Natural Environment Bill

Committee of the whole House

Point of order. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to seek your clarification regarding the previous part, because I think, as my colleague the Hon Rachel Brooking has suggested, there was a little bit of misunderstanding around the fact that Schedule 2 and 2A, as you just said, actually come before Schedules 3 to 5, which are in a previous section. Now, while the Hon Rachel Brooking has spoken on Schedule 5, I just want to seek clarification—there were additional questions on Schedules 3 and 4, but while we were trying to seek a call, we noticed that our microphones weren’t working and they might not be audible. I just want to check—

Hon Member: You don’t need a mic.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Points of order are heard in silence, please.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: I do want to check with you, Madam Chair, what is, I guess, the recourse and what are the options for us when, for example, there are still two quite substantial schedules in the previous part that we weren’t able to debate on. Again, in light of the fact that unfortunately we thought that—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): We’re now up to Part 4. No one’s mic is on unless they’re speaking, so that’s not a disadvantage. You can stand on your seat—no, you can’t, but you could wave your hands, do cartwheels in the aisle, but we won’t be going backwards.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: No—no. Absolutely. I completely understand. We won’t be doing cartwheels, just for your clarification. I could do one, but I won’t. But I just want to check if it’s OK with you that in those cases, we were standing up and we were trying to take calls or raise points of order, but if the mic isn’t on, I just want to check with you that it’s OK if we raise our voice a little bit just so that any Chair in the seat is able to hear.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): As long as it’s not louder than Tom Rutherford.

Tom Rutherford: Bring it on.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Is that a challenge? But yes, thank you. That’s helpful.

Committee of the whole House

Madam Chair, I’m worried for my eardrums. Anyway, clause 128: as foreshadowed, we’d like to speak about clause 128. This is “Wildlife approvals”, and I’m sure other members will have things to say about this as well because it is a substantive change in that wildlife approvals will now be able to be granted through this replacement Resource Management Act process. We raised some concerns with this in our differing view and said that the bill should retain the Department of Conservation as decision maker for the Wildlife Act approvals and that it should specify appropriate time frames, if time frames were the issue, and still keep the department as the decision maker, but if there are time issues then those could be inserted into this legislation.

I have got a tabled amendment from 7.55 p.m., 26 August—I think it was last night; yes, it was last night. It’s just to delete the whole section. It’s not the most elegant amendment and I’d be happy to amend it to make it align with our differing view.

I do want to also note a concern that we had that there was a change in the Environment Committee about looking at applicants’ behaviour and whether or not they’d been convicted before, but there was a decision in the select committee not to require this information when the approval is transferred to a third party. So if I had a bad track record and was applying for a wildlife permit, that would be relevant, but if Arena Williams had a good track record, got the permit and then transferred it to me, then that would be fine—and that seems like, well, shouldn’t I just not be getting the permit if I’ve got this bad track record? I’d invite the member in the chair, Simon Court, to consider a change around that aspect, as well as making the Department of Conservation the decision maker.

Now, I’ll just quickly flick through to Schedule 2A, and this is the schedule that’s been inserted to deal with these wildlife approvals. I note a good change that appears to be made—I mean, it might have come from somewhere else, so the member in the chair can feel free to tell me if this is not a good change; if I’m misattributing goodness. But at clause 24 of Schedule 2A on page 275, there’s an insertion at (3A) noting “The Department may recover directly from a permit authority the Department’s reasonable costs incurred in providing advice under clause 4.” Why I say that it’s good is that I, of course, would like the Department of Conservation to be the decision maker within time frames in the first place, but if I can’t have that—and I would like it and I would like the member to speak to that—then it is good that the department can do cost recovery, because they are so under-funded and they need to do that.

I also note that some of the entities that can be consulted include a relevant iwi authority or post-settlement governance entity. I wonder if there also needs to be a provision for them to recover directly any reasonable costs incurred.

So I’ll round this contribution up: on Schedule 2A, this insertion at subclause (3A) that the department may recover costs—is that new or has it just been repurposed from somewhere else? Second, what about relevant iwi authorities in terms of cost recovery? And then, going back to clause 128, would the member consider reverting to the department being the decision maker but prescribing time limits for the department to make timely decisions?

Committee of the whole House

In response to the member the Hon Rachel Brooking’s question on Wildlife Act approvals, just to be clear, the bill creates a dedicated wildlife approvals process that can be processed alongside natural resource permits, retains key Wildlife Act protections, including safeguards for species viability and local populations with threatened or at-risk wildlife, and decision makers must consider relevant Department of Conservation guidance and advice, and adverse effects must be addressed. The member did confirm that this was extensively canvassed at the Environment Committee, and the Amendment Paper does not include any changes to what was reported back to the House. You’ll see there’s no changes in clause 128.

Just in response to the member’s question about Schedule 2A, clause 24(3A): the insertion of the clause, “The Department may recover directly from a permit authority the Department’s reasonable costs incurred in providing advice”, essentially corrects a drafting error omission to make it clear that when the department is required to provide advice or advice is sought in relation to a Wildlife Act permit application, the department is entitled to recover its direct costs.

