Natural and Built Environment Bill

Members, we come now to Part 2, the debate on clauses 13 to 30, “Duties, responsibilities, and restrictions”. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I wanted to particularly take a look at clause 13 and the ethic of stewardship, which I didn’t see was defined therein. The notion that we will sustain the health and wellbeing of the natural environment for the benefit of both present and future generations—I’m pretty keen to understand from the Minister how many generations we are talking about here. When we start going out three, four, six generations, the decisions on what we can do as planners or as decision makers today aren’t necessarily well informed on what the situation is going to be like in four or five generations.

The other issue that emerges from that is: do we weight it equally across the number of generations, which we’re yet to know about—we might get an answer to that—or is there a staggered weighting across the future and present generations?

Final question: what happens in a situation when the ethic of stewardship as espoused here actually cuts across the mana and the kawa—ill-defined in the previous part—and there is an inconsistency between that? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m wanting to just ask the Minister a couple of questions about clause 15, the duty to avoid unreasonable noise. Clause 15(1) says “This section applies to (a) every person who occupies land (including any premises and any coastal marine area); and (b) every person carrying out an activity in, on, or under a water body or the coastal marine area.”

Noise can be a particularly problematic environmental hazard, and I know that this particular clause attempts to provide some guidance and limits around noise emissions and the standards that may be applied to them, in some kind of sensible framework. My particular question relates to one that is in clause 15(4)—“This section applies to overflying by aircraft, but only to the extent that noise emission controls for airports, including those in the coastal marine area, are [not] prescribed by a framework rule or by a plan rule.” I’ve had representations from a number of people in the Ōhāriu electorate who have been concerned about the excessive noise from changed flying patterns that have meant that the good people of Ōhāriu are now being inflicted with aircraft noise that is causing them concern and angst. So my question to the Minister—

💬 Simeon Brown: If only the local MP did something about it!

Well, if only! That’s quite right. If only! But I’m convinced that there will be a new MP shortly and that that new MP will almost certainly take up the cudgel on behalf of the people of Ōhāriu.

💬 Simeon Brown: Get Ōhāriu back on track.

Get Ōhāriu back on track. So my question relates to this clause about overflying by aircraft, and if the Minister could give us some enlightenment as to this provision, its rationale, and how actually it is going to be applied in practical terms, in a practical sense. What will be the impact? And will the good people of Ōhāriu be protected by clause 15(4) of the Natural and Built Environment Bill. If so, how?

Just in answer to those two questions, clause 15—the duty to avoid unreasonable noise—is, of course, very similar to section 16 of the Resource Management Act (RMA), but also merged with section 9 of the RMA, so really the Act applies to the aircraft issue that the Hon Scott Simpson just said; so the same framework there.

In terms of Tama Potaka’s questions about the ethic of stewardship, of course, that is found currently in section 7(aa) of the RMA. And to ask about how many future generations, I think the point here is not just to be thinking about tomorrow.

Thank you, Mr Chair, and can I congratulate the Minister in the chair. It is great to have the expertise of the Hon Rachel Brooking in the House during the committee stages.

A question on clause 15 also, “Duty to avoid unreasonable noise”. The Minister will be very aware, from her other portfolios, in terms of the importance of the Hauraki Gulf and a recent study by the Hauraki Gulf Forum by the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research, which highlighted the value of the gulf is between $40 billion to $100 billion and that we do not invest adequately in protecting it. The forum also released a study last year about the impacts of underwater noise on marine species and the racket created by boats, particularly in areas around Kawau Island, but also around the Goat Island Marine Reserve at night, which suggests there were potentially illegal activities that may have been happening there. But the noise of boats was enough to drown out sound that marine species needed to communicate with each other—particular fish, for example.

So does the Minister contemplate that the national planning framework might provide some guidance in areas like the Hauraki Gulf to ensure that our marine life are not exposed to levels of unreasonable noise which can disrupt their behaviour and reduce their ability to communicate and reduce healthy functioning under the water? We may not be aware of that noise—jet skis certainly—but is that potentially a matter which this clause 15 could be used for?

I’m advised that that is a potential, and acknowledge that the member is concerned about the Hauraki Gulf, which is, of course, so important to the whole of Aotearoa, but it wouldn’t be in the first national planning framework, so it would have to be more work into that fair matter.

Minister, I just want to draw your attention to clause 13—Part 2—“Environmental responsibility”. It’s got very laudable, aspirational content in clause 13(1): “Consistently with the ethic of stewardship, every person has a responsibility to protect and sustain the health and well-being of the natural environment for the benefit of all [both] present and future [generations], including as required by section 14”—duty to avoid, remedy, mitigate, offset, and so on. And that responsibility referred to in subsection (1) is not, of itself, enforceable against any person, and no person is liable to another person for a breach of that responsibility to protect and sustain the health and wellbeing of the natural environment.

