those costs and impacts, talking about that entire picture, particularly those externalities where communities are paying the costs now of a lack of protection, because that is the concern and what we heard increasingly from submitters. That’s my first question.

The second question is around the national standards. Why is it that the Government is ruling out that at a national level, national standards could set an ecosystem health limit as an option? The Government has been really deliberate in clause 58A(3)(d)—which is the subject of my amendment—and this is, again, in the grouping of amendments that were tabled at 11.53 on Wednesday. I’m proposing to delete this determinant that the national standards can absolutely not prescribe an ecosystem health limit. There are well-understood ecosystem health limits when it comes to the environment that can apply at a national scale that would actually enable the clarity of direction about how things can happen in the country, and where investment should or shouldn’t be. These types of evidence-based, scientific, and mātauranga-informed decisions can apply at a national level in the right circumstances. I don’t understand—and I’d love the member’s comments—as to why they are simply being ruled out.

Committee of the whole House

In response to the member’s question around whether the costs of environmental degradation and health will be relevant, it is not the cost but the effect that must be considered.

In response to the member’s second question around environmental limits, we had this concept of national bottom lines under the Resource Management Act. It turns out that when you apply a national bottom line intended to protect an ecological value at a fast-flowing river over alluvial gravel in the South Island, that may well be the right value to apply in that circumstance—in, say, Canterbury, in the foothills of the Southern Alps. But if you tried to apply that same value to water coming out of a sediment-rich catchment —in, say, Horowhenua, Manawatū, or in Northland—it’s a completely inappropriate, so-called national bottom line or national limit to apply, because the catchment has completely different characteristics.

What we’re intending to do is to provide for communities to establish their own limits based on a national methodology, because it’s important when limits are being set that we can see at a national level that there’s a process being followed and we actually get a sense of what level of protection is being applied, what are the likely costs in different places, and what are the benefits. We need to have a much better understanding at a national level about what are the impacts of different choices, but, currently, we don’t.

Committee of the whole House

I have just one direct follow-up on that one question. The member, in response, said that not the cost but the effect will be taken into account. That does not make sense for the example I’ve given with drinking water, because the effect of polluted drinking water, for example, for Christchurch City, would absolutely be avoided at any cost, and so that’s before the effect actually takes place. Where people are drinking polluted drinking water, the city would have moved to avoid that—where is that cost being picked up?

Committee of the whole House

I’ve answered many times what the system is intended to do. Let’s be clear: nobody should be drinking contaminated drinking water. We have wastewater standards specifically intended to address that matter after the Havelock North chaos, where there were a number of regulatory failures, a number of enforcement failures, and a number of failures by public sector agencies who had all the information that they needed to have made decisions that prevented illness and, potentially, deaths—it’s not quite clear what the actual impacts were—and they failed.

We’ve had to establish a whole system to protect drinking water, stand up a new agency—Taumata Arowai—to deal with the failures of individuals and organisations that did not meet their statutory obligations. Let’s be clear: Christchurch City Council—you’ve mentioned it—has statutory obligations to provide clean drinking water. There are a number of ways they can do it. It turns out there’s technology. If you live in an apartment building in Singapore, the water you’re drinking has already been flushed by all the people who live there. It comes back up as clean drinking water. If we fire a rocket into space and you go up and stay on the space station, guess what you’re drinking? There’s no pipe coming from planet Earth—there is technology available for this stuff.

I don’t want to make light of the member’s concerns, but we have to clear that the new system provides for that information to be considered and trade-offs to be made, and where there are effects that are unacceptable and limits need to be set that provide for strong ecological values when compared to other values, communities will have the opportunity to do that.

Committee of the whole House

I am rather surprised to be talking about recycled drinking water in space, but here we are. Now, I think—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): That’s not a legitimate new topic, I might say, Ms Brooking—not when we’ve been debating this for coming up to four hours—

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Oh, come on! I’ve got a whole portfolio on space.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): —as attractive a proposition as it may seem.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Well, OK. So back to these limits on planet Earth—in Aotearoa even. Now, I think there’s maybe been some conflating of the two different types of limits. We have the human health limits, which can be set nationally, which go to the drinking water standards, etc., which the member was just speaking about, and then we have the environmental limits that are not set nationally but the methodology for those is set nationally, and then some regional councils will work out what those limits are for their rohe, for their area.

So for those environmental limits where the methodology is set, my question for the member is, can you get to a situation whereby there are no limits because there have been some cost-benefit equations that effectively knock out the limits? That is the question: if there’s any mandatory requirement for them or if everybody decides they’re going be too expensive, do we then just not have limits? Never mind it’s in 2040; I’m just talking about in 2030, for instance.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): I’m not sure we can do much more with limits. When I can understand it, that’s probably time to keep moving.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Well, I was going to move on to national rules in clause 75. This is quite a big, different change though—and I note other members might want to go back to limits. The Minister keeps telling us that it’s the fundamental part of the system, yet it seems to be, perhaps, that they can be nothing—the environmental ones, not the human health ones. So clause 74, “National rules”. I have Amendment Paper 746 and this is to insert the clauses that were in the bill, as introduced, that provided for a market-based allocation. For some reason, very mysteriously, they provided a methodology for there to be market-based allocation—they didn’t set it up—but at the moment, we have the Resource Management Act that is first in, first served, and that entrenches a whole lot of gain for some individuals who were lucky enough to be the first in so that they were first served. We have a problem in the New Zealand economy where we have a whole lot of, in particular, Māori land that hasn’t been able to get the capital to get the water, to go and use it to make the land more productive, and they’re effectively locked out because of this first in, first served rule.

