Natural and Built Environment Bill

Members, we come now to Part 7, debate on clauses 428 to 496, “Coastal matters”. The question is that Part 7 stand part.

Thank you, Mr Chair. We come now to an interesting part of the legislation relating to coastal matters. I know that members who represent electorates that have coastal boundaries, such as my own in the beautiful Coromandel, and my colleague Stuart Smith’s in Kaikōura, have particular interest in matters relating to this part of the proposed bill.

What essentially this part does is to provide for rules, regulations, and statutory provisions for what is, effectively, the commercialisation of the marine space. It is a matter that is different to matters relating to “on the land”, because in the marine space, of course, nobody owns the marine space, but we accept, as a nation and as a Parliament, that it’s fit and proper that there should be access to the resource that is provided in the marine space, but that access should not be unfettered; it should be controlled and organised. So clause 428 essentially sets out that an allocation framework, as defined in section 7, doesn’t apply to any application activity or authorisation under this part. Then Subpart 1 goes on to talk about the occupation of common marine and coastal areas.

So what I’m interested to know from the Minister in the chair—and I note that we actually have the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries in the chair at the moment, so she’ll be well placed to answer questions in this particular section—is, how does this particular part differ from existing provisions in the current Resource Management Act, and what changes has the Minister proposed that would make the administration of coastal matters easier, less complicated, less costly, and more efficient in terms of providing for better outcomes for those individuals and entities that wish to use part of the coastal resources that we have available to us?

New Zealand is a small nation at the bottom of the South Pacific. It’s often said that we are surrounded by the largest moat on the planet, and that’s almost certainly true. But what it means is that we have, actually, a very extensive coastline, very long coastline, with differing needs and requirements in different parts of it. I’m interested, particularly, about the commercialisation of, for instance, aquaculture, commercial fishing, recreational fishing, for instance, charter fishing—all those sorts of things. I know that my colleague Stuart Smith will want to ask questions relating to the energy sector.

So if the Minister could start off this debate on Part 7 by giving us an insight into what changes, if any, are made between this proposed Part 7 of the statute, as opposed to the existing Resource Management Act; and if those changes have been made, how do they benefit the environment that is our coastal environment; and what steps are in place to ensure a more easy, simple, and less complicated, less costly process for those entities and people that want to use the marine space?

At a high level, in terms of the allocation and clause 428 that the member referred to, of course the more substantive changes to the allocation frameworks are found in the other parts of the bill, not this part of the bill. So, largely, what’s happening in our coastal marine area isn’t changing and the relationship with the fishing Act as well is also not changing.

Thank you, Mr Chair. As my colleague, the Hon Scott Simpson said, I do have quite an interest in this section of the bill. The Kaikōura electorate, as well as being comparable in size to Israel, has over 20 percent of New Zealand’s coastline. I know that will be a surprise to many, but the Marlborough Sounds alone makes up 20 percent of New Zealand’s coastline.

💬 Hon Scott Simpson: How much?

Ha, ha! 20 percent. Then, of course, we have the Kaikōura coast all the way down to the Ashley River, which is all part of—

💬 Hon Scott Simpson: How long is that in kilometres?

Well, it’s over 20 percent of those coastal kilometres; I don’t have that number to hand. So this section in the bill is of great interest. As my colleague sort of outlined before, the interests between how this may change things, particularly aquaculture in the Marlborough Sounds, where there’s been quite a number of issues in the Sounds with salmon farming in particular, but now there’s King Salmon’s application for Blue Endeavour, which is out in Cook Strait, essentially, which I assume still comes under the same rules as it did under the previous Resource Management Act (RMA)—and the Minister’s nodding her head.

But does that constrain, in any way, future applications—that’s already under way and won’t be affected by this legislation, I would assume. But it seems one of the big concerns that King Salmon had, despite being kilometres offshore, is that the significant natural area part of the RMA could be triggered by someone who was halfway out to the offshore Blue Endeavour farm, they could look towards the coast and see a significant natural area—it wouldn’t be possible to see it from the farm itself, but it could be seen part of the way out there—and they could turn around and look the other way and see the salmon farm and be offended by that, and that was grounds for appeal or against the consent. So I’d like to know if that is still possible.

