Natural and Built Environment Bill

Members, we come now to Part 12. This is the debate on clauses 803 to 861—general provisions—including Schedules 13, 14A, and 15. The question is that Part 12 stand part.

Responding to the earlier question of Stuart Smith on clause 807, about the service on ships. Of course it’s pretty hard to catch up on a ship if it’s been away from port for a day or two. It’s unreasonable to expect someone to chase it and clamber up the side of a moving ship with a grappling hook so as to serve the ship with a process or a document. So that’s what clause 807 says. It sets out different ways in which that can be done, either through serving on the agent of a ship—normally, a ship does have an agent. I don’t know whether they’re a stevedore or whether they have someone who they act through, locally, to employ wharfies and the like when they unload the ship. And in addition to that, there’s some flexibility built in by subclause 3 of being able to apply to the District Court, who might allow the service procedures set out in the Criminal Procedure Act to apply.

Thanks, Mr Chair. Part 12 of the Natural and Built Environment Bill deals with the amorphous “General provisions”. It’s kind of almost a wrap-up kind of part where there are all sorts of interesting titbits of information that I’m sure my colleagues will want to tease out.

But one in particular is an area that I’ve spoken of in this House on other pieces of legislation; it relates to the service of documents. So I’m referring to clause 806. In clause 806(1) in Supplementary Order Paper 389: “A notice or any other document required or authorised to be served on or given to a person for the purposes of this Act may be served [by] or given by (a) delivering it to the person; or (b) leaving it at the person’s usual or last known place of residence or business [and so forth] … (c) sending it by post to the person’s usual or last known place of residence … (d) emailing it to … an email address … (e) complying with a means of service prescribed in regulations made under section 858.”

I know that this is a provision that’s probably literally been cut and pasted from other statutes or the existing Resource Management Act, but, at a time when good old-fashioned snail mail is becoming increasingly irrelevant to so many people, and the inevitable march of digital communications, I’m wondering whether the Minister for the Environment, or his officials, have given some thought to extending the definition of service.

In the past, I’ve been concerned about how easy it is to have multiple email addresses, to have multiple digital identities, and to have a document that could actually be very important literally just sent to what could, effectively, be a random email address, is, I think, pretty—well, it’s designed probably not to have good effect. The Minister, I’m sure, attends religiously to his email inbox and will know that he gets lots of emails, as do the rest of. Some of it looks like spam, some of it looks like it should be taken seriously, and some of it not.

So my question, really, is: in relation to the service of documents, is this going to be, effectively, futureproofed? Is it still reasonable to expect that sending something to the last known address of a person, it could have been several years ago, via snail mail, where there may not even be a letterbox any more—is this a matter where maybe we’ve got to think more imaginatively?

Finally on this matter, could the Minister give us some insight into what’s considered best practice in other jurisdictions in these matters? Surely, it’s not just New Zealand that’s grappling with issues of this sort. I’d like to know that we’re keeping abreast and up to date with the international best practice in terms of serving of documents.

Yes, it is being modernised to include emails where that email is being used by the person. I suppose, if the council is worried that they weren’t using an email—if this was applying to a council taking enforcement action, they’d be wanting to make sure they did it properly, and I think, more often than not, they’d probably serve a copy on the person, rather than just send them an email. But that will be for them. I can, however, confirm that after much debate, we did delete facsimiles from the list.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Minister, I’m just reading through here on clause 811, “Vesting of reclaimed land.” Now, this is a big issue that we’ve had around Christchurch, especially around the Avon River. After the quake there was a lot of land that had been built on that had been reclaimed and so forth. Now, I noticed through here that those that feel that they are vested, and the person owns that land, they have to Gazette it. The thing is that the majority of people wouldn’t know what gazetting actually means and how to get that information. As we’re saying, especially around the riverbed, and lake bed, and especially with reclaimed land and with natural disasters that we have, these places are more prone to actually flood or liquefaction, which is a new term that everybody in Christchurch now loves.

This is the other thing: there was also the unlawful reclaimed land, because I know that there was also—where these subdivisions had been there was a bit of dispute with the Environment Court versus also council giving consent around this. This is, I think, a huge concern, and making sure that people do actually understand where they can possibly get this information—I know from the Minister for Land Information, but just sometimes, the Gazette notice, if there are other people involved, they may not realise how to get that information. You’d hope lawyers and so forth would inform people that are possibly going to be involved with these reclaimed lake beds or riverbeds. Areas that have had water receding from and they’re now building on, which I hope they’re not—learn from previous experiences. But, just clarify, for those that are listening out there, what a Gazette notice actually really means, because unless you’ve been involved with Parliament, most people wouldn’t know what that means.