Minister, could you please explain for the committee, for people listening, for the record, for the Hansard, for an enduring description of what is the purpose of 13(1) and 13(2), why is this in the bill if it creates a “nice-to-have”—a vibe—but is not enforceable against any person for a breach of any responsibility to sustain and protect the health and wellbeing of the natural environment? Minister, why is it in the bill?

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ve just got a question for the Minister around Subpart 3, clause 26 on page 79, that talks about “Certain existing uses in relation to land may continue”, and really wanted to clarify for those people who are watching this tonight. It basically says, “A person may use land in a way that contravenes a plan rule administered by a territorial authority if (a) the use was lawfully established (i) before the rule became operative; or (ii) before the proposed plan was notified; or (iii) by way of a designation;” and that the adverse effects are actually the same or similar in character as to before. So I really just wanted to get some surety and some clarification for people that currently their private property right use is protected under this new piece of legislation, given that nothing changes in the way that they’re operating it.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d like to talk about clause 21, “Restrictions relating to water”. This is very concerning, actually. Clause 21(1): “A person must not carry out the following activities in relation to water in a manner that contravenes a framework rule or a plan rule administered by a regional council”. So: taking, using, damming, or diverting any open coastal water. And in (b): taking or using any heat or energy from any open coastal water. Does that include putting beer in the water to cool it down? Because that’s taking energy out of the water, and so it’s a serious question: is that actually the case? Because people can use heat-exchanging devices in the water. So it says “heat”; does that mean it could cool the water but not heat it? Or is it taking heat out of the water and not cooling it? So I’ll leave that with the Minister.

I’ll just give that Minister a moment; she’s getting advice. I want to ask the Minister a question about clause 14, the “Duty to avoid, minimise, remedy, offset, or compensate for adverse effects”. In fact, one remarkable thing about this bill, Minister, is that despite all of the concerns that were raised by various environmental groups during the hearings on this bill, which I remember you attended for some time in your capacity as a member before you became a Minister, many, many environmental groups interested in protection of the environment above all else were very concerned about the concept of offsetting or compensation for adverse effects. So it’s actually heartening to see that there are some good concepts that have flowed through into the bill that would allow the likes of infrastructure developers, for example, or housing developers, to carry out some work on some land where there might be some natural value of some kind. I mean, it could be a wetland in terms of the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management which, I understand, defines a permanently damp part of a paddock, whether that’s three bulrushes in a 10-square-metre part of the paddock or whatever that is—if that’s to be cleared through earthworks, or disturbed, then there’s an opportunity for offsetting.

So would the Minister please describe for the committee and for the record, as well as, hopefully, responding to my question about clause 13 on environmental responsibility, how does the Minister see offsetting? Would the Minister be able to give an example about where, say, disturbance or removal of a wetland or some other kind of natural feature in order to build infrastructure could potentially be offset by building another somewhere else, maybe a better one, which, of course, is quite common. I mean, when I worked in the waste industry building landfills, we used to build fantastic engineered stormwater ponds incorporating all types of species of sedge and rushes, creating serpentine water-flow systems so the water slowed down, dropped its sediment, and provided a habitat for all kinds of native fish species: the banded kōkopu, the giant kōkopu, shags—I’m afraid I don’t know te reo Māori name for that bird—and eel, of course, or tuna. So, Minister, does this clause 14 allow for wetlands to be removed so infrastructure could be built and a new wetland built somewhere else to offset? And what does compensation mean? And Minister, if you could just respond to my question about environmental responsibility and what’s the purpose of that clause.

Thank you. So—jumping around a wee bit here—Simon Court was asking about clause 13 and why it’s not enforceable. The point of this clause is to give an overarching responsibility, and then it’s supported by the more specific obligations that are elsewhere in the bill. In terms of that last question around offsetting, I mean, I’ll say briefly that, of course, there is a schedule around offsetting—that is not in this part of the bill. Going to Stuart Smith’s question about beer in the river in clause 21, at clause 6A in Part 1, of course, there is a principle of proportionality, so I think he need not worry about his beer. Then Barbara Kuriger was asking about existing uses. The current Resource Management Act has existing-use provisions as well, and these are similar but they do enable some changes to those rights in a narrow set of circumstances, which are set out in that clause.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to move on a bit further into the nitty-gritty of Part 2, and, in particular, reference to Part 2A, and specifically clauses 30A, 30B, 30C, 30D, 30E, 30F, and—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Just reminding the member, though, that there is actually a separate debate on Part 2A.

On Part 2A? Ah, OK. Well, in that case, I wasn’t aware that the—I thought that Part 2 was going to be completely—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Well, a pleasant surprise for the member.

Thank you very much.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 2 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 389 be agreed to.

Point of order, Mr Chair. It’s really just to get some clarification from you in the Chair. Part 2A has some subparts as well. Is it your intention to take all of Part 2A or are you going to take it by subpart?

No. It will be all Part 2A, so everything that—

💬 Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: Including the subparts?

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): —comes under that section; yes.