Regulatory Reform Bill

I have been addressing the different parts of this legislation in light of the nature of this particular bill that is in front of us today, the Regulatory Reform Bill, which is an omnibus bill. The omnibus bill that we have in front of us today was designed specifically so that parts like this could actually see the light of day.

What we are dealing with in Part 4 is an amendment to the Conservation Act 1987. There is no way that the Minister of Conservation—and I am not sure who the Minister of Conservation was last year, when this bill was introduced. Was it Kate Wilkinson then, or was it someone else? Anyway, whichever Minister was the Minister of Conservation last year, he or she would never have been able to persuade the Leader of the House to place an amendment of this nature in front of the legislative programme of the Government, ahead of a number of the other measures that it was pursuing. It was only by grouping a number of amendments to legislation in an omnibus bill—which actually I take some credit for, as a former Minister of Commerce. I realised that there were a number of pieces of legislation that needed to be adjusted, but which of themselves were not sufficient to gain a place on the legislative programme. Having been a Minister bidding for a place on a legislative programme, I know personally how difficult it can be. So the idea—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: A very good bidder.

I was a very good bidder, but I was not always successful. Therefore I felt that it was important to have a vehicle that enabled a number of Ministers to basically put these kinds of measures together in an overarching bill, and to bring them before the House. They were never at a low enough level to qualify for a Statutes Amendment Bill, because, of course, those have to be non-controversial, and they also have to have essentially the consent of the whole House. You cannot have individual parties basically saying: “No, we are not going to agree to that particular measure. We don’t want this change to the Conservation Act going through the Statutes Amendment Bill process, so, therefore, we will not have it in there.” Of course, that was the kiss of death—that was the end of it. Statutes Amendment bills enable those little tidy-up functions to be taken up on a regular and ongoing basis.

This particular amendment to the Conservation Act 1987 would never have made the cut for a Statutes Amendment Bill, because it actually had some elements of controversy around it—[Interruption] No, controversy, actually. I suspect that the Green Party is going take a call on this particular part, because I know that there was a concern that the Green Party raised on this particular measure when it was brought before the Commerce Committee. I know that some environmental movement individuals did make some submissions to the select committee.

You know, it is always difficult to know, after having heard the evidence, whether people felt satisfied with the amendments that we made in the select committee. Of course, the people here in Parliament will have the bill in front of them, and will see that we actually did not make any amendments to this particular part. So it will be very interesting to see whether people ultimately were satisfied with the changes. We did make a slight amendment in order to meet one of the concerns that had been raised. Essentially, it increases the time around concessions applying in the Department of Conservation estate, and I think that that was an issue of substance, and it was an issue that did require a degree of reporting on it.

One of the issues that I think has not been really dealt with in this debate thus far is the fact that there were a number of officials who appeared in front of the select committee every time we were dealing with this particular bill. They came from all the different departments in order to respond to all of the issues. When you look at the whole bill, we had people coming from the Department of Conservation, we had people from the Ministry of Economic Development, we had people from the Department of Internal Affairs, we had people from the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, and we had people from the Ministry of Fisheries. Fortunately, a lot of people were covered by the Ministry of Economic Development. We had Statistics New Zealand, as well, and we had Ministry of Justice officials.

The problem that I had, certainly as the Minister who had spearheaded the process, and then as the chair of the select committee, was feeling a sense of frustration that all of these officials felt that they had to turn up for every discussion we had on every part of every bill. What I was trying to do was to get the different departments to maybe collaborate with each other in order to reduce the amount of input into the select committee, which was the whole point of having an omnibus bill. [Interruption] I did feel a sense of frustration. I think my colleagues are sensing how frustrated I felt.

One of the purposes of the bill was to cut down some of that interdepartmental nonsense, and just allow some of the different departments to actually come together and have other departments represent their interests on these particular matters. But the Conservation Act amendment is certainly one of those that probably did require the input of the department, so I would not include that in my general comments. On that note, I think that is sufficient on Part 4.