Thank you. This deals only with riverbeds or lake beds, not areas of the foreshore and seabed, or what’s called the coastal marine area—that’s not covered by this. It’s only reclaimed land that might formerly have been a riverbed or lake bed. In that situation, as the member points out, yes, if there is a title to be granted to that land, there has to be a process to convert that from land that someone doesn’t own to being land which is owned by someone. That clause says that it’s the Minister for Land Information that makes that, and the action that does that is a notice in the Gazette. But you’ll see that before the Crown does that, the Crown determines whether an appropriate price has been paid by that person. Because, you know, until that time, really the Crown is the custodian of that land on behalf of all people. That is, essentially, a carry-on from the existing provision, clause 355 of the Resource Management Act.

Oh, thank you very much, Mr Chair. What an honour to have the ability to take a call on the Natural and Built Environment Bill, Part 12. I hope that the Minister in the chair, David Parker, is going to enjoy a discussion that we are about to have in relation to the relationship of this to other legislation—and I point him towards clause 859 of this bill. The reason I say that I’m sure he will enjoy it is because, with a sharp legal mind, as one would expect and hope the Attorney-General has, he will understand, you know, the nature of what I’m asking.

So, just to tease out a little bit the idea that this Act, as it will be when it passes, no doubt, will have priority over other Acts—and so, for the benefit of those who aren’t physically strong enough to pick up a copy of this legislation and turn to almost halfway through it, at “Conflicts with special Acts”, it says, “Every local authority or other … body must be guided, in the exercise of any function [etc.] in relation to natural or physical resources imposed or conferred by any of [a number of] Acts [that are] specified in [the schedule]”—or replacement substitute Acts for that—“by the provisions of this Act”. So this Act, which is to say the Natural and Built Environment Bill, as it is now, will prevail in in the course of resolving any conflict between them.

I think it’s helpful, for a start, that we have a clear indicator of which will prevail, because, of course, if we have two pieces of legislation on the statute book and there’s, you know, potential for one to have priority over the other, I think it’s helpful to have a mechanism to say which should prevail. But, of course, we always have to consider the possibility that there is another piece of legislation that is in conflict that itself says it will prevail in the event of conflict—I just sort of put that out there. It doesn’t particularly need a response; it’s not a question per se but just an observation.

But—and I think this is an important point—I wonder if the Minister would agree that given clause 859, this would prevail over the terms of the severe weather emergency response legislation, or similarly named; we refer to it in shorthand as SWERL. Members of the committee may remember that it wasn’t that long ago this House passed into law, with the support, I think, of all parties—certainly the National Party in Opposition as well as the Government itself, of course—emergency response legislation to enable Orders in Council to be made following Cyclone Gabrielle and other severe weather events in the North Island in early 2023. So I think I’m right in saying, on the face of it, that according to this conflicts clause, 859, the requirements of this will prevail over the ability as provided in the other legislation for Orders in Council to be made. But I would suggest that in the real world, that would be a strange outcome, because certainly the intent of the other legislation would be that it would prevail over all other legislation by allowing Ministers pretty broad powers to amend almost every piece of legislation—obvious exceptions, and as noted quite rightly: Electoral Act, New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and so forth.

So if the Minister can comment on the relationship of those two, specifically in relation to emergency management scenarios, that would be very helpful indeed.

I would respectfully disagree with the member’s interpretation of that section, because clause 859 only applies to the Acts in Schedule 14A or any of those passed in substitution of those Acts. So it applies to those Acts that are listed in Schedule 14A, my favourite of which is probably the Dunedin Waterworks Extension Act 1875.

Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I should actually rise to acknowledge, for the record, that the Minister is correct. In my defence, I hadn’t read the schedule, which is not really a defence so much as a guilty plea, I suppose, if anything. But in my defence it is pretty long, but of course the Minister is right.

I would note, however, that in relation to the way that those emergency provisions have been set out in this bill—and I flipped back a couple of pages to clause 854, “Emergency response regulations”—I hope it is the case that they have learnt the lessons from Cyclone Gabrielle and other recent weather events. I’m conscious that the gestation of this bill has been long. Certainly, you know, it starts pre-dating—including the expert panel that pre-dated the drafting or the passage of the legislation itself. And so no doubt it was compiled, including in this section, long before we knew of Gabrielle in the context of that wretched cyclone that’s wrought so much havoc.

