Natural Environment Bill

Committee of the whole House

Just in response to the member Rachel Brooking’s questions around the deletions at the start of Part 6, from old clause 243 onwards, I’m advised that from clauses 243 to 252, those provisions have been deleted and moved to subsequent clauses from around about 237, so they are retained. It’s just making sure that we work through the process, getting the report back from the Environment Committee and identifying ways that we could make the bill more efficient if they have been moved.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to ask about the enforcement orders provisions. These are clauses 258 to 265. The first question is about the serial offenders provisions that are earlier in the bill. But we’ve got the old formulation of clause 258(6), which was sort of the old and only power to deal with serial offenders, which now seems a bit heavy-handed because you’ve got the other powers.

I want to ask whether that’s deliberate to keep that in there and whether it should go because, essentially, the question is why should an enforcement order relating to non-compliance in one sense then mean that the Environment Court can revoke a different permit? If you have a factory that’s discharging into the Manukau Harbour and has breached its discharge permit, why should the Environment Court also be able to take away its water take permit? Under the old system, that was kind of the only enforcement mechanism that that factory would have had if it was constantly breaching its discharge conditions, but that would, effectively, shut the factory down. Under the old system, the Environment Court didn’t have to have regard to all of the things that it now does around economic development, but it does now. That power seems to be something which needed to exist under the old system, but shouldn’t any more.

Clause 259, “Compliance with the enforcement order”: now, this is where you might update this for serial offenders, because the serial offenders provisions leave, say, abatement notices out of the scheme. If you’ve been a serial offender but you’ve had a number of abatement notices, those don’t count towards your kind of tally of being a bad guy who won’t get a new one. That doesn’t make sense any more if enforcement orders like this should also be in that zone. If you’ve had an enforcement order against you, you should need to comply with that. I just want to check with the member Simon Court whether enforcement orders go to your tally. Usually, we’re getting there from, say in the water discharge context, having done that several times, having the abatement notices, and then having the enforcement. It is at a higher level than just an abatement notice and we want to put it in there.

Committee of the whole House

I appreciate the member Arena Williams’ deep and broad understanding of regulation, but at this late stage we will not be accepting any further amendments to the legislation from the Opposition.

In answer to the member Rachel Brooking’s question about can the planning tribunal make—oh, sorry, it could have been actually, forgive me, the member Arena Williams’ question about—

💬 Hon Rachel Brooking: It was mine.

💬 SIMON COURT: Oh, it was Rachel Brooking; thank you. Can the planning tribunal make a declaration or enforcement? No, only the Environment Court, but the planning tribunal can make a declaration on consent conditions. In response to the member Arena Williams’ question about revocation and whether, say, a permit that’s been revoked for some egregious breaches—she described a factory discharging into the Manukau Harbour. I certainly do remember as a young environmental engineer, when it was cool to be environmental, visiting premises that might have been described as having egregious discharges and monitoring those. I’m familiar with how bad that was. The legislation provides for revocation only for the most egregious offending. The member’s question was, well, if revoking the discharge permit is sufficient to stop the breach or the harm, why should the court have discretion to revoke other permits? Well, the court does have discretion to respond to facts.

Committee of the whole House

Committee of the whole House

Committee of the whole House

Thank you. I have just two very little questions—one is just thinking about what the member Simon Court was saying about the levies, then, and what they can be used for, and that they are narrow and not a tax. I noticed that he emphasised that point. Where does he see the levy-setting fit with the comments he was making last night about environmental limits and the cost benefit and the costs and the community paying? We had an exchange last night, and I was more focused on ratepayers, because, of course, we all know that this Government loves putting more work on rates on councils, but if he can comment on where he sees levies fitting with it, that would be useful.

Then my second question, which is a very small question, but is, I think, quite delightful, is whether the member can confirm for me, in Subpart 3, “Regulations”—clause 307 is “Regulations”, and if you turn over to page 234, at paragraph (f) it says, “specifying the offences under this Act (including offences prescribed under paragraph (x)) …”. I thought, when I first looked at this, “Oh, my goodness, what has happened to PCO? Why are they just putting Xs everywhere? Is that something that they need to come back for?” But in fact—in fact—there is a paragraph (x). If he can just confirm that it is just a delight that we don’t normally often see Xs in legislation, but here we go—here we are.

Committee of the whole House

I thank the member the Hon Rachel Brooking for her diligence as a parliamentarian for having detected what may well be a drafting error. I’m sure I will get advice from officials on that.

Before I get to the member’s question around the use of levies in relation to limits, I just want to advise the committee—if the committee hasn’t been advised prior and in good faith, with regard to Minister Bishop’s commitment to tell the committee when an amendment is tabled—an amendment was tabled at what appears to be 9.05.00 a.m. on—well, the date says “28 August 2026”, but in the Doctor Who / Hogwarts environment of Parliament, it still says “25 August” on the wall.