In response to the member’s question as to whether the Government would consider amending the legislation to take up her amendment: no.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. A general question, firstly, about Schedule 2A. I’ve heard the Government’s description and the member in the chair’s description of this as moving to a system of a one-stop shop. It makes sense at one level that you would have one approval for land use and certain wildlife—that you wouldn’t do that twice—but then it begs the question: well, is Schedule 2A the same legal test as applied under the old Wildlife Act test but for, obviously, the decision maker being different and giving different weighting consideration? Is it the same mechanism? That’s the question around Schedule 2A.

The other question I have is, you know, with the environmental regulator changing in this part from the Department of Conservation (DOC) to the councils, do councils then need to take into account those things that DOC would have been able to consider, like whether—you know, essentially they were asking the question, “Is this person a suitable person to move and disturbed wildlife?”, and not the question that the councils are asking, which is, “Is this land appropriate for development?” Is the council also empowered to make that sort of judgment when granting the application, when they don’t necessarily have that expertise? As it works now—say, if you’re a forestry company; say, if you’re a quarrying company—you will have someone on staff who is sort of qualified to deal with the making of their wildlife applications and to have expertise to engage the right people. To the member in the chair, Simon Court: do you think that system will continue?

Committee of the whole House

Yes, and in response to the member Arena Williams’ earlier question, which I omitted to respond to fully, and the member has brought back the same question in some other form, the transfer—this relates to the transfer of permits—mirrors the Natural Environment Bill’s permit approach. Transfer has to comply with conditions and the transfer process provides visibility over the parties involved in the transfer. Councils can still use other tools, like increased inspection and monitoring frequency, if they’re concerned—for example, if they’re aware of issues or they’re not familiar with the operator; or, if there’s an individual who’s been the responsible person for this in an organisation like a quarry business, they can be more involved. Those protections and that responsiveness are still available in the system.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. That really did answer my questions, and then the only questions I have remaining are specifically about airports. There are some provisions that are specially for airports, but I want to ask whether those provisions that exist under the old regime for airports—which are very restrictive for wildlife; appropriately so—but that are not put in place through this new sort of regime will still be carried over. The really restrictive rules that I’m talking about are for birds. Airports need to constantly be moving birds away from their runway, and it makes sense about why. But lots of them are also in places—say on the Manukau Harbour; Auckland Airport is home to a significant proportion of New Zealand’s rarest dotterels. You understand the issues here. They’re really specific consents. Are they going to just port over?

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m really pleased to take a first call on wildlife permits, because I was unable to take a call on coastal matters, water conservation orders, farm environment plans, or precautionary principles. So I really appreciate being able to speak to this one, in particular. That’s because it is a novel new aspect which is introduced through this bill. What I’m really interested to pick up on specifically in Schedule 2A is clause 4—this is in Part 1 of Schedule 2A—where the permit authority may request advice from the department. That refers to the Department of Conservation, which is a good thing.

Now, the concern here with them asking the department for advice is that later in the clause, it makes it really clear that the department is under no obligation to provide advice under this clause.

This comes squarely back to the fact that the Department of Conservation (DOC), who do hold the expertise to understand what wildlife approvals and the implications are for the often highly endangered biodiversity where the developments or activities are going to impact—they not only have the expertise but the protective purpose in their own legislation and oversight to enable that to be the best possible information. Now, the problem and the concern, which I’m really interested in hearing the member Simon Court’s response to, is if DOC, they may either choose not to—I don’t know why they would choose not to, but they may choose not to; they may also be unable to because they are under strict resourcing capacity where budget cuts have really crippled their ability to respond to these things. They may be simply unable to respond to these requests from the permitting authority.

What I’m really interested to hear the member advise—particularly those who submitted on this, but also the councils who are going to be tasked with undertaking this new role—what is their recourse there? Are they then implicated that they have to make a decision no matter what, even if they don’t have adequate advice from DOC? What is their recourse? I think what’s really concerning with it—and I’d love to hear the Minister comment specifically on this—is that councils themselves will also be under extreme resource capacity issues, particularly when it comes to the rates cap that this Government is putting in place.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): No, we’re moving on—that’s a completely different matter. I want the questions to relate—

LAN PHAM: It’s—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I know.

LAN PHAM: Thank you, it’s about the capacity. I’m not going to say anything else about it. It was the example about the capacity of councils. which we know are strained. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Committee of the whole House

I’ll respond to a couple of questions to the member Arena Williams’ questions about airports. The question was around: do existing permits need—for wildlife, birds; it might be in an airport precinct. Those permits do not need to transfer. There’s an existing permit; it stays where it is. It doesn’t need to transfer into the new system or be reissued but if they wanted to apply for a wildlife permit under the provisions of the Natural Environment Bill for something else, some other activity, that would be a matter for them to decide under which legislation they applied.