Certainly the Green Party supports other aspects of the Regulatory Reform Bill, but, as Lianne Dalziel has noted, we have concerns about Part 4. That is because Part 4 would allow existing concession holders to continue to operate, even when the concession term expires during the process by which they are applying for a replacement concession. That is not so much an issue, because there is a similar provision in the Resource Management Act, and it does seem sensible because it prevents business disruption while the application is considered, if you have an existing concession. But where the difficulties are is that it would also allow a concession holder whose concession term has expired, and who has then applied for a replacement consent that the Minister of Conservation has declined, to continue to operate until the Minister has reconsidered his or her decision. That potentially means that quite high-impact activities like mining—with the access agreements and the like, and the facilities that go with the mining—could continue, even though the Minister had declined the concession application on reapplication. It is the fact that if the application is declined by the Minister, then it should cease.

One of the major concerns about the bill is also clause 51, which provides for new section 48AA to be inserted around regulations prescribing time limits for applications. There is no provision in that clause that the regulations are made on the recommendation of the Minister of Conservation. Given this Government’s agenda—clearly flagged in the Department of Conservation’s statement of intent—that the department should increase business activity on conservation lands and increase concession revenue, this clause 51 would potentially allow Ministers like the Minister of Economic Development to push the department to—

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: There is no Minister of Economic Development.

—for Economic Development—

💬 Todd McClay: There isn’t one.

—Mr Joyce—

💬 Todd McClay: Hon Mr Joyce.

—Hon Mr Joyce—push for regulations that constrain the department’s decision-making process. We are seeing two major tourism development applications for concessions in the Te Wāhipounamu - South West New Zealand World Heritage Area, Fiordland National Park—one for a tunnel and one for a monorail. They are very complex applications with a number of potential effects. The provisions here are for regulations to set out time limits, to prescribe a time limit by when the Director-General of Conservation has to respond, and to provide for the consequences of not meeting that prescribed time limit.

Here we see the Government potentially introducing regulations to penalise the department, in the same way that it has introduced changes to the Resource Management Act to penalise local authorities in terms of them not meeting the time limits for processing consent applications under the Resource Management Act. It potentially restricts the department’s ability, through these regulations, to properly consider serious applications and their impacts on public conservation values, recreational values, and ecological and landscape values on the conservation estate.

In trying to be constructive here, there is Supplementary Order Paper 23, which is in my name and which proposes some changes to clause 51, new section 48AA, to provide, before any regulations are made, that they are recommendations from the Minister of Conservation. Also, the Minister has had to have had advice from the New Zealand Conservation Authority, which is the statutory body that provides advice to the Minister and has a range of representatives from organisations like the Royal Society, the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society, Local Government New Zealand, iwi representatives, and members of the public. The New Zealand Conservation Authority is a statutory body providing advice to the Minister, and it would be a useful safeguard and a check on this power to constrain the department’s consideration of concession applications around time limits and other matters, if that was on the advice of the authority, given that these time limits are not set out in the substantive bill itself but are being done by regulation, which the public cannot contribute to.

Can I just advise members when they have finished speaking that they pass the microphone back to the attendants. Thank you.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Some time ago tonight, around 10 past 8 or thereabouts, I was asked to leave the Chamber. I seek some clarification. I was watching on TV—

💬 Chris Hipkins: Point of order—

Actually, this is a point of order. It is a point of order, so sit down. Sit down. You sit down, idiot.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order! Can I just advise the member that I was watching when the member was asked to leave the Chamber, and I heard the Chairperson of the Committee say that the member was entitled to come back in at 9 o’clock. I am happy to abide by that previous ruling. Right, now, where were we?

As I was saying before I was rudely interrupted—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order! Will the member please be seated. The member is a longstanding member. He knows that when it comes to a point of order, it has to be terse and to the point. If we get involved in the politics, it leads to unrest in the Committee.