It also means that we are not necessarily getting the most efficient uses or the most high-value uses of that water, and I know that I am talking to an ACT member in the chair who is much more interested in the economic instruments than I am. So my suggestion here is that we reinsert those provisions from this Government, as the bill was introduced, to include that market-based allocation for water. If the member’s ready, I’ll leave it there.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair. I do appreciate the member’s definitely not new-found but wholesome appreciation of the markets. For the member’s benefit, that section was taken out at committee stage. It’s not in this Amendment Paper as tabled. What we do intend is that between consent holders, who have allocation, the exchange or provision of freshwater, in particular, between consent holders is enabled. We’ll be doing more work on that. You’ll see through the national policy direction the illustrative documents out for non-statutory consultation right now; there is discussion around irrigation and other matters; and we anticipate that standards will provide more detail around how that is provided for.

Currently, under the Resource Management Act, if a water-permit holder wants to share their water with a neighbour who might have a need for it with a permit holder who doesn’t have the need for it at the moment, potentially while they’re standing up a new business or developing their investment proposals, the way it’s been treated by some councils is it’s essentially treated as a new consent application. It makes it very, very difficult to make the most of the water that’s already allocated. What we have heard is that in many parts of New Zealand, water appears to be fully allocated on paper, even though when councils are looking at their groundwater bores, for example, they’re saying it doesn’t appear to have been used in the way that the paper allocation would suggest. So we want to make sure there’s provision in the system for the allocation that’s available to be utilised, and that will be further detailed out in subsequent national policy direction and standards.

Just coming back to the member’s question around limits, our ecological health limits. Are they required? Yes, a health limit or an ecological health limit will be required for each domain in each regional area.

Committee of the whole House

Just a tiny little follow-up on that last point, that there does have to be—and there must be—an ecological health limit for every domain at some point eventually. Could that be an incredibly minimal limit? So, if we say there’s already seagrass, and we won’t have any further diminishment of the seagrass, could it be that ambitious and be totally the opposite of the beautiful vision the member gave us before dinner?

Committee of the whole House

I have described the Government’s intent around limit-setting multiple times during this debate, particularly over the last one hour and seven minutes. I won’t go back to that. It’s unlikely there’s going to be a limit for seagrass in Central Otago. They may not need a coastal limit if they don’t have coast, but it will be up to the communities to choose the level of aspiration when it comes to ecological values, and balance them against other community aspirations, as I have described many times now in this debate. The member will know there are some very, very special places in the environment to New Zealanders, particularly to people in different districts and regions. I have no doubt that communities in those areas, whether it’s at Wai-ko-pupū Springs—

Hon Tama Potaka: Waikoropupū.

SIMON COURT: I am going to continue to struggle with that—at Pupū Springs, in Tākaka, will seek to protect that incredible natural feature by selecting appropriate limits. Again, I’ve been over this time and time again. It’s clear in legislation what the Government’s intention is, what the provisions, what the limit-setting methodologies are, what the constraints are, what Ministers have to consider and where departures may occur, and the significant constraints and tests that come into it when departures are sort or a Minister seeks to make rules, for example, that depart from or, seek to go past the limit. It’s all here in black and white—the reasons are here in black and white—and the reason is this Government believes that Parliament should make laws and we should write them down clearly so that those who are tasked with implementing the legislation and other instruments have a clear steer and they can get on with their job, which is what we intend them to do when the legislation passes and gets Royal assent one month after it passes.

Committee of the whole House

It’s not clear. It is just not clear. There is so much that happens in the higgledy-piggledy Minister-setting methodologies and then in all of these economic decisions that it’s absolutely unclear. This is inefficient legislation and we should go back to my Amendment Paper 699 and just make the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management the freshwater limit.

Now I’m going to move to clause 72, which is the “Content of national policy direction”. I have Amendment Paper 744, and this is that the national policy direction must be consistent with the purpose of this bill—which of course I would have made a proper purpose—and it must also be consistent with integrated management. As I’m sure the member in the chair knows, I think that integrated management is very sensible because we don’t all live in little silos that somehow separate us from air and water and soil and biodiversity etc.

Committee of the whole House

The Government’s been very clear: integrated management is not a concept that exists in this legislation. There is a funnel. The concept of the funnel is that when making national policy direction, national policy direction essentially looks to the goals and direct key outcomes that a key instrument must achieve and provide for. It’s all set out in black and white in clause 72.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Again, we now need to be moving forward.

Committee of the whole House

Yes, thank you. Moving forward, Mr Chair, I really want to touch on this new clause 61A—

Simon Court: Well, that’s going backwards.

LAN PHAM: —because it is a new section, and the removal of the caps was in the last-minute Amendment Paper from the Government, OK? This is absolutely critical to any progress on environmental limits under this Act.

I do want to respond to the member’s sort of insisting that I keep coming back to this and I keep coming back to this. This is the environmental limits section of this new resource management system that is entirely novel, some of the changes of which have just been dropped on us literally in the last minutes because Amendment Papers are still coming through. This is why it’s important that we’re able to scrutinise this, and I really appreciate the Chair moving us through.

What I want to understand, firstly, is why, when the Government and us, at the select committee process, were so—it was so emphasised to us that this new way that the Government was going to go about these reforms was through these action plans and the caps, and that was how we were going to achieve things. Then, suddenly, the primary tool, being the cap on the resource use, disappeared as a tool at the last minute. This was not agreed by the Environment Committee; this is direct lobbying of Ministers that has come in and removed this.

I would like to hear the Minister’s response as to whether removing the cap on resource use, like, for example, a maximum amount of nitrogen in a catchment per year—which has been demonstrated, particularly in Taupō, to be a tool to actually achieve some form of environmental outcome. Now, I don’t even know if the science is clear as to whether that is improving. I do think from the little I know about it that it may be holding the line. Now, if that’s the aspiration, then using caps as a tool is absolutely critical. Why has the Government removed this, above and beyond the select committee process that we went through where these were agreed? Not all of us agreed. We thought this was a baseline, and yet the Government had sought to remove them.