In response to member Lan Pham’s question in relation to Schedule 2A, clause 4, “Permit authority may request advice from [the] Department”: if the member’s concerned about Department of Conservation (DOC) resourcing—I answered a question in relation to Rachel Brooking’s question on clause 24(3A) of Schedule 2A, which provides for the department to be able to recover the costs of giving advice so, in that respect, that should not be a barrier to seeking advice. But I’ve been advised that clause 4(2), “The Department is under no obligation to provide advice under this clause.”—because this legislation cannot compel the department to do something, but I think it’s entirely reasonable to anticipate that where advice is sought for a matter that crosses the threshold of where it’s important, DOC would be able to provide that advice and recover the costs of it.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to the member for relaying that. What I am interested in is about the transfer of the function once the consent or the activity is actually granted; this is my next question on wildlife permits. My understanding is that once the activity is granted, all the compliance and enforcement actually sits with the regional council. That means there’s no authority for the Department of Conservation (DOC) in that space. What I’m interested in understanding from the member Simon Court is: what is the mechanism for the regional council to either be resourced or advised from DOC about what adequate monitoring and compliance would look like for that, and what is DOC’s role, if anything? My understanding is that they’d be completely hands off from that point. Do they have any oversight? What we understand about these wildlife permit pathways is that they’re entirely at the discretion of the applicant, whether they go down the Department of Conservation route or the council approval route. Now, should that be something that is really clarified in these bills—that there should be, or could be, an oversight role for DOC so that it’s not just passed over to under-resourced councils.

Committee of the whole House

Resourcing is a matter for the organisation, but let’s be clear—and I mentioned this in my opening comments in response to questions about this matter—this provision retains key Wildlife Act protections, including safeguards for species viability, local populations, threatened or at risk wildlife, and decision makers must consider relevant Department of Conservation guidance and advice. I would expect, if there was advice forthcoming about a monitoring regime and potentially an adaptive management regime or whatever it was, that would be incorporated by the consenting authority into conditions. Of course, any adverse effects must be addressed.

Committee of the whole House

I’m wanting to clarify around wildlife approvals, and in particular, if we go to clause 16 of Schedule 2A—“Decision-making framework”—where there’s a requirement for “Notification of a relevant iwi authority or post-settlement governance entity”. I’m wanting to explore—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Please limit the noise to my right.

HŪHANA LYNDON: —clause 16 in relation to the notification of the iwi authority or the post-settlement governance entity (PSGE). In this clause 16(1) and (2), it talks about the fact that the “permit authority must notify any … iwi authority or [PSGE] about [the] application for a wildlife approval if it considers that [the] notification is required to give effect to [a] Treaty settlement redress.”

There’s a couple of questions that I want to ask in relation to this, because there’s an assumption here that mana whenua or iwi of the rohe—all are settled. Therefore, is this a limiting factor, the way that we are posing this part of the legislation where it’s focused on iwi authorities and post-settlement governance entities, and you’ll only be notified if it’s related to settlement redress? Even if you do have a settlement and your Treaty settlement redress may not be relevant to this, should you still not be notified, but then, what if you aren’t settled—what if you aren’t settled? And I think about us in the North; there’s quite a few that don’t have settlements—but we are active in this space and we have a council or Crown relationships established, and we are recognised with Crown mandates. Should we still not be advised for this purpose?

If I can just ask a couple of questions with the member Simon Court to carry on this line of questioning.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yes, he was just jumping up to answer your question; Simon Court.

Committee of the whole House

I’m not familiar with the particular circumstances or status of the groups that the member Hūhana Lyndon described, but under clause 16(1) of Schedule 2A, “A permit authority must notify any relevant iwi authority or post-settlement governance entity”. I expect there will be provision for authorities that aren’t post-settlement governance entities but, again, we’re trying to be as definitive as possible about what the obligations are on decision makers. It’s pretty clear in that clause.

Committee of the whole House

Yes, thank you. If I can carry on with this line of questioning, because it makes an assumption that the Māori relationship with the Crown is just based on Treaty settlement alone, but we know that we have—

Simon Court: No, it’s—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The member’s saying that’s not correct, so maybe we might clarify that.

HŪHANA LYNDON: Yeah, I guess because it’s not explicit.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Just before the member carries on, the member in the chair said no, so I think we want to clarify because I don’t want you to go down a line of questioning that isn’t correct.

Committee of the whole House

It does refer to post-settlement governance entities (PSGEs)—in other words, settled iwi—but it also makes explicit provision in clause 16(1) for “any relevant iwi authority”, so there’s obviously the opportunity there for organisations that are PSGEs.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate that, because there are many that have operated under the previous Resource Management Act (RMA) regime who were recognised as iwi. I’d like to note entities such as Patuharakeke Te Iwi Trust Board or Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Hine. These entities have had recognised RMA iwi status for a really long time, so that gives comfort to the fact that they could still be considered iwi authorities in this space. If we go to subclause (2) here, so clause 16(2), if a permit authority notifies any iwi authority or post-settlement governance entity, “the permit authority must notify the applicant in the manner prescribed in regulations”—oh, and then it’s scrubbed out “if it decides to do so.” So, OK, it’s going to happen, because it’s scrubbed out.