So if the Minister can please assure us that the lessons learnt from that and the ability to respond have been captured in the emergency response regulations in addition, of course, to previous events such as Canterbury earthquakes, Kaikōura earthquakes and so on, that would be very helpful indeed.

Although clause 854 does contemplate some emergency response regulations being able to be made, they would not be nearly as broad in scope as those enabled by the response to Cyclone Gabrielle, which are “Henry VIII” writ large.

I would just draw the attention of the committee also to a late Supplementary Order Paper to Schedule 15 of this part, and I’m advised that this is necessary. There are already amendments in the Supplementary Order Papers before us to slightly change the way in which the farm planning regime works, which is transitioned into this Act in an improved form. And this amendment makes it clear that that same amendment is made to the same provisions under the Resource Management Act.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to focus on clause 816, relating to obligations relating to gathering and sharing of information. One of the, I guess, big complaints that happens around the existing Resource Management Act is that often there will be people who are engaged in the resource management process at various levels and in various ways, and they are repeatedly asked for the same information again and again and again by various players within the system process.

Clause 816 provides a number of duties to gather information and to keep records. It says that “(1) Every local authority must (a) gather … information, and undertake or commission research, as necessary to enable the local authority to carry out its functions effectively under this Act;”. So what I’m hoping the Minister is going to be able to confirm for us is that under clause 817, for instance, which requires regional councils to share records of protected customary rights, for instance, with regional planning committees, the sharing of information will extend beyond just information relating to customary rights and that the sharing of information might extend across all parts of the workings, or the mechanics, of this new proposed natural and built environment legislation.

As I’ve indicated previously, the ability to take advantage of digital communications, digital data storage, and so forth, I would have thought makes it much easier now to share data. I was delighted to hear that the Minister, after what sounds like long and complicated discussions, has decided to remove facsimiles from the methodology for serving documents. But a serious question: can the Minister give us some assurance that the information that is gathered in the requirements to keep records—that that information can be shared where appropriate, while, obviously, taking into account the necessity to ensure that privacy matters and appropriate protections are put in place?

So that’s one part, and, if I might, I want to move now to a particular matter in relation to clause 818, which is where local authorities are required to have participation policies for Māori. There are some quite extensive requirements for local authorities to have a participation policy that is developed in collaboration with iwi authorities and groups that represent hapū and Māori groups with an interest in their region or district. There’s nothing wrong with that—it’s quite good. But my question specifically relates to who decides which of the appropriate iwi groups, hapū within a district or region, to engage with, and are they the mandated iwi?

Again, I’m familiar, for instance, with my part of the world, in the Coromandel, where we have multiple iwi interests. When it comes to Treaty settlement arrangements, there are some iwi that are mandated for Treaty settlement negotiations, and then there are some sub-iwi, or iwi in their own right, who have not been mandated, but they feel very much closed out of the process and they’re not included.

So the question is: how do we decide under clause 818, which is the Māori participation policy clause, and the duty in clause 819 to keep records relating to iwi, hapū, and Māori groups that represent hapū and Māori groups with interests in the region or district that may not necessarily be mandated under Treaty negotiation legislation? How is this legislation going to ensure that those groups are covered and whether they have legitimacy or not? Is this an area where a local authority is going to have to make some quite difficult judgment calls about who is in and who is out? So if the Minister could give us some overview of that, I’d appreciate it.

Thank you. In terms of repeated requests for information, I know what that feels like. Hey, look, this here is one of the most practical things in this bill, which for 20 years has bedevilled the current system. I get repeated complaints from councils, from applicants complaining that they don’t know who they should be dealing with in respect of issues that affect Māori interests.

At the moment there is a list maintained by the Crown through Te Puni Kōkiri (TPK) of iwi, hapū, and other Māori interests in an area. But it’s not a code, so people can use that list maintained by the Crown and then someone can second-guess it and say, “I should have been on that list. You haven’t done it properly.”, and then injunct the process. This does happen. It sometimes happens very late in the process, and sometimes the delays that are occasioned by this cause cost increases through the delay, that total hundreds of millions of dollars. This is a big issue.