I think that it is absolutely critical to any form of credibility of the system that action plans are able to set caps and they are actually translated into catchment groups or whatever way it can work. I’ve got an Amendment Paper to that end, which is amending clause 64—and again, I’m sorry, Mr Chair, I don’t have a number on that. It’s still part of the amendments that I submitted on Wednesday at 11.53. This is amending clause 4. What I want to understand from the member, as well, is: without the action plans being able to put caps on resource use, what exactly does he perceive and his Government perceive to be the driver of any improvement—like what is the constraint? Is he expecting that, for example, catchment groups, councils, or a group of landowners are going to voluntarily come together and make solutions that will impact the way that they are farming currently? What is the driver? I would love to hear it.

Committee of the whole House

In answer to the member’s question, we’ve amended the legislation and deleted reference to caps as they were causing confusion and they had no regulatory effect in the system. Instead, how to manage resources prior or at risk of limits being at risk of breach will be left as a matter for councils.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair. It is critical that we address these clauses, which are the operational heart of the environmental limits regime that the Government has outlined as critically important to this bill. They are in clause 60A through to clause 65. I’m also seeking the member’s comment and I’ll ask all of the questions together.

Building on Lan Pham’s question, my different question is that with the old clause 66, which is now deleted, we seem to have been left with a target setting and a date that can be in 10 years in the future for anything other than the target to be operative. I want to know from the member in the chair what the tension is in the system. If we acknowledge that, as he says, the caps were causing confusion, I ask whether first-in, first-served resource allocation as part of the caps system is a legitimate question, whether the action plans could do more than just coordinate and require restoration and behavioural change—these are all legitimate questions. But if he’s set himself a date that’s potentially 10 years out, that seems to be even less aspirational than any other of the transitional provisions which allow a five-year, generous runway for the new regime to be up and running. I want him to help us to understand when we might get to a point in future where councils are held to either a cap or an action plan, or even both, but not none of them, and I ask how that interacts with the other machinery in the limit-setting part of the regime.

I also have a question for him about the deletion of clause 76 at page 92. This is in the next part. It’s the restrictions on the national rules for fishing. I can’t tell if that deletion has been included somewhere else in the bill, but if it is a genuine deletion, it seems that this was a provision which protected, say, recreational fishers and their ability to enjoy this particular sport and recreational activity, and it seems to be gone. What is the justification for that, and who asked for it?

Committee of the whole House

The question has come up and I’ll respond to the member, who, I think, had a similar concern. Why were caps removed? Because it simplified the legislation. To be clear, particularly for the member Lan Pham—who is concerned about the role of caps—caps can still be used; they’re just not required. They’re still a tool available to councils, should they wish to use them, but let’s be clear that clause 60B does the heavy lifting. It still requires councils not to breach limits. Caps are a tool—I see the member is very excited. She’s probably got further questions.

Just in response to Arena Williams’ question, clause 66 was merged with clause 65. I understand that that came out of the revision-tracked version of the bill coming back from the Environment Committee, and the provisions were put into new clause 60C.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m really keen to respond to the member’s comments, then, because perhaps he could elucidate for us in saying—like that’s great that caps can still be a tool. That’s really good to establish, because I wasn’t clear about that when the entire clauses were deleted, and so it’s great that, presumably, they exist somewhere else.

What I’m really interested about is what was clauses 65, 66, and 67, because these are the clauses where action plans were actually compelled to propose rules to remedy any breach of environmental limits. We’ve also got clause 66, “Avoiding breach of environmental limit”, and clause 67, “Breach of environmental limit”. In the Government Amendment Paper, which has been dropped at the last minute, these clauses are entirely deleted. I would love to be told right now that those sections have just been moved somewhere else.

Is it the case that action plans no longer have to remedy a breach of an environmental limit—noting that the environmental limits are already not environmental limits; they’re only arrived on once we look at social and economic factors. Where in the bill does it say that anyone has to do anything to improve the environment or to meet some form of limit that means that we are not in a race to the bottom?

Committee of the whole House

Just in response to where those clauses have gone, please refer to my previous answer. They were moved when the revision-tracked version came back. The clauses have been amalgamated, so they’re still there. The member’s question—

Lan Pham: Where have they been moved to? I’m really keen to understand that. Where have they been moved to?

SIMON COURT: I will have to get the officials to write me another note, because I’ve replaced it in the stack—I’ve misplaced it in the stack of 200 here, OK?

Lan Pham: Please do. It would be really comforting.

SIMON COURT: But I can assure the member that it is the same answer as I previously gave. The member’s second question, I understand, was about action plans. Clauses 60, “Action plans defined”, is removed as no longer necessary. Content on action plans is provided in other clauses. I’m sure the member will then ask which ones.

Committee of the whole House

Whilst the member in the chair looks for his old notepaper, I’ll go to a different clause. I’m at clause 77, which has been amended a wee bit, but I do have a published Amendment Paper, and it is Amendment Paper 700. It was for what was clause 77(3)(c), and the changes that have been made in this Amendment Paper are similar in terms of “National standards—(c) may”—and I emphasise the word “may” because my published Amendment Paper 700 changes the “may” to “must”—“include directions relating to—(i) the allocation of natural resources; and (ii) environmental limits.”

The point I’m trying to get at here is that we “must” have these environmental limits in the national standards, rather than “may”. I am particularly perturbed after the discussion we’ve had this evening that whilst the member in the chair tells me that it is compulsory to have those environmental limits, they might be akin to nothing.