I want to go over and consider or bring to light the voice of iwi of Te Wai Pounamu, particularly Ngāti Kuia of Te Tauihu o Te Waka, who shared in their submissions to the select committee where it had grave concerns that the proposal to transfer the Wildlife Act authorisations away from the Department of Conservation, a system which the iwi was used to and comfortable with. If it was transferred and there was a lesser obligation with respect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, they would have grave concerns, because, fundamentally, the importance of wildlife authorisations should be a requirement of the Te Tiriti relationship anyhow. That was emphasised also by Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu, who shared that giving effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi should remain a principal obligation of decision making when it comes to taonga such as wildlife, whatever side of the continuum we go to.

Committee of the whole House

Look, I apologise to the member. In my previous answer in relation to relevant iwi authority post-settlement governance entities—I have been advised that relevant iwi authorities are associated with post-settlement governance entities, so on that basis, there is no additional provision for this clause to apply to other groups. I apologise to the member. I did not mean to mislead her; I just misunderstood what those terms meant.

In response to the question the member raised about concerns that groups might have where they’re familiar with the Department of Conservation process but not familiar with this process—look, we are providing this additional process through this legislation. It’s a dedicated wildlife approvals process that can be processed alongside natural resource permits. While groups might not be familiar with this process, we intend that it addresses the same issues and provides for the same processes, and there will be an opportunity for them to engage.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you. Just in closing, to round off this, then—because we’ve had a bit of discussion around what is the definition of the iwi authority yesterday, last night, and today—it’s great to hear from the member in the chair confirming that an iwi authority is associated with settlement. We heard last night that large natural groupings that have a mandate with the Crown who might be entering into negotiations won’t be recognised—because that was clarified last night—for the purposes of these bills in the new system as iwi authorities. That was confirmed last night in the Planning Bill. Hapū groupings that are moving together, who have a Crown mandate, will not be recognised as iwi authorities. Groupings that have been moving through the Resource Management Act process over a number of years, a solid 20 years - odd—I talk about Patuharakeke again, in Whangārei, and Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Hine as examples. They have been operating as iwi authorities under the Resource Management Act for a long time, but they will be excluded in being defined as an iwi authority in the Natural Environment Bill. We are limiting and narrowing the scope of what iwi authorities are, because it’s all based on settlement now. Is that how we are now in terms of the Crown-Māori relationship—it’s only those that are settled?

Committee of the whole House

I’ve been advised that this clause and the description here apply only to these Wildlife Act matters.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to take us to clause 169, on page 146. I am jumping ahead, but the reason I want to get to this part is because the natural resource permits have something I’m particularly interested in, which is the bond regime. The bond regime is going to work in a different way, I think, under the new provisions, because it allows councils to have a sort of ongoing interest in consents as they are intended to play out. You have these consents, which are either conditional—that’s in the first part of the Act, and that’s a slightly different kind of creature than the consents that exist at the moment. But the bond regime is something that carries over from the Resource Management Act (RMA). There are particular ways that this is different. The first is that in the member’s version, the bond regime’s conditions are set out in secondary legislation—they’re not kept in the primary legislation—so they can be changed. I imagine that’s how he’s going to make sure that they work with those consents, which can be updated across time.

There are two things that bonds might be able to apply to. They’re very under-used in the resource management system as it is now, so, hopefully, this will be a bigger feature of the system now that there are conditional consents. Decommissioning is one. If you’re a quarry owner and you want to move out of owning that quarry, you might have a bond with the council so that if you fold up your company, you’ve still indemnified the council for the cost of the clean-up, say. Or there’s a second one, and this is what I’m asking about, because it’s new: it’s stormwater. Is the member in the chair intending to be able to use conditional consenting and bonds to be able to consent more flexibly for things like stormwater and water provision in housing developments? These are things where councils actually, effectively, do do this in practice, where councils with a very large housing developer are able to say to that housing developer that they have confidence that they’ll stand behind the development and be able to provide the stormwater works. I want to be able to do that—can this do that?

Committee of the whole House

The question the member asked, as far as it relates to housing developments—this legislation is the Natural Environment Bill, so I can’t provide any advice on that. But what I can say is that the bond regime is essentially the same as the Resource Management Act, but broader powers to improve other financial assurances are set out in Schedule 8 of the Planning Bill.

Lan Pham: Point of order, Madam Chair. I can’t hear the member.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yeah, there’s a lot of talking going on over there. I’m just trying to get this answer really quickly from Simon Court, because the Minister is in the Chamber and he needs to be in the chair, and it was because I knew that Simon Court had heard the question. But you are right—there was a lot of noise. We’re all good. We’ll swap now.

Arena Williams: Why don’t you do the call from your chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Simon Court can take a call from over there, but the Minister must be here. Had you finished, Simon Court?

SIMON COURT: In response to the question from the Chair, I had completed my answer.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): That’s great. Thank you.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a question for the Minister regarding a mention of Schedule 2A—and this is in clause 128. But I specifically want to ask a question on clause (3)(f) of Schedule 2A. Now, my understanding is that in this case you are applying for wildlife approval, and paragraph (f) talks about “and humanely catch, hold, or kill the animals and identify relevant animal ethics processes:” But we saw in the Wildlife (Authorisations) Amendment Act 2025 that the director-general may grant an authority under, now, new section 53A of the Wildlife Act, to authorise the killing of wildlife that is incidental, and in this case, “incidental” is defined as something that is unavoidable but foreseeable as carrying out a lawful activity.