I’d also like to know, while I’m on my feet, Mr Chair—and I’ve got five minutes left; that’s good—

Stuart Smith.

💬 STUART SMITH: Thank you, Mr Chair. About offshore wind: now, offshore wind applications to date—oh, there’s no applications, in fact, but the interest has been outside the 12-mile limit. Why we still call it that, I’m not sure; we should go to the metric system, but I’m not quite sure, off the top of my head, what 12 miles is in kilometres, but I’ll leave that to the Minister. Anyway—

💬 Matt Doocey: 18.6.

💬 STUART SMITH: 18.6—there you go. While they’re outside the area of the RMA or the Natural and Built Environment Bill, the cables that have to take the electricity back to shore will, of course, cross through that 12-mile zone and then go up the coast to the beach, essentially, to reach a grid injection point—or, indeed, a large load. So is that being considered in this legislation? Because the RMA didn’t consider offshore wind and how that may impact on our planning rules and what impact that might have on the natural environment. So I look forward to that. Thank you.

As Stuart Smith just said, the offshore wind farms are in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ), not the 12-mile coastal marine area, and I agree with him asking about why we still use those measurements. But the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment is doing a piece of work to consider how we do consenting for those offshore wind farms in the EEZ. I note that there are some efficiencies in here for aquaculture in terms of how aquaculture areas can be more efficiently made at the plan stage, rather than at the consenting stage.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Minister, this matter of how coastal land or land in the common area is allocated under Part 7, “Coastal matters”, is actually vital to give certainty to a whole lot of infrastructure operators, asset owners, and people and businesses who might want to develop activities in the coastal area.

Minister, I’m not entirely sure if you’re correct—and perhaps you will clarify it—but is it possible to build a wind turbine on the seabed within the 12-mile limit? Or are there any technical reasons—or, perhaps, I don’t know, ecological or even spiritual reasons—why it can only be built in the exclusive economic zone? Because I would have thought that building a wind farm closer to land is actually a much better economic proposition; and, with reduced transmission distance to the consumer, probably a much better technical proposition as well. So, Minister, if you can confirm that it is possible, or should be possible, to build a wind farm within the 12-mile limit, that would be great.

Then, thinking about how applications for different competing uses are dealt with. Well, I live in Auckland. The Auckland region has 3,000 kilometres of coastline, including west coast beaches regularly smashed by 4- to 6-metre swells; where the volcanic mountain range that used to stretch 50 kilometres out to sea, all we have of it as a result of coastal processes are the remnants of the Waitakere Ranges, which were simply the eastern foothills of an enormous volcanic mountain range equivalent in size, the Hon Scott Simpson, to the Coromandel Ranges. So coastal processes and how you occupy it—very important to the people of Auckland when you’re considering the west coast. Then on the east coast, of course, is where most Aucklanders carry out their business of recreation and their use of the coastal area.

Now, in Auckland, we have significant competition for land uses in the coastal area. Auckland Council owns most of the boat ramps in the haul-out areas. However, there are groups in the community who say, “Well, look, wouldn’t it be better if we used what looks like a haul-out area with messy boats with Kiwis in their stubbies and singlets on a Saturday morning sanding and painting the boat—wouldn’t it be better if we use that land for some other kind of purpose?” So there is already competition for these areas, which is why it’s helpful that the bill provides some clarification about a method of competition. But, of course, if local councils or local government own these areas, and they have the decision-making powers, then how are other groups supposed to get access? That’s not clear.

When we think about the benefits of having haul-out facilities—well, we have issues with biosecurity, Minister. You’ll be well aware that Caulerpa seaweed, all kinds of marine pests and barnacles which must be removed from boats. There are regional council rules in Auckland and Northland which require recreational commercial boats to be hauled out, to be cleaned off, and to be repainted with anti-fouling paints at regular intervals. We don’t have the haul-out facilities—how on earth are we going to maintain our recreational and commercial boating fleet? So, Minister, how would the requirements be given weight if a decision maker is looking at bids for competing activities?