Committee of the whole House

Oh, I don’t accept that member’s assertion. I’ve been very clear. [Interruption] Bless you.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Whoever is sneezing, use a hanky.

SIMON COURT: Sorry, I’ve lost my train of thought. Oh, actually—

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Oh, he’s got the train back.

SIMON COURT: Oh look, I reject the member’s assertion. Limits have value. The limit-setting process is described here. As I’ve mentioned before, there are trade-offs involved. The member’s proposal that there must be limits, a set of national standards for various things—there’s only one “must”, and that’s around human health standards. That’s because that’s very important.

At a national level, we’re all humans, whether we live in—let me just pick some members. We live in Dunedin, Christchurch—

Ryan Hamilton: Hamilton

SIMON COURT: —Hamilton—that’s easy—and the North Shore of Auckland. We are the same humans, and we need our health to be protected in the same way. The people of Southland are very hardy, and I know that because when I go to Southland or I go to the airport there very early in the morning, I see people there wearing shorts and a T-shirt in the middle of winter, chucking the bags on the plane. So maybe we could learn something about human health from studying the people of Southland.

There must be a human health limit, but the intention is that environmental limits are set by regions, by communities, and, with respect to management units—which is a techie way of saying “places”—spaces and catchments. We won’t be accepting your Amendment Paper, Rachel Brooking. While I understand the purpose behind it, we don’t accept the intention.

There was a question that Lan Pham asked about where have things moved in the bill. Clause 65 and clause 67 have moved to clause 60B and clause 60C, and action plans are now found in 60D.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m just noting down those clauses so that I can read them because it’s actually really confusing when you get an Amendment Paper that is the entire bill, and, for no apparent reason, it’s just reshuffled everything. It is taking us quite a long time to work through it, but, fortunately, time is one of the things that we do have.

I’m interested in clause 77, which is about national standards, and which deals, in subclause (1), with adverse effects. It’s just interesting to me that, as I understand it, in this bill we’ve got no particular hierarchy, and so no statutory hierarchy, if you like, baked in. But here it appears that the national standards—so that’s at a national level from the Minister, I’m assuming—can dictate how and in what order adverse effects are to be avoided, mitigated, remedied, offset, or compensated, and it strikes me that that seems to be an ability of the Minister, through national standards, to prioritise. This is not an expert area of mine, by any stretch, but it strikes me that you could say, “OK, we’ve got a consenting of dairy farms in Canterbury and we want to prioritise economic growth over nitrate seepage into the water supply, and so let’s make sure with regard to the adverse effects that the mitigation for what’s going on is mitigated in an order that prioritises economic growth over water quality.”

It goes on and talks about national standards setting “when it is practicable”, which seems a really strange thing for a national standard to do, because practicability is very much about the facts on the ground, if you like. It’s about the particular activity that’s going on. If it’s riparian planting, fencing, or whatever, it’s about the particular property and activity, and then you’ve got when it’s appropriate for adverse effects to be offset or compensated.

So I’m just curious as to what’s intended by this ability at a national standard level to, essentially, order adverse effects in terms of which ones we will take steps in respect of, and then the ability of a Minister to say, essentially, that “There are some adverse effects which it’s not practical to mitigate, so don’t worry about those, and other adverse effects can be offset.”, by perhaps planting some native bush a couple of valleys over. So I’m just curious, particularly, as to how that clause 77(1) is intended to work.

Committee of the whole House

I thank the member for his question. Just in relation to some of the changes that he’s observed in the Amendment Paper, some parts have moved, and that’s to provide for a more coherent translation policy intent into the legislation as drafted so that can be picked up, and, particularly when it comes to a national policy direction and national standards, that work will be started immediately by those tasked to do it.

The member asked—and it’s actually a really important point—why can national standards specify, in clause 77(1), how, where, and in what order adverse effects are to be avoided, mitigated, remedied, offset, or compensated, and when it is practicable for adverse effects to be avoided, mitigated, remedied, and when it’s appropriate for those effects to be offset or compensated. Now, the reason that this is provided for in national standards is because there may be some effects in some places that it’s important to avoid, but it may be that an activity with similar effects in a less sensitive environment, those effects can be mitigated or remedied.

This clause 77 provides another content for national standards to be very specific about how, particularly for things like infrastructure or common activities like quarries, that the effects that we anticipate from them, the ways that those effects need to be managed can be set out in a structured way and in a consistent way so that these matters don't need to be relitigated consent by consent across the country.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: But dust is different everywhere, right?

SIMON COURT: I won’t respond to the member’s heckles. I can see that there are many members on different sides of the House who are absolutely fascinated by other content for national standards. I’d suggest the member Grant McCallum pick up a copy of the bill and refer to clause 77 so he can familiarise himself with it, because no doubt many of his constituents will be interested in approaching him as to how they might utilise the benefits of this new system.

I invite the member and I invite Catherine Wedd and Minister Tama Potaka to familiarise with it, because this legislation is going to be one of the best things that ever happens in their communities. And, of course, Vanessa Weenink. But for the benefit of the member Duncan Webb, it is important that national standards have the flexibility to set out how, when, and why the effects of different types of activities can be avoided, remedied, mitigated, offset, and compensated and in what circumstances. That is the purpose of national standards: national consistency, clearly understood ways of doing things, and a clear rationale so that it doesn’t have to be relitigated consent by consent across the country.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you. That’s helpful, member in the chair, Mr Court, but it still seemed peculiar to me, so I’m going to ask another question. It was really helpful that you gave the quarry example. If you’ve got a national standard as to how the order in which effects are—

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Can I ask for the chit chat on that side of the House to come down a level just so that people can focus.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: They were heckling because I was making a good point. If you take a quarry, you might have effects such as dust, noise, and runoff. Now, those three things to have a national standard that says, OK, let’s do dust first, then noise, then runoff seems really odd, because if you’ve got a quarry that’s close to residents, then dust and noise is going to be really important and runoff might not; but if you’ve got a quarry that's next to an important waterway, then runoff is going to be the most important thing and you should address that first. That should be your priority.