So I guess my question to the Minister is: if a person is able to get the director-general to grant authority now under section 53A of the Wildlife Act, why bother applying for wildlife approval, particularly when around subclause (3)(f) in terms of the killing of wildlife—what is the difference between the two processes in that case?

So just for reference, the particular section that is now in the Wildlife Act is section 53A, and it was something that was added in the Wildlife (Authorisations) Amendment Act 2025.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to keep moving back to—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Just a moment. Would members please take those conversations outside.

LAN PHAM: Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to keep moving through, out of Schedule 2A—that’s the main part of the bill—specifically to clause 140 of Part 4, and this is about council’s requests for further information. And there’s this new clause, subclause (2A), “A permit authority may request further information from an applicant only once in relation to any 1 application, unless—”. Now, it says “unless” and there are two provisos to that, where the applicant agrees and where the information provided by the applicant changes the permit authority’s understanding of the effects, and also where the applicant changes the proposal to which the application relates.

Now, this is all really sensible stuff. What I’m really interested in is this “once” limitation. What we know from these council processes is that there are genuine things that pop up that are outside of those three considerations in subclause 2A—in paragraphs (a), (b), and (c). . What I’m also interested in understanding from the Minister is: is this regardless of scale? So does it not matter whether the activity is simply something minor or a massive development? I think that finding this out would be really helpful for local authorities in terms of not unduly constraining them from actually obtaining the information they need to be able to make a good decision. So I’m really interested in the Minister’s response to that in terms of further information.

I want to also touch on clause 146, which is about notification requirements. In the Planning Bill, there’s a different threshold for when consents actually have to be notified, and under the Planning Bill it’s when they have more than minor effects. But under the Natural Environment Bill, it is only where they have significant effects. Now, surely the general understanding of the aspects of the domains in the Natural Environment Bill where we have common pools of resources in our shared environment—surely this warrants more public involvement than for, say, sort of urban frictions and tensions managed under the Planning Bill. So why is there that sort of opposite of what you would expect when it comes to public participation in what we understand can be serious implications when it comes to activities and development under this Act? That is my next question.

Committee of the whole House

Very briefly, in relation to Lawrence Xu-Nan’s question about the Wildlife Act, I’m advised it is a different pathway to get the same kind of authorisation under the Natural Environment Act, only we are also getting a permit.

In relation to Ms Pham’s first question, the general policy position here is that the bills require further information requests being proportionate to scale and significance of the effects of the activity and generally only occur once, and I think I heard the member say that that all seemed like sensible stuff. It’s a constant source of frustration for people, the constant requests for information and the backwards and forwards—it’s a nightmare. We’re trying to limit that down. But there need to be exceptions, and they are laid out in the relevant clause, so the applicant can agree, for example. So it may be that the consent authority comes back and says that further information is required for it to be processed properly, and if the applicant agrees, two parties voluntarily choosing to consent together, it’s happy days.

In relation to the question around the significance threshold, that is a deliberate policy decision made because we think significance is the appropriate threshold.

Committee of the whole House

That is a really great example that the Minister’s just given about it’s happy days if the applicant agrees. The concern and what I think is quite well known with a lot of these consenting processes and decisions made by councils, is that there are often individuals who are much less forthcoming with agreeing to provide further information. When I was saying that this all looks sensible, I was talking about the criteria that was actually set out. On the face of it, the criteria is good, but what I’m concerned about is those gaps and why we would unnecessarily constrain councils for genuine reasons that pop up.

The Minister and the Government have been happy to put, for example, in the procedural principles some general guidance around being pragmatic, being solution focused—whatever. Couldn’t this be a place where something directive like that actually guides this without unduly constraining councils to be part of that back and forth to make sure that they have the best possible information to make a decision? Now, I’m happy to move on unless the Minister wants to respond.

Committee of the whole House

Only to say, the member’s right. At the risk of stating the obvious, it’s in the interests of people who wish to get permits to supply all the right information and if they chose not to, well, that’s on them.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m moving on now to clause 166, and this is something that has been removed from these new versions of the bills. What’s been hugely disappointing about this removal is that this clause is the precautionary principle. I’m really interested in hearing from the Minister the justification for its removal. I note specifically—

Hon Chris Bishop: Which clause?

LAN PHAM: It’s in between 165 and 167 but it’s been deleted from the Minister’s Amendment Paper, so it’s not there any more. My understanding is that the precautionary principle is something that has been developed in case law rather than being explicit in the Resource Management Act, so there is no change there. But when the bills were first introduced, what people submitted on was appreciating the fact that the precautionary principle would be there as a backstop to the fact that there are other erosions of environmental protections.

So what is the Minister’s response given the removal of that precautionary principle? What is his perception of what the backstop safeguards are when you don’t have enough information, when things are uncertain, there are risks of significant impacts—what is the Minister’s perception of that?