There is a proposed amendment to Amendment Paper 710: “The Hon Chris Bishop in committee to move the following amendments: clause 2, ‘delete 243, 252, and’”—that was an incorrect cross-reference—“and, in clause 30, ‘replace “all coastal permits” with “coastal permits or land use permits”’”. That was an omission and corrects an error, because land use permits are referred to elsewhere in the bill.

Who picked it up!

💬 SIMON COURT: I can see the member Arena Williams taking credit for that. She is an incredibly diligent parliamentarian and is always focused on the details.

If I could just come back to the “x”, it turns out that that was not an error; it is a reference to a paragraph number.

That’s right—that is the delight. It is a delight.

💬 SIMON COURT: And the member is delighted. Potentially, she’ll be delighted to help us move through the rest of the committee stage.

I will attempt to be brief in my response. Levies versus limits: there’s two different types of levies in the bill, one to fund the cost of a specified list of activities involved in managing a resource, and the other one is to fund activities to resolve over-allocation issues and provide efficient resource-use within management units. I think that addresses the member’s question. If environmental limits—ecological limits—are exceeded and there needs to be funding to resolve over-allocation issues, levies can be used for that purpose.

Committee of the whole House

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. My question is in relation to the scope of awards that can be made if a case is moved from the Environment Court to the District Court, which is permitted under clause 253(5). Clause 252(1) sets out what an Environment Court can do and the awards that they can make, and that includes the cost of investigating the offence and any associated costs, and that being payable to the EPA.

Now, if the case was transferred then to the District Court, there’s a question about the scope and the scale of awards that can be made. On first view, one would assume that there’s a broader mandate in terms of the ability to make those awards, but the language isn’t specific in relation to the District Court that that power is available. I’m just confirming with the member in the chair that indeed, if a case was shifted between those two courts, that explicit power in clause 252(1) with the Environment Court would also exist with the district court under clause 253(5).

Then in relation to the scope and effect of a declaration, which is in clause 254, my first question was just about the potential to have an injunction if there’s a sense that something is likely to contravene the current rules and potentially have quite detrimental impacts. So, presumably, that injunction can’t still exist. If an omission is found, is there a direction power as well or is this purely a declarative power—would be my other part of that?

Committee of the whole House

In response to the member Vanushi Walters’ questions, I found it confusing to try to understand what clause and provisions the member is referring to. She referred to clause 251. This is struck out, and I would just have to confirm whether that’s been moved to another part of the legislation, so if you could bear with me for one moment. The provisions deleted from clause 251 are moved to clause 273G. All of these provisions the member referred to still exist. They have just been moved. In response to the member Arena Williams’ question on clause 273A, the answer is yes.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to move to clause 323A, and this is the—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Can you repeat that, please?

💬 LAN PHAM: Clause 323A. This is in Part 6 and it’s about contaminated land. This is a very important area around the contaminated land framework, and what struck me about it and what I’m interested to hear from the member is about its relation to the rest of the natural environment domain. What is really clear in this contaminated land area is that it spells out that the entirety of this provision is based on the principle that those who actually produce the pollution should bear the cost of managing it both to prevent damage to human health and the environment. There is a really clear obligation as we go through this part of the bill, and it touches on how also the polluters must be liable for cost recovery.

Why I’m really interested in this clause and its application to the rest of the domains within the bill is: why have we been so clear when it comes to contaminated land about the “polluter pays” principle but we are not applying that to the rest of the domains when it comes to particularly water but it could also be biodiversity destruction? Why is it that the Government has picked up specifically on contaminated land in this space?

I want to acknowledge that this has been a real area of incredible work that has gone on, particularly with councils picking up responsibility for polluters who have often either left the country or simply just left a mess for the public to clean up. I understand why we and the Government have a focus of clarity on the “polluter pays” principle here. Why does it not have the same application outside of the contaminated land framework?

Committee of the whole House

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. In Amendment Paper 710 “at the start, on page 6—I think I flipped over this explanatory note at the start—it says, about the changes to Part 6, that they “amend provisions relating to infringement offences to—align more closely with the approach under the RMA; and avoid disturbing the position under Down v R12] NZSC 21:”—that is the New Zealand Supreme Court.

So I’m interested in what changes have been made to infringement offences, because when you go to clauses 288 to 297, they look to be dealing with infringement offences. On the face of it, it doesn’t look like there have been too many changes to the infringement offences, so I’m wondering if the member can explain what the changes are that are referred to in the explanatory note.

When it says, “to—align more closely with the approach under the RMA;” what does that mean in a policy sense? Infringement offences normally rely on some secondary legislation and it can be the most useful tool, but often regulators don’t have access to infringement offences because the regulations don’t exist or something else happens. My recollection of discussion of this bill as it was progressing through was that we had stronger enforcement provisions, that the Minister in charge is very interested in good compliance monitoring and enforcement, that we want better data and we want better information to do that monitoring but also to actually do the enforcement when it’s needed.