Then, of course, Minister, we have port developments. I mean, what did we learn during the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown of New Zealand? That the operation of our ports, whether it’s having adequately trained personnel, proper equipment, and being able to come and go without having to show your papers at a regional border if you’re a truckie—all very important, but it all starts at the port. Because around about 3 million to 4 million containers are imported in and out of New Zealand every year. If our ports are not able to expand, to develop, to occupy the seabed, to occupy the coastal area—and to do it without having to go back and prove why they should be allowed to do it every time—then New Zealand’s not going to be able to grow; we’re not going to be able to deliver manufacturing and other high-paid jobs around the regions.

So, Minister, if you could explain how this beneficial competition for allocation of coastal land might work so we can all get ahead. Thanks, Minister.

Going first to the comments around the exclusive economic zone (EEZ), my comment here was in response to the member’s question. Of course, I can assure the member, Simon Court, that I’m no expert on offshore wind farms; but should it be possible to have them in the coastal marine area (CMA), then clause 19 requires that nothing can happen without a resource consent in the CMA. I take the earlier point from Stuart Smith—his point was that you might need consents in the CMA that then go out to the EEZ, so of course we want any work that the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment is doing to be joined up with what is happening in this Natural and Built Environment Bill.

In terms of allocation, as I said before, these are not departures from the Resource Management Act, and good that we are having the Spatial Planning Bill and that regime, in terms of doing it long-term; thinking about how we want to use our spaces.

Oh, thank you, Mr Chair. I will take the opportunity to inform the committee that Marlborough alone has 1,800 kilometres of shoreline, so, therefore, it is very important that we get the coastal marine aspects of this Natural and Built Environment Bill nailed down and correct and easy to work with.

So I did listen very carefully to the Associate Minister for the Environment’s response to my earlier question, but she didn’t address the issue I raised about being in a boat halfway between the shore and an invisible structure, such as a salmon farm, that wouldn’t be visible from the shore but can be seen halfway out. Does the significant natural area aspect of consenting actually apply so that a person in a boat looking to the shore and seeing a beautiful SNA, significant natural area—and there are a number of them in the Marlborough Sounds—and then turning 180 degrees and looking out to the salmon farm or the structure or whatever it happens to be, it might be an oil rig, and being offended by it—is that grounds for objection to a consent application?

On that point, we go back to Part 1 of the bill and the various different outcomes there. So they can be considerations, and of course it would depend on the circumstances of the case.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m not sure that we’re quite getting the clarity of answer that my colleague Stuart Smith was looking for, but none the less let’s move on.

I want to refer to clause 449, “Requirements for offers for authorisations”: “(1) An offer for an authorisation must specify—(a) the activity or range of activities for which the authorisation is sought; and (b) the site it applies to.” I’m interested, because the Minister has already told us that, essentially, this part of the bill is replicating existing Resource Management Act wording and format. That’s, I guess, all fine and dandy to a point, but the issue that concerns me is will this legislation and these words and provisions in Part 7—are they actually going to provide the futureproofing that we require?

Aquaculture, the marine space—the opportunities to commercialise it are rapidly expanding. My colleague Stuart Smith and also Simon Court have already mentioned offshore wind farms, for instance, but there’s a whole range of new potential activity. For instance, in New Zealand, we don’t do much in the way of kelp farming, yet other nations do, and what I want to be assured of is that there is enough flexibility in these provisions to meet opportunities that we may not yet have even considered. The science may not have even been developed yet, and I’m not 100 percent sure that there is.

There’s a second point that I wanted to raise in relation to clause 454, and that’s a clause that’s headed up “Use of tender money”. What happens is that regional councils go through a process of tendering for commercial use of marine space. There is potential for a competitive environment. There’s quite a lot of prescriptive stuff in clause 449 that relates to the tendering process. Clause 450 gives preferential rights to iwi when it comes to aquaculture and the tendering process. Some of that relates to previous Treaty settlement claims, and that’s understood and is a given, but there’s a commercial aspect to this in that the regional councils are incentivised to actually monetise the process of tendering.