Committee of the whole House

Just a bit more on the significant threshold—I said before, around public notification, it’s consistent with the enabling nature of the system. Our view is that it would encourage participation earlier on in the system, and, of course, it will include standards and plans as well.

In relation to the precautionary principles, there were concerns about how it would operate in practice given that some degree of uncertainty is inherent in many natural resource-use activities. Removing the principle does not remove environmental protection; decision makers will still need to use evidence, manage risks, and apply the protections in the legislation and national direction. For example, the bill provides for adaptive management where there is uncertainty about an activity’s effects, which the member can find in clause 167. It allows activities to proceed in stages, with baseline information, monitoring reporting, and clear environmental triggers. Where monitoring shows risks are greater than anticipated, activities can be modified, scaled back, paused, or, ultimately, discontinued.

This approach enables appropriate development while ensuring environmental risks are actively managed and irreversible effects are avoided. Precaution can still be applied, where appropriate, through national instruments, which can direct when and how precaution should be applied for particular resources, activities, or places. We felt that was a better approach than a simple statutory statement around endorsing the precautionary principle. The devil, as always with this stuff, is in the detail.

Committee of the whole House

Tēnā koe, Madam Chair. My understanding of Part 4 is that it decides who’s heard, what can be ignored, and who receives the right to use the resources, which are, actually, Te Tiriti questions and they’re not merely processing concerns. The clauses, from 126 to 137, applications, prior consultations, and priorities—

Catherine Wedd: You’ve gone back.

Suze Redmayne: You’ve gone back.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’ll be the judge of where we go to. We allowed Lan Pham to skip forward; Oriini Kaipara has been trying to take a call for a little while.

ORIINI KAIPARA: Thank you, Madam Chair. The concern in this part here is really around clause 129. Clause 129 says that prior consultation is not required. However, clause 136, on priority rules, risks perpetuating, first, an advantage, which, to my understanding, and to the understanding of the committee, means that the priority goes to whoever has a complete application for a scarce natural resource such as fresh water—they pretty much get it first.

With that in mind, in relation to clause 136, priority rules, which risks perpetuating, first, an advantage and an exclusion of mana whenua interests, my question to the Minister, really, is: why does clause 129 expressly remove a prior consultation requirement where taonga or settlement interests may be affected? Then, when must an applicant engage the relevant iwi or hapū before the design is fixed? The reason for that question is that the real concern is notification after lodgment is equivalent to partnership while options remain open. That’s a genuine concern from iwi that have been talking directly to us.

Committee of the whole House

Clause 129 is a carry-over from the Resource Management Act, and the key is to get these things into plans. It’s not really relevant in relation to the Treaty, because there are other provisions in both bills around Treaty obligations through settlements and also Māori interests through national instruments—and then the obligations contained in the goals, and then the national policy directions and the standards that flow from the goals in relation to Māori interests.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I know you can be very quick and concise.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Yes. I’ve got three quick questions.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Thank you.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: The first one: I just want to thank the Minister responsible for RMA Reform for his response around the interaction with the Wildlife Act. A quick follow-up question on that: if both are the same path to the same goal, what would people likely choose—for example, is there a preference? Is one more costly than the other, for example? I just want to check what the likelihood is of people treading one path over the other.

I’m going to move on to clause 148. This is clause 148(2)(ca) and 149(3)(ba). Both of these provisions have included this new area—a new definition has been included around controlled activity. I wanted to check, in those cases, how different, then—would a permit authority, in those two clauses, consider the restricted discretionary activity differently from a controlled activity? From what I’m seeing, the drafting is identical except for one being a restricted discretionary activity and one being a controlled activity that’s been inserted in Amendment Paper 710. I just want to get confirmation from the Minister on that.

My final question is on clause 156(1)(a)(ii). This particular wording has changed from “the natural environment” to “natural resources”. I understand why we have, potentially, “natural resources” to be consistent with the other uses, but would one consider the interpretation of “natural resources” as a synonym for “natural environment”?

Committee of the whole House

I’ll just deal with the first question, and I’ll come back on the other two. In answer to the first question—“What would people choose?”—it’s over to applicants, but the Natural Environment Bill provides a one-stop shop, so why would you not just choose that?

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ve got a small contribution to make on clauses 164 and 164A, which goes to my published Amendment Paper 747 and relates to the references to clause 79. Of course, we’ll remember clause 79—

Hon Chris Bishop: Which clause?

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: I’m at page 142. Clause 79 is in a different part, and it’s to do with the Minister’s override of limits, if the limits even exist. We had a long discussion in the other part, and it turns out that not even—maybe, maybe we’ll have environmental limits. But, if there is an environmental limit, the Minister, at clause 79, can get around them. My amendment here is to delete that reference to clause 79, because I also have another amendment to delete all of clause 79.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Sorry, can you give me the number of your amendment?