Now, speaking to my Māori colleagues within the Labour Party, they recognise this and they agree that no one wants that inefficiency—no one. So we are doing what, with respect, the prior Government over nine years didn’t, which is we’re making the TPK list a code. So if an applicant or a council wants to know who they should deal with in a certain area, what iwi, hapū, other Māori interests—this is covered at clause 819(2)—They can actually go to the list that the Crown has to maintain and they can rely upon it.

Now, that list might change for the future—next time someone accesses it—but at the time it is accessed and relied upon, it is a code and can’t be second-guessed. So this is a very, very important; very simple; very practical improvement to the system.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just going to clause 821: “Administrative charges and additional charges (1) A local authority must fix fees or charges (administrative charges) payable in respect of the following functions performed under this Act: (a) receiving, processing, and granting any certificate, authority, approval, permit, or consent: (b) carrying out any inspection, monitoring”, and we go on right through. Now, the question I’ve got around here is is this bill going to make it cheaper for people to be actually able to get their consents and able to get their certificates? Because to build these days, the cost is just going up and up. So is this bill, the Natural and Built Environment Bill, actually going to speed up this process and have our fees come down? So when we are applying for this process so that we can get our certificates and permits and consents, will this add more red tape and councils will have to add more to their fees to be able to cover additional staffing to go through the new Natural and Built Environment Bill as well as, I believe, the Spatial Planning Bill, which is connected with it? Because to me it seems that it’s going to actually add more compliance and more cost for the average person that needs to get consents to be able to afford around this bill.

That’s largely a carry-over of the existing provisions, because the existing system is a user-pays system. Although, it does slightly change in respect of the monitoring of permitted activities. But the new system has been modelled and those assessments have been independently verified, and many hundreds of millions of dollars will be saved by applicants in the system every year. And that’s actually just process cost savings to applicants. They are in part because there will be a lot more permitted activities under the new system. Activities envisaged through a spatial plan coming through a Natural and Built Environment Act plan might be quite significant, like a new area opened up for subdivision and associated roads and hospitals and police stations, all of which could be permitted activities, whereas currently it would be very unlikely that they would be.

In addition to that, the ways in which plans are changed are much more efficient. The time to change a plan will change from often 10 years down to a four-year maximum, and there’ll be savings there too. So every dollar spent in the new system is estimated to be saving users $2.58 to $4.90 at the mid-range estimate, but they total hundreds of millions of dollars each year.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I looked at clause 824, which is headed “Local authority policy on discounting administrative charges”, and I wondered whether it was linked to the Sentencing Act for offering discounts. But I see, actually, on further reading that it’s not, but it is a provision that provides for local authorities, or a regional planning committee that is yet to be established—“must adopt a policy for discounting administrative charges. (2) A local authority must adopt a policy in accordance with the special consultative process procedure set out in section 83 of the Local Government Act … that provides for discounts (a) when local authorities are responsible for applications for a resource consent and do not process an application within the time frame required under this Act:”. And so this need to comply with time frames that have been set in the legislation has been an ongoing issue through pretty much the entire life of the Resource Management Act. And I suspect that this clause 824 has been more or less transferred from the existing legislation, but they’ve added, obviously, the regional planning committee piece to it.

But my question to the Minister for the Environment is: how can we be sure that when a local authority, under this clause, is required to establish a discounting methodology for what is effectively their non-performance, that that discounting mechanism and pricing model is going to provide meaningful incentives for them to comply themselves? How can we be sure that those incentives or—if you want to reverse it—those penalties for non-compliance of the regulated and legislated time frames are meaningful and are actually going to provide enough incentive for the local authority or the regional planning committee to actually take notice of it?

Clause 824 goes on to say in subclause (3) that “The policy must specify (a) the discount, or the method for determining the discount, that would be given for any application fees or charges paid or owing; and (b) the procedure an applicant must follow to obtain the discount.” It just strikes me that it’s a bit of the fox in charge of the hen house—the local authority sets the discounting rate and sets the discounting level. You know, I’m wondering whether there could have been, perhaps, some template formula applied that would remove it from being the local authority’s purview to set what is, as I read it, essentially, their own incentive or discounting policy rather than having one that might be more meaningful and more encouraging of them meeting their time frame requirements than just setting it themselves.