Let us start again. At around some time about 10 past 8—

💬 Hon Annette King: What’s the point of order?

What is the point of it? If you shut up and listen, I will tell you.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Please be seated. Can I just say to members that I know it is a bit—what is the word; I am trying to think of a good word—antagonistic tonight because the microphones are down. I appreciate that and I understand it. But can I say to members that when there is a point of order on the floor, it is to be heard in silence. There have been a number of Speakers’ rulings about what happens when they are not heard in silence. I call the Hon Tau Henare and I ask him to be respectful, because courtesy is contagious.

At around 10 past 8 I was asked to leave the Chamber. I was interjecting on Clayton Cosgrove because I could not hear him. All I said to Clayton Cosgrove was: “Speak up, speak up, I cannot hear you.” I watched the Chairman tell the Committee that I was turfed because I interjected on him while he was standing. Can you give me some sort of clarification on who might be right in this issue?

Can I just say to the member that it is in the past. It is gone. I understand where the member is coming from, but let us put those things that divide us behind us and move on. I am sure the member is quite capable enough of actually talking to the member concerned and expressing their surprise at what happened, and I am sure that something could be worked out. But at the present stage, I am bound by what I saw when I was watching Parliament. The member was asked to leave. He did so correctly, and there I would like to move on. But thank you for bringing it to the attention of the Committee.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Can I invite you to repeat your ruling using the microphone, because there are those of us who could not hear you, and, of course, it will not be broadcast, as a result of it being unheard in the Chamber.

To be brief, it was basically to say let us move on and I am sure that the member is quite capable of raising the issue with the person concerned. So let us move on.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I thought that, personalities aside vis-à-vis who is in the Chair, this is a question about the Chair to the Chair. It may be easy for you to move on, but it is me who has got a strike against his name. It was the Chair—not Eric Roy, but the Chair—who turfed me. What I am saying, and what I hold to, is that I believe that I was being thrown out because of my interjection on the Hon Clayton Cosgrove, whom I could not hear. I want to see if we cannot get some closure on that issue. It is not about Eric Roy; I can talk to him any time I want.

Can I just say to the member that I would like to refer him to Speaker’s ruling 79/1, and that is that the member is not in order in reflecting on the actions of presiding officers. I leave it at that.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. My point of order is not reflecting on the Chair. I am asking for some clarification about why I was turfed from the Chamber. You yourself said that you watched it on TV, and what I am saying to this Chamber—so maybe I should take a point of order and seek leave to make a personal explanation, which might work it out.

Well, the member is perfectly entitled to make a personal explanation.

I think the Speaker’s ruling that you have referred to is absolutely the correct one. If the member felt that he had been in some way unfairly defamed or that a reflection had been cast on his character that was unfair, he could seek leave to make a personal explanation about that, but he cannot question the ruling of the Chair or subsequently come back and challenge a decision of the Chairperson. But he could, indeed, make a personal explanation if the Committee was willing to grant him leave to do that.

💬 Hon Tau Henare: Point of order—

The member is quite right. He can seek leave, so the member wishes to do that?

I seek leave to make a personal explanation with regard to the incident before.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is no objection to that course of action being taken.

Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you to the Committee. Can I make it quite clear that my interjection during the issue in the Committee earlier on tonight was because, firstly, I could not hear what the Hon Clayton Cosgrove was saying in his point of order—not during his speech, not during anybody else’s speech, but during the point of order. When I was turfed by the Chairman I was of the understanding that I was being turfed because of my interjection on Clayton Cosgrove. Given the situation with the mikes, I am not going to apologise for asking the Hon Clayton Cosgrove to speak up, but I want to say, and to put it on record, that any record of this event at around 8 o’clock should be expunged because I consider my record for the last couple of years to be very, very good.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 23 in the name of Eugenie Sage to clause 51 be agreed to.