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Amendment Paper 747.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Thank you.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Given that we’re on matters for which a permit must not be granted, it would be good if that would include just a simple breach of an environmental limit. Given that we’ve had the discussion we had in the earlier part, we know that these environmental limits are highly unlikely to ever occur, and so there’s no need to have an exception to the requirement to the inability to grant a permit if there’s a breach.

My question is whether the Minister will agree with me that a breach is a breach—don’t worry about an exception, because it’s so unlikely to ever happen anyway in his dastardly scheme.

Committee of the whole House

“Dastardly” is a bit strong; I’ll put that down to it being 11.28 at night. I mean, I think we had a discussion at question time about this—I can’t remember who it was; I had four questions to deal with today.

Hon Member: Lan.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Lan, was it? Righto. The amendment the member the Hon Rachel Brooking’s proposing is inconsistent with Government policy, so we won’t be supporting it. It would mean, for example, that the Government would not be able to set standards that enable significant infrastructure or enable activities that have net public benefits that would otherwise breach environmental limits, and I refer the member to clause 79, which she was talking about.

In relation to Mr Xu-Nan’s questions, the third one is a drafting issue between “natural resources” and “natural environment”. In relation to his second question around controlled activities, the difference is that you have to grant controlled activities whereas, with restricted discretionary activities, there are limited reasons to decline, and then the plans provide further direction in relation to that.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you very much. It’s great we’ve got the Minister responsible for RMA Reform here. I wanted to ask about page 145, which is Part 4—clause 167A, related to Te Ture Whaimana o Te Awa o Waikato. I never got a chance earlier in the day, but it’s good that we’re here now and we’ve got this provision in Part 4 to explore this. The tribes of the Waikato and Waipā rivers have reached out to this side of the House. We’ve enjoyed their company today—great advocates, I have to say. They rolled out and shared correspondence with us that they had met with the Minister on 14 August. There were proposals that were agreed to in terms of what happened in the Planning Bill previously for Te Ture Whaimana o Te Awa o Waikato. I wanted to speak to this one here in clause 167A as another really good example of how the Crown has listened and has worked with iwi groupings on wording that was agreeable between parties.

Now, what we experienced previously with the Planning Bill amendment—they had understood that these agreed amendments were to be appendices to what was to be voted on, but that kind of didn’t occur. Rather, it was within the bundle. I’m wanting to explore with the Minister a way whereby—I appreciate the advocacy of the iwi group that came together and met with us and this side of the House and their advocacy around our need to tautoko Te Ture Whaimana o Te Awa o Waikato and the agreed words that have been negotiated with the Minister. If the Minister would consider clauses particular to Te Ture Whaimana o Te Awa o Waikato being pulled out as maybe appendices to this or put it as a schedule of some sort so we can actually show some tautoko for the goodwill that the Minister has shown towards Ngāti Raukawa, Te Nehenehenui, Te Arawa, Waikato-Tainui, Tūwharetoa—the grouping that has been advocating for quite some time to uphold the Treaty settlement and the health and wellbeing of Waikato and Waipā.

Committee of the whole House

I’m pleased you had a good kōrero with my good friends the river iwi. I also have enjoyed fellowship with them—quite a bit.

Arena Williams: The river elves!

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: What’s that?

Arena Williams: It sounds like you’ve got a fellowship with the river elves.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Ha, ha! Tuku Morgan—Matua Morgan is Gandalf.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): It must be 11.32 p.m. That was provoked. Carry on with the question.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: It was—it was. It’s in the Hansard now; I think the member will live to regret that one.

I mean, I’m not really sure what the member Hūhana Lyndon is asking, because, firstly, there’s no such thing as appendices in bills. There are schedules, but, to be honest, the schedules are way less prominent and significant than actual primary clauses in legislation, which become sections. I mean, we’ve reached an agreement with the river iwi here in relation to Te Ture Whaimana o Te Awa o Waikato, as the member says. I’m really proud of that, and it reflects the good-faith obligations entered into by the Crown over many years. It’s there in black and white, not just in clause 167A but in a variety of other statutory provisions in the Planning Bill and, also, the Natural Environment Bill, so I think it’s pretty good.

The member might want to expand a bit further, but I don’t think burying it in a schedule is likely to be that—well, it certainly doesn’t have any legal change, for starters, and, actually, the Parliamentary Counsel Office works out what the appropriate provisions are. I’m really comfortable having it in the primary bill rather than the schedules.

Committee of the whole House

I guess I’m wanting to ask for an opportunity for us to look for a way whereby we can actually vote for something in favour. It’s nearly midnight, so—

Hon Chris Bishop: You can vote for the bill! Join the journey of change.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Madam Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Lawrence Xu-Nan, I thought you told me you had three questions before, and you asked them. I call Lan Pham.

Committee of the whole House

Madam Chair, thank you. I’m really keen to touch on some aspects of public participation—or lack of public participation, it might be. These relate to clause 146, which is about notification requirements if the previous section around mandatory public notification does not apply. I’ve got Amendment Paper 720 around that.