This was a provision inserted by the last National-ACT Government in an effort to create some accountability for time frames. I think it probably has been a useful addition. Yes, it is left to local authorities, but, in my experience, local authority councillors and mayors want efficient processes too. They’re, effectively, in charge of that process for setting the discount, and they have to use the special consultative process set out in section 83 of the Local Government Act.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m now just going to “System performance and monitoring”, clause 837, around “Reporting”. I was reading here that once we get the Spatial Planning Act 2022 involved with this as well, there’s going to be reporting every six years. So I’m assuming—because this is not my bill, but to clarify for me, who, like many other people, may be wanting to build something in the future—that every six years that the chief executive is going to submit and respond to Ministers with a report, and I’m assuming it’s the efficiency and operation of how these bills are working together to get things moving a lot quicker around building and so forth. I could be completely wrong, but I’d just like it all clarified, because the thing is, six years is also a very long time, so I was wondering if there are interim reports that are going to be showing up, if there’s anything in particular that’s going to be a problem, or if there’s something that is good that we could move a bit faster, especially when we want to build more houses and we need to know if there are going to be problems—especially with this new bill, which is a complete replacement to the Resource Management Act, even though some pieces have been placed in there. There’s going to be a time of confusion for a lot of people, but I would hope that there would be some form of early monitoring to pick up any problems or any good things that are occurring already in these bills.

Yes, there will be. That will, in part, be through the lessons learned of the first-tranche regions into the new system. The funding of that transition is assisted by central government to make sure that we have good quality first-round plans and that we run efficient processes, and the lessons learned will be carried forward into subsequent processes. It’s one of the lessons from implementation of the Resource Management Act, where that wasn’t done, and they had two systems running side by side very inefficiently.

A new part of the legislation that hasn’t been brought over from the existing resource management legislative framework is clause 839C, “Regional monitoring and reporting strategies”. This is a clause that requires one of the newly established—well, probably won’t ever be; given an opportunity, they won’t be established! But, anyway, hypothetically, “A regional planning committee must prepare a regional monitoring and reporting strategy to describe how the local authorities in its region are to carry out their monitoring functions under this Part.” Then subclause (2) of that clause goes on to include the essential components of what that regional monitoring and reporting strategy needs to include.

My question to the Minister is: how can we be sure that these requirements to provide regional monitoring and reporting strategies are going to be similar in the different regional planning committee territories? I think one of the stated goals and objectives of this legislation is to try and get things more standardised, not necessarily an identical template every year but to have a smoother, faster process. And it just strikes me that, if regional planning committees are required to prepare their own regional monitoring and reporting strategies and then insist on the local authorities that operate within the area of a regional planning committee, the potential for having regional differences and disparities is actually quite high. For instance, it could be that the regional planning committee in the central North Island is going to have a different set of monitoring and reporting strategy requirements of their local authorities to one perhaps in the deep south of Southland and that area.

So I’m interested, from the Minister, if he could let us know: does he envisage that regional planning committees will have largely similar or near identical requirements of this sort, so that individual local authorities within a region might be similarly the same? Because I can envisage a situation where, potentially, local authorities in some regions might face and be tasked with far more onerous regional monitoring and reporting requirements than in other parts of the country. If that was to be the case, I’m not sure that that would actually go very far to achieving the overall objectives that the bill seeks to achieve.

There are a number of ways that could be done. It could be through informal guidance from the Ministry for the Environment. It would also be possible, too, under the provisions of the Act, to set out a way in which that reporting had to be done in a way that is consistent. That’s not to say the priorities might not be different from one part to the other. For example, the Southland region doesn’t have the same housing pressures that Auckland does. Housing supply is a bigger issue to address in Auckland than it is in Southland and, accordingly, you’d expect there’d to be more focus in the monitoring function there to make sure that they’d made enough land available to build houses in Auckland. It would be a bigger issue than that same issue in Southland.

Thank you, Madam Chair. My question relates to the clause alluringly entitled, in alluring fashion—should’ve done it that way round in the first place, shouldn’t I?—the word just simply “Repeal”, 860: when the Minister in the chair, David Parker, reads the words “The Resource Management Act 1991 … is repealed.”, how does he feel inside?

Well, I would say that this Government has done what prior Governments promised they’d do but never did.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Quick supplementary question: how does the Minister now feel to know that he is proposing to replace the worst statute on the statute book with one that is even worse?

Well, if I thought that that were true, I wouldn’t be bringing this legislation to the House. It’s undoubtedly not true, as proven by the fact that plans go down from over 100 to 18, plan formation times drop from about 10 years to four, permitted activities increase, land markets are improved, and cost savings to users are estimated to be many hundreds of millions of dollars each year, in addition to the economic savings of avoided delay.