The quarry example is a good one. I’m glad that you gave an example because it strikes me that, for any consent or any activity, you’re going to actually want to have an order of priorities which suits the environment in which it sits.

Committee of the whole House

I certainly do thank the member for that question and seeking further clarification, and he’s absolutely nailed it. An activity that might have significant impacts on people through dust, noise, traffic, for example, like a quarry, if it’s in a remote location, then those impacts on people are going to be unlikely, and probably easier to manage. If it’s a quarry in an area that’s subject to urban intensification, it’s going to be much more difficult to manage, so the purpose of national standards is to be clear as to how and in what order adverse effects are to be avoided, mitigated, remedied, offset, and compensated. Where is appropriate for those adverse effects to be offset or compensated and in what circumstances which specific effects are managed under the Natural Environment Act as it will become and the Planning Act as it will become? Because, if we think about trying to provide certainty for people who seek to invest to expand something like a quarry, knowing in advance what the national rules are that are intended to apply to manage known effects or reasonably anticipated effects is really important. If it’s a quarry or a mine, say, in a very sensitive environment, it would make sense that some effects should be avoided or mitigated, whereas, if it’s an at least sensitive environment, potentially they could be remedied ora combination of.

Look, the member and I can’t possibly hope to explore all scenarios where national standards might be applied. Even if we let this committee of the whole House stage go all the way through to Saturday night, we wouldn't have enough time. But I can assure the member that, as the Minister and I have turned our minds to how national standards will be applied, we are thinking about the very matters the member raised, and we anticipate national standards will be able to address them in an efficient way.

Committee of the whole House

I wanted to go to page 92 to speak to a clause 76, which is deleted, and to ask the member in the chair, Simon Court, around why this has been deleted as restrictions on national rules around the control of fishing, because the contents of this national rule for the controls of fishing, I thought, would align quite nicely with our existing marine protections—as my colleague from our Northland electorate would know, Patukeha Ngāti Kuta and Te Uri o Hikihiki, kaiwhakahaere of rāhui tapu or marine protected areas in the Bay of Islands and Whangaruru.

When we have this transition into the new bill and the way that the new system will operate, we’ve still got a bit of grey area. I’m not quite sure as to how the marine protected areas will continue on or not, but also when we have the deletion of clause 76 around the restrictions on national rules for control of fishing, why did we delete this, and are there provisions within the legislation elsewhere that maybe I’m missing? We’ve got to go back to our communities and we’ve got to be able to convey the why and then how. So if the member in the chair could help me find the relevant part in the legislation where I can point to the community where there is provision. Kia ora.

Committee of the whole House

Certainly. I thank the member for the question. That is one of the easier questions I’ve had tonight. That clause has been deleted. It’s been replaced by a catch-all clause at 10B in Part 1, which are “Rules that control fishing”. So I hope the member will be able to take her community through that.

Committee of the whole House

Yeah, thank you, Mr Chair. I'm really keen to pick up on where the Minister directed me to with the movement of the breach—the action plans and breaching environmental limits. He and officials directed me to clause 60B. I’m really interested in this because what we’ve seen in this perpetual cycle, particularly over the last few decades, is that even where there have been environmental limits put in place and they have been breached or it’s well understood that they will be breached, there has not necessarily been a key driver and a key impetus to actually change things to avoid it.

Now, I’m really pleased to see that the regional council must take all reasonable steps to avoid the breach of an environmental limit and evaluate as to when that limit will be breached and how they might manage it.

The question that I’m still unclear about and which we never had a satisfactory or clear answer at select committee as to what this key driver would be is, yes, the regional council must, but when must they? We know that planning cycles are in 10 years, and we now know with the changes that the Government has made, that even interim limits, which are meant to be these stepping stones, are at 10-year intervals. When exactly is the regional council—or whatever council, be unitary or whatever—compelled to take action other than simply at the next planning cycle?

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair. At all times.

Committee of the whole House

I move, That debate on this question now close.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): I am going to take another call, but just to note that we have been getting engagement from the Minister and people have been moving methodically forward through the provisions, so that is appreciated by the committee, but I would ask members to do move forward through the provisions. I call Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair. I am going to move on a little bit further, noting that my colleagues may still have questions. But I think one of the things that the under-secretary has mentioned a couple of times that I thought was really interesting, and this is specifically with regard to the Minister’s Amendment Paper 710—I want to pinpoint a particular clause where we see some of these repetitions: clause 85, new subclause (3A), and we see it again in subclause (3C)(a). Now, the under-secretary previously has mentioned this term “practicable” a couple of times. Now, this is interesting, because in most cases when we’re looking at “practicable”, it means that the limit itself doesn’t need to necessarily be met if other circumstances prevent that from being met. So we see the term “practicable” in health and safety laws all the time: whether it’s “reasonably practicable”. But what isn’t clear here, let’s say in the context of national policy direction, is what are some of the limitations or expectations when setting the national policy direction on what is practicable when that isn’t being met.

We saw this sort of phrasing previously in clause 71(1)(b) in terms of “resolution of conflict as far as is practicable.” So my first question to the under-secretary is: in this case, what are some of the circumstances that will make a proposed national policy direction impracticable? When we are looking at clause 86, “Considerations for national standards”, it does state that national standards, at least for the Minister, need to be satisfied and be compliant to the same equivalent or to the same effect as the redress arrangement under the original Resource Management Act. So does that mean that that level of practicability wiggle room that you see with the national policy direction doesn’t necessarily apply to the national standard, and the national standard is a little bit more strict in terms of that wiggle room? So I want to check with the under-secretary on that question.