The reason why I’m proposing these amendments—and I’m interested in the Minister responsible for RMA Reform’s comments on this—is that, yes, this entire framework is moving to a much more permissive and enabling framework. I can absolutely understand that. Where I’m concerned about that is that, for the past few decades, where I have been involved in not only council processes but Resource Management Act processes, I’ve seen it demonstrated time and time again how valuable elements of public participation can be to making good decisions. So I’m really keen to offer the Minister an option in both of these clauses—firstly, where public notification could be permitted if there are more than minor adverse effects on the environment. That would be the first aspect of it.

The second aspect, which I’m proposing in clause 152, is that—this bill introduces what’s called, essentially, a qualifying resident test, where you can make a submission on a publicly notified application only if you are actually resident in that area. Now, what we know about the jurisdictions that we have across the country is that people’s interests, people’s connection to place, doesn’t abide by, for example, district council or city or regional boundaries. Often, you have people who are living on the edges of whatever boundary, and the concern is that this is going to be a real barrier to their genuine participation in the places that they love, the places that they’re connected to, the places they may work in and live in—this is potentially a barrier.

This Amendment Paper 720 would be bringing into line what we heard so clearly from submitters, including the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, about not unduly restricting participation when it comes to public notification. It’s already met those thresholds that public notification is necessary; why limit it unnecessarily to qualifying residents? I’m keen to hear the Minister’s response to that. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. I was simply referring to the fact that I had three questions for that particular call. I do have more questions for this part—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): It’s a shame the member didn’t clarify that at the time, but I’ll let you do some final questions.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: All right, Madam Chair. I am moving on—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): So am I.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: I finished on clause 156 previously, so I’m on clause 162. This is about applicants’ compliance history.

Now, I know that there was a comparable section in the Planning Bill; however, I think even in the Planning Bill, and certainly here, one of the questions we haven’t asked is what happens when there have been, let’s say, infringement notices or convictions, etc., if the person is overseas. In this case, it talks about convictions under this Act, but what I’m not seeing in this particular bill is what happens if an applicant, whether they are a natural person or not, had comparable offences or convictions in an overseas jurisdiction. Would the permit authority need to check other things, or would that be, for example, covered under the Overseas Investment Act, etc.? I just want to check, because it occurred to me that that is something that is comparable from an overseas conviction.

I am going to move on to the next clause. I’m actually going to speak on my colleague Lan Pham’s Amendment Paper 671. Essentially, for this particular Amendment Paper, we know that the previous clause 166 has been removed as a result, which is around precautionary principles where information is uncertain or inadequate. We just think that this section is actually quite important and should be reinserted here around the precautionary principles for consideration. I want to check with the Minister if the Minister would be open to—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’m sure the Minister answered—

Lan Pham: I think I had covered that.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: You have covered that in clause 166? OK. In that case, ignore that question.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): If the honourable Minister wants to—

Committee of the whole House

It doesn’t cover overseas convictions.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: It does?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: No, it doesn’t.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Oh, it does.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: No—no. It covers what it says in the clause.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: But what happens if there’s an overseas conviction?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, it’s not covered is the short answer. It’s not covered. I mean, I love your ability to—I’m thinking of rabbits and warrens and burrows, and I admire it. Even if I find it aggravating, a big part of me finds it admirable. But, as I’m sure the member’s discovering from his luminous committee stage debates, it cannot cover everything. It does not cover overseas convictions; maybe it should. Maybe there’s an amendment to come, but it doesn’t.

In relation to Lan Pham’s amendment and other discussions which I think we’ve had a couple of times now around thresholds of public notifications, the significant threshold for public notification, as I said earlier, reflects a deliberate policy choice. Changing it would not align with the Government’s objectives for notification. There are fewer opportunities to participate in permit processes and that’s designed to encourage participation earlier in the system in national instruments and plans.

In relation to her point around affected persons, I’m advised that people out of the district or the region can still be subject to targeted notification and they can still participate, but we’ve got a clear policy intent so that people in Waipukurau don’t submit on things that don’t have anything to do with where they live.

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 50

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 1; Kapa-Kingi.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 4 set out on Amendment Paper 710 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 67

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

Noes 50

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 1; Kapa-Kingi.

Amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking’s tabled amendment deleting clause 128 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 50

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; 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 (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Lan Pham’s amendment replacing clause 146(6)(a) set out on Amendment Paper 720 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 50

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; 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 (Barbara Kuriger): Lan Pham’s amendment replacing clause 152(1) set out on Amendment Paper 719 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

Lan Pham’s amendment to clause 156(1) set out on Amendment Paper 681 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

Lan Pham’s amendments to clauses 164 and 164A 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 amendments deleting clauses 164(1)(c)(i) and 164A set out on Amendment Paper 747 are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that Lan Pham’s amendment inserting clause 166 set out on Amendment Paper 671 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 50

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; 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 (Barbara Kuriger): The Hon Rachel Brooking’s amendment inserting new subpart 7 of Part 4 set out on Amendment Paper 746 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 4 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 67

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

Noes 50

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 1; Kapa-Kingi.

Part 4 as amended agreed to.

Committee of the whole House

Part 5 Key roles

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, we come now to Part 5, which is the debate on clauses 215 to 241, “Key roles”. The question is that Part 5 stand part.