So, coming back to clause 454, “Use of tender money”, it says that, “The regional council must apply its share of the remuneration to achieving the purpose of this Act in the coastal marine area in its region.”, and I guess my question to the Minister is about the potential for that to, effectively, create a perverse incentive to commercialise in a way that may not otherwise occur. So for a regional council that wants to invest in improving its marine space, providing tidy-up work, or maybe some remediation of coastal erosion and a whole lot of that sort of stuff, which is expensive and potentially long term, they’ll be looking for ways to generate revenue and income, but it’s not necessarily going to come from ratepayers.

The use of the tender money, I think, is potentially an incentive to perversely commercialise that goes beyond what the Minister whose name this bill is in potentially may have considered. So I’m interested in the Minister’s views and thoughts on that, and on whether there are going to be any restrictions on that—particularly if a regional council is looking for a new source of revenue or an increased source of revenue, surely that then is an opportunity where a keen and eager regional council would say, “Ha, ha! Here’s an opportunity for us to generate some revenue.”

Oh, thank you, Mr Chair. I turn to clause 443, “Regional council must offer authorisations if Minister of Conservation approves”, and I know this relates to coastal and marine permits, and so on. But I go back to my earlier statement about how surprised I was, as was everyone who’s ever come across the Department of Conservation’s permitting habits, at how long it takes. For the Onslow geotechnical work, they got consents through. They gave it a fast-tracked process because they saw it as a project of national significance. It appears that at times and in certain circumstances, the Department of Conservation has primacy over the Minister for the Environment—or that’s what I take from that instance—and yet we’ve heard today that the Minister has said that Onslow will not get fast-tracked consenting, which, essentially, signs its death warrant, but this seems to be somewhat contradictory in clause 443.

So I’d like the Minister’s—I know that this goes outside of this provision, but this provision seems to set it in stone that the Minister of Conservation has primacy over the Minister for regional councils, anyway, and, therefore, probably even the Minister for the Environment. So could I have some guidance on that from the Minister and some assurance that the Department of Conservation doesn’t have this “Henry VIII” - type power over the environment?

As I’ve noted previously, most of these provisions are very similar to the Resource Management Act. On the issue of tendering, I note that half of it does go into the public accounts.

💬 Hon Scott Simpson: Sorry, can the Minister speak up? I didn’t hear that.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Minister, sorry, one of the members is just seeking clarification of your last—

Oh, I was saying in the last point that half of that money does go into the public account.

Thank you, Minister.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to raise issues relating to the suspension of applications to occupy common marine and coastal areas for the purposes of aquaculture activities. This is clause 455. Assuming that a commercial activity has been granted an approval to operate—let’s say a mussel farm or an oyster farm or fish farming, any of those sorts of things that may have occurred. Indeed, around my area—in the beautiful Coromandel—we have a fair amount of oyster and also, particularly, mussel farming. The green-lipped mussel is very popular, and it provides a great opportunity for fishing around the mussel farms. But we also have challenging issues with biosecurity matters, particularly relating specifically to a nasty thing called Caulerpa that is prevalent around Great Mercury Island, around Great Barrier, and also now in Northland.

So the potential for biosecurity issues to arise and then having a regional council or a planning committee that is going to suspend, or seek to suspend, an existing commercial operation, I think, is something that is going to, sadly, probably become more prevalent as time goes by. We’ve had a briefing at the Environment Committee about some of these invasive specifies, not necessarily always relating to the marine environment, but the marine environment is particularly susceptible. So my concern is that, if we don’t manage those biosecurity issues carefully and well, there is a knock-on effect to the commercial operators who are not very far physically from where the contaminated and identified places have been put in place.

So if the Minister could give us some assurances that, under 455(1)(b), where there has been the identification of an actual or emerging biosecurity concern relating to aquaculture and activities, those matters will be appropriately and properly taken into account, and what that process might mean in terms of a speedy resolution to the conflict that exists between the commercial imperatives versus the marine biosecurity imperatives that are also equally compelling.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 7 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 389 be agreed to.