Committee of the whole House

This is a well-understood term in resource management. It means that the decision maker is not required to resolve completely conflicts, but should as far as practical.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair. I don’t think this clause has been referred to to date—because I do think it’s important that we work through every clause that the Opposition wishes to explore, in a methodical manner—and that’s clause 79, “National standards may authorise specified activities to breach environmental limits”. This kind of seems strange to me, and it’s almost a question that the Minister may not need advice on, because it’s about what this means. They’re not limits if you can breach them; they’re guidance. I guess the really interesting thing that struck me was subclause (1)(a), which has been redrafted to, essentially, say, “Do a cost-benefit analysis.” It says, “the Minister is satisfied”—in authorising breaching these limits—“that there is net public benefit … having considered—(i) the public benefits … and (ii) the public costs”. So you’ve been asked to do a cost-benefit analysis on whether or not you should breach a fundamental limit. It strikes me that this is actually at the heart of this piece of legislation, because what it’s saying is that the environment is a tradable commodity, which kind of turns the whole thing on its head.

So I guess my question to the Minister: is there anything that is not tradable? What is the bottom line if we have environmental limits that the Minister can say, “Well, drinking water for Canterbury is not as valuable as increased exports.”, if he can say that mining on the Denniston Plateau and the absolute loss of biodiversity is not as valuable as the export of coal? So I guess I’d really be interested in his explanation of the philosophy behind this clause, and whether he would support the statement, which I don’t, which is that there is nothing which can’t be sold for the right price, which is what this appears to say.

Committee of the whole House

This topic was canvassed extensively with Rachel Brooking around the public benefits of authorising activities and the public costs of authorising the activities. The member raises a number of hypotheticals. Acting in the chair tonight, I’m not able to provide legal opinions—neither is any other member of the Government. I’m also not going to challenge the committee with philosophy. Needless to say, if the Minister is satisfied there’s a net public benefit in authorising the activities after having considered clause 79(1)(a)(i) and (ii)—public benefits and public costs—and the Minister’s considered, and come to a view on, the “potential harm to any aspect of ecosystem health or human health that the … limit is intended to protect;”—and on and on it goes—there may be an authorisation for specified activities to breach environmental limits.

Let’s be clear: there are a number of significant and rigorous tests which would be applied to that decision. No doubt, for very sensitive environments where the impacts of an activity might be very significant, the Minister would no doubt at that time turn their minds to how to resolve very, very significant conflicts. But there may be other cases where the benefits significantly outweigh the costs and that decision is simpler. Again, we can’t possibly hypothesise on what might confront a future Minister, but we have provided as far as practicable, Dr Webb, a rigorous set of tests and a process. We are confident, based on the advice we’ve had, that this is appropriate in this case.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to move on to another section, noting that we are coming towards the end of Part 2, but I think this is quite a significant one. This is clause 90, “Amendments to national standards without full process”. I’ll specifically focus on subclause (1)(b). It depends on what happens after this—I’m also happy for the under-secretary to take some further advice from the officials. The reason I want to hone in on this one is because it says that the Minister may make recommendations to implement our obligations under international conventions, protocols, or agreements. In this case, I want to specifically focus on agreements. I want to give an example to the under-secretary, that when we’re looking at our New Zealand - European Union Free Trade Agreement (NZ-EU FTA), specifically when we’re looking at chapter 7 on sustainable food systems, and also chapter 19 of the free trade agreement (FTA). One of the things that is holding both parties accountable—and this is something that is binding—is regarding the protection of our natural environment.

So I do want to check, I guess, two questions, which is: (1) what has been the advice from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade for this particular part and for this bill regarding our compliance against the NZ-EU FTA and NZ-UK FTA. I think the EU FTA is probably the more crucial one at this stage for this particular purpose. If we get into a situation where we do see that it might put some of the binding aspects of our NZ-EU FTA into question, particularly around things like environmental protection and climate action, would then the Minister be able to implement national standards quite quickly and without due process? Is that something that we can now do under this particular clause—clause 90(1)(b)?

Committee of the whole House

Mr Chair, thank you. Thank you, Mr Xu-Nan, for that question. This clause mirrors a similar clause in the Planning Bill. It’s intended that a Minister is able to amend a national standard without full process, specifically for the reason set out here. So it’s minor, it’s technical, it’s process, it’s in relation to, say, an update of a New Zealand standard under the Standards and Accreditation Act. The member notes that it may be to implement New Zealand’s obligations under any international convention, protocol, or agreement to which New Zealand is a party. But I’ve been advised that in the event that there was an agreement that New Zealand entered into which required the updating of a national standard, then that advice would be sought or obtained from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. But as far as I’m aware, this is a carry-over provision from existing legislation and it mirrors the Planning Bill. We just need to make sure that every time a minor or technical amendment needs to be made in order to ensure compliance with other relevant standards, the Minister doesn’t have to go out and initiate a full consultation on a national standard.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you so much. That does clarify a lot of things, but I just want to check: what the under-secretary is saying is this is only when it’s minor. What does it mean if it’s something that, for example, a party found to be more than minor—does that mean that the Minister needs to still do a full process, if under the party of an international agreement deems so? And the other question is just around whether the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) has provided any sort of advice around consistency with our existing agreements.

Committee of the whole House

I don’t have anything further to add on that.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m wanting to address, on page 99, clause 84, the process for making a national instrument and the process that the Minister undertakes to publicly notify a national instrument. There needs to be a seeking of comment “from iwi authorities [or] from any group or sector that the Minister considers appropriate by—”. When we’re looking at the development of national instruments, if, for example, our whanaunga up Te Tairāwhiti, Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Porou, are impacted, the Minister needs to seek comment from Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Porou or others who have a marine and coastal area (MACA) takutai moana marine title, but also PSGEs—post-settlement governance entities—relevant to the rohe.