💬 Glen Bennett: Madam Chair—Madam Chair.

💬 Toni Severin: Madam Chair.

Yeah, thank you.

💬 Toni Severin: Thank you, Madam Chair. I—

No, no. No. Sorry, I haven’t quite called you. I was just thanking the member in front of you for their assistance. I’m listening very carefully to contributions. While I still hear new questions and new material, and members are showing great enthusiasm to take a call, then that is fine. But I’m also aware that this bill has been under consideration by the committee for quite some time—as huge as it is. So with those few words, I call Toni Severin.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I was just reading through, again, around the planned reviews and it’s clause 839D, “Duty of local authorities to report.” It’s saying every threeyear cycle. Now, as you know, we have a lot of changes going on and needing a lot of land. Then I go further down through to clause 839G: nine-yearly plans, as well. Do you think that this time frame is short enough, or too long, for us to be able to plan in advance for the needs?

As we’re saying, the difference between Auckland and Invercargill—where I originate from—and Christchurch. We’ve all got so many different things going on in these different regions and different requirements, and whether or not three years and nine years for the future looking is significant enough—especially when we have got a shortage of land getting built on as well as being able to build these properties. Also to see if things have been pulled out of that circulation as well because we’ve found something’s wrong due to an adverse event and so forth, and they have to look at replanning. Is that enough time, or is it too short of a time for them to actually be able to be more fluent, to be able to keep up with demand?

Look, I think the sort of wholesale review of the plans every decade or so is about right. But I also think that every three years, the duly elected councils should be able to tell the regional planning committee what they think their priorities are for things that need more attention.

Without wanting to cast any aspersion upon your ruling, we have been at this a long time and the enthusiasm for taking a call is maybe not as exciting as it was when we started this debate on Tuesday. However, notwithstanding that, thank you for the opportunity to speak. We are debating Part 12, which has—as my colleague Chris Penk made mention of when he was talking to the clause he was talking about—the alluring title of “General provisions”. And one of the more alluring general provisions under Part 12 is clause 840 and its alluringly titled “Minister may make grants and loans. And I am delighted to see that under clause 840(1) that “The Minister for the Environment may make grants or loans to any person to assist in achieving the purpose of this Act.” I’d like to know, on Chris Penk’s behalf, how he can apply for a loan or a grant, because I think he would be a worthy candidate, as would be, probably, Stuart Smith, Ian McKelvie, and Harete Hipango. So there are a number of people who might be able to take advantage of the general provision that entitles the Minister for the Environment to make grants or loans to any person to assist in achieving the purpose of that.

That’s actually a very wide provision. I’m not wishing to be too facetious, but how does the Minister see this particular clause operating? It goes on in subclause (2) to say that “The Minister may impose terms and conditions on a grant or loan as the Minister thinks fit.” And in subclause (3), “Money spent or advanced by the Minister under this section must be paid out of money appropriated by Parliament for the purpose.” So that’s a good thing. Presumably in future Budgets, the Minister will envisage that there will be a line in future Budgets that he will have negotiated with a Minister of Finance, and the line will say a provision for the Minister to make grants and loans. I kind of understand, I think, what the reason for it is, but I’d be really happy for the Minister to maybe give us some background, some insight as to why that is there and what it’s all about and whether, in fact, that is an existing provision or a new provision. I’m not familiar enough with this particular clause to know whether it’s new or whether it’s existing from the existing Resource Management Act.

One of the criticisms of this legislation is that it gives the Minister a very wide range of powers. And we think on this side of the House that maybe some of those powers and responsibilities given to the particular Minister for the Environment on any given day or week or parliamentary term are probably too wide. But I’m interested particularly in this one, about giving the Minister the ability to grant loans and funding.

It’s a carry-over of the same provision under the Resource Management Act. An example of where it might be used in the new system is to assist the first-tranche regions in their transition into the new regime.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So under clause 840(3), it says “money spent”—I appreciate that the Minister just said it’s a carry-over, but that doesn’t mean it’s a good thing—but it says, “Money spent or advanced by the Minister under this section must be paid out of money appropriated by Parliament for the purpose.” Is it for that purpose specifically, or is that out of the general appropriation? Because that sounds like it’s quite specific in that clause, and I doubt very much that it would be down to that level.