And whilst infringement offences are a small part of an enforcement regime, they are often an important part of it, and they are quick. They are stealthy. They are stealthy in terms of offences. So can the member tell me what the changes are and if the consequence of the changes is to make it more difficult for a regulator to use an infringement offence or if it’s going in the other direction and it will be easier to use an infringement offence.

Committee of the whole House

The changes in clause 289 is that subclause (3) is deleted and replaced with clause 296(b) to preserve the position of the Supreme Court decision on Down v R.

Committee of the whole House

That doesn’t answer my question about what direction it’s going in. Can he tell us what that position is that is being preserved? We don’t have the court case in front of us.

Committee of the whole House

It will make it easier for enforcement operators, regulators, to provide infringements rather than having to rely on the tedious process under the Resource Management Act leading to abatement, which often meant that pollution and contamination went unresolved before a high threshold for action was taken.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to pick up on the member’s responses to my questions on the contaminated land framework. He’s made it very specific that they’re focused on discharges to land, and I think that absolutely makes sense. He also picked up on the fact that the clearance of biodiversity is not pollution. It is entirely possible to provide for that very thing, so if the concern is how does a “polluter pays” principle apply to biodiversity clearance, you can make up a rule around that, and a principle around that.

What I’m interested in hearing from the member when he talked about discharges to land is why does that not apply to other domains, because we know, for example, that the costs of discharges to land in areas that are outside the contaminated land framework are making communities face costs right now. We know that in Ashburton, for example, Tinwald is looking at millions of dollars to seek new drinking water sources; Selwyn District Council is looking at hundreds of millions of dollars for treating their drinking water; Christchurch City Council, from land discharges just north of their drinking water sources in the Waimakariri is looking at hundreds of millions, if not billions; so why is that same principle not applying to those costs when they are discharges to land, but they’re outside of the contaminated land framework?

Committee of the whole House

The member may recall that the member and I discussed this extensively last night in a previous part of the debate, so what I will say, again, is that this provision provides specifically for contaminated land—the “polluter pays” principle—and that the matters that the member referred to are covered by other parts of the Natural Environment Bill legislation, including national policy direction, national standards providing for discharges through the effects management regime, through rules and plans, and through consenting and conditioning of consents.

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 48

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 12; Te Pāti Māori 1; Kapa-Kingi.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Minister’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 710 amending clause 307 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 67

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

Noes 48

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 12; Te Pāti Māori 1; Kapa-Kingi.

Amendment to the amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 710 amending clause 307 is out of order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 6 set out on Amendment Paper 710 as amended be agreed to.

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

Ayes 67

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

Noes 48

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 12; Te Pāti Māori 1; Kapa-Kingi.

Amendments as amended agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 6 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 67

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

Noes 48

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 12; Te Pāti Māori1; Kapa-Kingi.

Part 6 as amended agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): We move to the Schedules.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 1 be agreed to.

Ayes 67

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

Noes 48

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 12; Te Pāti Māori 1; Kapa-Kingi.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Schedule 2 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 48

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 12; Te Pāti Māori 1; Kapa-Kingi.

Amendments agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 2 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 67

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

Noes 48

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 12; Te Pāti Māori 1; Kapa-Kingi.

Schedule 2 as amended agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Schedule 2A. The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Schedule 2A 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 48

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 12; Te Pāti Māori 1; Kapa-Kingi.

Amendments agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 2A as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 67

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

Noes 48

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 12; Te Pāti Māori 1; Kapa-Kingi.

Schedule 2A as amended agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Moving to Schedule 3, the question is that the Minister’s amendments to Schedule 3 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 48

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 12; Te Pāti Māori 1; Kapa-Kingi.

Amendments agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 3 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 67

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

Noes 48

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 12; Te Pāti Māori 1; Kapa-Kingi.

Schedule 3 as amended agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Moving on to Schedule 4, the question is that the Minister’s amendments to Schedule 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 48

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 12; Te Pāti Māori 1; Kapa-Kingi.

Amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Lan Pham’s amendments to Schedule 4 set out on Amendment Paper 725 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 48

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 12; Te Pāti Māori 1; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

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

Amendments not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 4 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 67

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

Noes 48

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 12; Te Pāti Māori 1; Kapa-Kingi.

Schedule 4 as amended agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): We’re on to Schedule 5. The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Schedule 5 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 48

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 12; Te Pāti Māori 1; Kapa-Kingi.

Amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking’s amendments to Schedule 5 inserting clause 9(4) and deleting clause 13, set out on Amendment Paper 705, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 48

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 12; Te Pāti Māori 1; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

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

Amendments not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 5 as amended be agreed to

Ayes 67

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

Noes 48

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 12; Te Pāti Māori 1; Kapa-Kingi.

Schedule 5 as amended agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 6 be agreed to.

Ayes 67

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

Noes 48

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 12; Te Pāti Māori 1; Kapa-Kingi.

Schedule 6 agreed to.

Committee of the whole House

Clauses 1 and 2

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, we come now to our final debate, which is clauses 1 and 2, “Title” and “Commencement”.

Committee of the whole House