What I am wanting to understand is—because it sets out a bit of a process in terms of the consultation or to notify, and that’s in the pre space. But if the Minister decides that he is going to notify, there’s a proviso in (2)(b) where “those notified must be given what the Minister considers to be adequate time and [the] opportunity to make submissions on the subject matter of the proposal;”. I’m really keen to unpack, because we know that in iwi Māori land, whether you’re a MACA claimant, whether you’re a PSGE or a hapū or a marae, these aren’t often our day jobs—responding or replying to public notifications from Ministers or Government departments or local government.

It looks as though it’s very weighted towards what the Minister determines and what the Minister considers. Where was the workings with iwi Māori—in particular because we’ve got listed iwi groups and PSGEs and Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Porou as examples of those who need to be prioritised in the notification and the seeking of comment. What engagement has the member in the chair, Simon Court, or those Crown officials undertaken in terms of establishing what this process is? And then, how do we know that the Minister, in considering all things being equal, providing adequate time and opportunity for submissions to be garnered—where are the safeguards for iwi Māori in this space, knowing that sometimes a Minister’s priorities may not actually match or reflect what community or iwi Māori might think is genuine engagement and time to do the due diligence together?

Committee of the whole House

I thank the member Hūhana Lyndon for her question. The Government’s been very clear, and it’s set out in legislation in Part 2, that there is a role defined for Māori to participate in the making of national direction, national instruments, and we’ve been very clear that’s one way that the Crown intends to provide for Māori interests in this legislation. That is why, under clause 84(1A), Ngāti Porou is proposed to be consulted and any relevant post-settlement governance entity in accordance with subsection (1). That is upfront and that is deliberate.

The member’s question around time frames—when we get to clause 84(2), normal time frames for public consultation on an instrument are 20 working days. That’s not uncommon; that’s the time frame for consenting, it’s the time frame for all kinds of other matters of consultation—20 working days. But, in paragraph (b), “those notified must be given what the Minister considers to be adequate time and opportunity to make submissions on the subject matter of the proposal;”. There potentially may be circumstances where more time is required, either given the sensitivity of the matters or that they have greater significance, but there may be circumstances.

Here is why we haven’t been specific: because it may be that as we go through iterating and reiterating—being agile and being responsive in the way that national instruments can change and adapt to the needs of the system and the needs of system participants—in some cases for matters that exceed that threshold of being minor and technical but aren’t requiring of a full-blown complete consultation on the whole package, there’s an in between that provides the Minister some discretion.

But I want to reassure the member that Minister Bishop and I have turned our minds extensively and received extensive, detailed advice on how the Crown fulfils its obligations to iwi Māori. Throughout this legislation, that is reflected in many, many places.

Committee of the whole House

Follow up, please. Thank you to the member in the chair, Simon Court, for providing that response on the diligence and the depth of consideration of how Māori voice might be reflected in considering the making of national instruments and the development of, and how we want the system to be agile. We want it to be able to move and flex according to whatever the regional needs are, and national needs as well.

Considering, as I stated earlier, the ability to respond and the ability to be timely makes an assumption that iwi Māori have capacity to do these things according to the 20 working days or otherwise. In hapū and iwi land, we’re not necessarily sitting around waiting for the next consultation document to come out; we’ve got day jobs, most people, or they’re part-time Resource Management Act (RMA) practitioners on behalf of the hapū or the iwi. So I’m really keen to understand how it is intended that there is resource supplied to support capacity and capability—because capability sometimes requires technical expertise to come in and help iwi Māori to respond.

Committee of the whole House

Look, I recall the member Hūhana Lyndon has asked me that question in relation, I think, to the Planning Bill—potentially around a similar clause in the Planning Bill. This legislation does not provide for resourcing or funding different groups, whether they be iwi Māori, iwi, or hapū, so that’s not in this scope. That’s not part of it.

But I also just want to comment on the member’s point, which I do genuinely understand—it’s not just iwi and hapū who are not sitting around waiting for the Government’s next consultation. I hear very similar things from business organisations, from the environmental NGOs, and from people who are surprised when they see a notice in the newspaper about something that’s being consulted on in their community—say, by council—and will find out afterwards they didn’t know.

Look, clearly we have an important role when producing national instruments, to follow a process, make sure there’s lots of opportunity for engagement, and particularly when we do the first national instrument—the first piece of national direction. That is why Minister Bishop and I were really, really intentional about getting the national policy direction—an illustrative version for non-statutory consultation—out for all of those individuals and groups that want to understand best how the system works. So before we get to the formal process for making a national instrument, which will follow and which will undergo statutory consultation and all the other controls around it, there is a document right now which I urge the member to have a look at, to take back to her community, and to discuss and provide feedback over—what I understand is—the next eight weeks as it’s open for submissions, which is much longer than 20 working days. The reason for that, is because we want to use this time, while the legislation passes through the House, when it achieves Royal assent, before it comes into effect, to get as much for feedback from those who are interested in the system as possible.

To all of those who’ve been listening tonight, I hope that you’ve all taken away a much greater understanding of the intent of the Government, but also how we’ve turned our minds to the detail, particularly when it comes to implementation.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): I am looking for new material. Hūhana Lyndon.

Committee of the whole House

We’ve been told that thinking of resourcing and support for iwi-Māori participation, because we’re providing scope for them within the legislation to participate—but the resourcing of the system and the support to iwi Māori to participate in the system is out of scope.