In respect of resource management reform, there is an appropriation to fund that.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, I’m really interested in the amendment on Supplementary Order Paper 389 at clause 857A when it talks about “Regulations relating to dumping and incineration in coastal marine area”. I know many of my colleagues have spoken about the wide-ranging powers that the Minister will have under this bill. However, I’m really interested in understanding a little bit more about why this particular regulation-making power is restricted, because it talks about how “The Governor-General may, by Order in Council, make regulations” to do with “deeming to be included in any plan, rules that may apply generally or specifically” to do all of these things listed relating to waste and coastal permits. But then it goes on to say that “The Minister must not recommend the making of any regulations under” all of these sections unless they’ve consulted with the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Conservation, and it’s necessary to do a regulation because of obligations under international conventions, protocols, or to enable New Zealand to become party to an international convention or protocol or implementing an international practice or standard. And I’m quite curious as to why it’s so specific that it’s to do with international protocols and standards but not because the Minister themselves believes there is a need for a larger regulation.

I’m advised that that’s in order to meet New Zealand’s international obligations under MARPOL, which is the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships.

So the dumping and incineration in coastal marine areas—does that include wood fires on the beach? Because that’s a coastal marine area, and I’m not sure whether the Minister’s aware but the American Environmental Protection Agency has just published a note stating that the wood smoke is 40 times more harmful than tobacco smoke in the same quantities. So it is actually a harmful, harmful substance. I know that incineration of wood on the beach is quite common. People do get around the bonfire—they’re breathing in the smoke, not aware that they are inhaling smoke that is 40 times more harmful than tobacco smoke.

I move, That the question be now put.

Motion agreed to.

The question is that Simon Court’s amendment to Part 12 on Supplementary Order Paper 389, set out on Supplementary Order Paper 392, be agreed to.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 12 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 389 be agreed to.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Schedule 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 389 be agreed to.

The question is that Schedule 1 as amended be agreed to.

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

The question is that Schedule 2 as amended be agreed to.

The question is that the Minister’s tabled amendment to Schedule 3 on Supplementary Order Paper 389 be agreed to.

The question is that Simon Court’s amendments to Schedule 3 on Supplementary Order Paper 389, set out on Supplementary Order Paper 392, be agreed to.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Schedule 3 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 389 as amended be agreed to.

The question is that Schedule 3 as amended be agreed to.

Schedule 4 has been struck out of the bill following an amendment recommended by the select committee.

The question is that the Minister’s tabled amendments to Schedule 5 on Supplementary Order Paper 389 be agreed to.

The question is that Simon Court’s amendments to Schedule 5 on Supplementary Order Paper 389, set out on Supplementary Order Paper 392, be agreed to.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Schedule 5 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 389 as amended be agreed to.

The question is that the Minister’s tabled amendment to Schedule 6 on Supplementary Order Paper 389 be agreed to.

The question is that Simon Court’s amendments to Schedule 6 on Supplementary Order Paper 389, set out on Supplementary Order Paper 392, be agreed to.

The Hon Eugenie Sage’s amendment to clause 30B(3) of Schedule 6 on Supplementary Order Paper 389, set out on Supplementary Order Paper 393, is out of order as being the same in substance as a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that the Hon Eugenie Sage’s remaining amendment to Schedule 6 on Supplementary Order Paper 389, set out on Supplementary Order Paper 393, be agreed to.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Schedule 6 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 389 as amended be agreed to.

The question is that the Minister’s tabled amendment to Schedule 7 on Supplementary Order Paper 389 be agreed to.

The question is that Simon Court’s amendments to Schedule 7 on Supplementary Order Paper 389, set out on Supplementary Order Paper 392, be agreed to.

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

The question is that Simon Court’s amendments to Schedule 8 on Supplementary Order Paper 389, set out on Supplementary Order Paper 392, be agreed to.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Schedule 8 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 389 be agreed to.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Schedule 10 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 389 be agreed to.

The question is that Simon Court’s amendments to Schedule 10A on Supplementary Order Paper 389, set out on Supplementary Order Paper 392, be agreed to.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Schedule 10A set out on Supplementary Order Paper 389 be agreed to.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Schedule 12 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 389 be agreed to.

The question is that Simon Court’s amendment to Schedule 13 on Supplementary Order Paper 389, set out on Supplementary Order Paper 392, be agreed to.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Schedule 13 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 389 be agreed to.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Schedule 14 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 389 be agreed to.