I guess that comes to questions, in terms of: how do we implement the legislation to give effect and be really meaningful and purposeful? As we’ve heard, there’s 20 working days for consultation; it’s been diligently thought through in terms of the process, whereby iwi Māori, whether they’re Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Porou or a post-settlement governance entity or other groupings with marine customary title, as those hapū claimants that have got the titles and stuff—it just makes it really difficult, coming from Tai Tokerau and knowing that, as iwi Māori, there’s a certain level of fatigue that Māori groups do go through in terms of the churn of consultation. But also, again—and I’m just labouring the point—that resourcing of the system to support iwi-Māori engagement and provide capacity and capability appears to be a gap. So I’m just making a statement. Kia ora.

Committee of the whole House

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 49

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Te Pāti Māori 1; Kapa-Kingi.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Hūhana Lyndon’s Part 2 amendments to Amendment Paper 710 set out on Amendment Paper 752 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments to the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 49

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Te Pāti Māori 1; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendments to the amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Lan Pham’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 710 inserting new subparagraph (iia) in clause 50(1)(a) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 49

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Te Pāti Māori 1; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Lan Pham’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 710 deleting clause 50A(3) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 49

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Te Pāti Māori 1; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Lan Pham’s tabled amendments to Amendment Paper 710 amending clause 50C(2) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments to the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 49

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Te Pāti Māori 1; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendments to the amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Lan Pham’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 710 deleting clause 58A(3)(d) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 49

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Te Pāti Māori 1; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Lan Pham’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 710 amending clause 64(2) is out of order as not offering a serious alternative form of words.

The question is that Lan Pham’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 710 inserting new clause 65 regarding rules in action plans to remedy breaches be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 49

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Te Pāti Māori 1; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Lan Pham’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 710 inserting new clause 65 regarding avoiding breaches of environmental limits be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 49

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Te Pāti Māori 1; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 2 set out on Amendment Paper 710 and the tabled amendment 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 49

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Te Pāti Māori 1; Kapa-Kingi.

Amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The Hon Rachel Brooking’s amendments to clause 11 set out on Amendment Paper 687 are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

Lan Pham’s amendment to clause 11(1) set out on Amendment Paper 670 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that Lan Pham’s amendment to clause 11(1)(a) set out on Amendment Paper 672 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 49

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Te Pāti Māori 1; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Lan Pham’s amendment to clause 11 inserting new paragraphs (g) and (h) set out on Amendment Paper 712 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 49

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Te Pāti Māori 1; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Lan Pham’s amendment to clause 11(1)(d) set out on Amendment Paper 669 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The Hon Rachel Brooking’s amendment to clause 11(1)(d) set out on Amendment Paper 704 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

Lan Pham’s amendment to replace clause 11(1)(d) set out on Amendment Paper 724 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that Lan Pham’s amendment inserting clause 11(2A) set out on Amendment Paper 711 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 49

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Te Pāti Māori 1; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking’s amendment to clause 12(3) set out on Amendment Paper 745 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 49

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Te Pāti Māori 1; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking’s amendment deleting clause 13(1)(e) set out on Amendment Paper 698 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 49

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Te Pāti Māori 1; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Lan Pham’s amendment deleting clause 15A set out on Amendment Paper 722 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking’s amendment deleting clause 15A(a) set out on Amendment Paper 685 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 49

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Te Pāti Māori 1; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking’s amendment to clause 32(2)(a)(i) set out on Amendment Paper 706 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 49

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Te Pāti Māori 1; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Lan Pham’s amendments to Part 2 set out on Amendment Paper 681 are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that Lan Pham’s amendment to clause 48(1)(c) set out on Amendment Paper 673 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 49

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Te Pāti Māori 1; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Lan Pham’s amendments to Part 2 set out on Amendment Paper 703 are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

Lan Pham’s amendments to Part 2 set out on Amendment Paper 674 to delete clauses 49A(3)(d), 50B(1)(c), and 57A are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that Lan Pham’s remaining amendments to Part 2 set out on Amendment Paper 674 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 49

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Te Pāti Māori 1; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking’s amendment inserting clause 50(1AAA) set out on Amendment Paper 699 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 49

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Te Pāti Māori 1; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The Hon Rachel Brooking’s amendment deleting clause 58A set out on Amendment Paper 753 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

Lan Pham’s amendment deleting clause 64 set out on Amendment Paper 676 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

Lan Pham’s amendments to clauses 64 and 65 set out on Amendment Paper 682 are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that Lan Pham’s amendment inserting new clause 65A set out on Amendment Paper 684 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 49

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Te Pāti Māori 1; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Lan Pham’s amendment to clause 71 set out on Amendment Paper 675 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

Lan Pham’s amendments to clause 71 set out on Amendment Paper 723 are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking’s amendment to clause 72 set out on Amendment Paper 744 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 49

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Te Pāti Māori 1; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Lan Pham’s amendment to clause 74 set out on Amendment Paper 675 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 49

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Te Pāti Māori 1; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking’s amendment inserting new clause 75A set out on Amendment Paper 746 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 49

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Te Pāti Māori 1; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The Hon Rachel Brooking’s amendment to clause 77(3)(a) set out on Amendment Paper 700 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

Lan Pham’s amendments to clauses 78 and 79 set out on Amendment Paper 683 are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The Hon Rachel Brooking’s amendment deleting clause 79 set out on Amendment Paper 747 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 2 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 49

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Te Pāti Māori 1; Kapa-Kingi.

Part 2 as amended agreed to.

Committee of the whole House

Part 3 Combined plan and other matters, and Schedules 3 to 5

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Members, we now come to Part 3. This is the debate on clauses 91 to 125—“Combined plan and other matters”—Schedule 3, “Coastal matters”; Schedule 4, “Water conservation orders”; and Schedule 5, “Freshwater farm plans”. The question is that Part 3 stand part.