Natural Environment Bill

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to ask the member in the chair, Simon Court, questions about clauses 95 and 96. These provisions are where councils have to start thinking about their inclusions of national rules in their plans, and what they can and can’t include. Even sort of things that you might expect to be local choices are only available to councils where the national rules allow them to be local choices.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Did you say combined plans?

Yeah, I’m at 95—

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): 95, all right.

—on page 105, and 96 on page 106. The first question I have is the meaning of “preclude” in the way that these work together. The word “preclude” seems to suggest a very, very high standard—that the national rules have to actively say that local councils are precluded from including them. But it’s possible, given that we don’t have the words in front of us, that you might be able to read in when it’s heavily implied that those things are precluded, that they would also be precluded.

I just want to get some clarity from the member. Is this meant to be?

Is that allowance there for regional councils—where they’re not allowed to include a rule, is a meant to be a very high standard, or is it meant to also include things which, given the context of the national rule, are also effectively banned?

I also want to ask him about clause 95(3), where a regional council must not amend a standardised provision. This is particular question about where changing conditions mean that we’ve got a new context like changing weather. The question here is around, say, in Auckland, where a plan change—well, it was very difficult to make the change, actually, that was required, where hundreds of homes were affected by flooding and the council was required to carry through an upzoning provision. In doing so, though, that would have meant they were effectively upzoning land that needed to be downzoned because of the flooding.

So my question to him is about: what happens when things change and a council needs to make a change to what would have been a standardised provision but say, weather has changed? There is a provision for natural hazards to be recognised. But in the situation where, in Auckland, say, it wasn’t necessarily that there had been one flood or that there had been hazardous flooding, it was that there was a pattern of events which suggested that new information was available and now those houses were in places where they should not have been, but an upzone was occurring at the same time, where a council would have been held to a standard where there would have been more building in those areas.

On clause 96 itself, this is a pretty significant change in the philosophy at the regional rule level. Regional rule-making in this bill compared to the Resource Management Act is one where everything was permitted for the regional plan to be made unless there was an express provision that it couldn’t be included; now, it’s the other way around.

So I want to ask, Amendment Paper 710 actually seems to pretty significantly—it softens what was initially introduced in the bill, and there have been some changes at the Environment Committee stage around exactly that, that this was very restrictive in a way that would have meant regional councils had to change their internal processes quite a lot. I just want to ask the member to explain, now, how that change from one philosophy to another will work.

Finally—no, I’ll leave it there.

Committee of the whole House

This provision is very clear. It requires councils to included standardised plan provisions—clause 95—in the initial environment plans as directed by national instruments. Clause 96 allows councils to include bespoke plan provisions in their national natural environment plans only if this is authorised or not precluded by a national instrument This is akin to the way national environmental standards under the Resource Management Act apply to plan making.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll just respond to Arena Williams’ question around clause 97(4)(c)(i). If I understood the question correctly—

💬 Arena Williams: Why isn’t it on land?

Can the member just please clarify? I wouldn’t consider it heckling.

💬 Arena Williams: Why isn’t it on land as well?

Why isn’t the provision on 97(4)(c)(i) on land as well? There is an equivalent clause, I’ve been advised, in the Planning Bill which applies to land.

Madam Chair, if I may just answer Lan Pham’s question. In clause 97(3)(b), there is an example given about what a significant change in circumstances might be. That example is given as “a major environmental or economic event”. That stands. It’s clear. The clause provides for councils to respond in their plan to those matters, which is also a matter that Arena Williams raised in relation to Auckland floods. It’s important that councils have the ability to respond to a change in circumstances.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. I take that last answer as that regional councils would have the ability to change the standardised rules if—yeah? OK, that’s great.

Clause 101 on page 109 is where I am. I’ve just listened to the member in the chair, Simon Court, answer that there is an equivalent provision in the Planning Bill to do with those land covenants that are in other Acts, but that doesn’t seem to apply to mahinga kai that is on land that is not in coastal areas. So when I ask about 101, it’s with that in mind.

The plan can’t allow an activity which will have an adverse effect on the coastal marine area where it’s protected for the gathering of shellfish or other kai—that’s great—where it’s a protected area under the takutai moana Act. I’m not arguing for a land-based similar clause. I’m arguing for the one piece of legislation which is exactly like Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Porou, which is the Titi Islands legislation 1978. That piece of legislation has its genesis from the deed of cession of Stewart Island in 1868. The reason that legislation is important is that a plan that allowed an activity which affected the titi on those islands would amount to the same sort of breach which is being prevented by this clause here. Clause 101 prevents an activity which would have an effect on the gathering of kai in the coastal area—same as those Titi Islands.

Some of these coastal areas that are protected under Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Porou’s Act are exactly the same kind of rocky outcrop formations that the islands adjacent to Stewart Island and Ruapuke are. They’re exactly the same sorts of islands with the same sorts of kai, but we’re talking about birds in the Titi Islands sense. So why is it OK that a plan in the south of the South Island can allow a permitted activity which will impact on the ability of gathering of a traditional food source, but for the hapū o Ngāti Porou, it will not? But there are only two pieces of legislation like that—it’s not like there are tonnes. Just include this one.

Committee of the whole House

“Take into account” is a well-understood legal term. The member Hūhana Lyndon will find it throughout this legislation. It was commonly used in the Resource Management Act. I do acknowledge the member seeing that we have tried to be as particular as possible in the way that this is set out so that we provide for rights and interests.

Committee of the whole House

I feel that the member has some insights into my Spotify playlist. However, the Government will not be accepting the member’s amendment to remove regulatory relief from the system. I made the case very clearly last night when clarifying the intention of regulatory relief. It is possible, and it is intended, that if councils seek to impose controls on private property in relation to indigenous biodiversity under the Natural Environment Bill—soon to be Act, touch wood—they will be able to, but they will not be able to do it without confronting the costs of any proposed application of the planning rule in relation to indigenous biodiversity that impacts the property owner, above the threshold provided for in legislation.

Committee of the whole House

I move, That the debate on this question now close.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I’m just going to check if there are questions about aquaculture or joint plans.

💬 Hon Rachel Brooking: Yes, I’ve got questions on clauses 128, “Wildlife approvals”, and also—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): OK, there’s a little bit left to go.

💬 Hon Rachel Brooking: —schedules; there’s a number of schedules as well. I don’t have many questions on them.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The Hon Rachel Brooking.

Committee of the whole House

Point of order, Madam Chair. Can I please clarify the advice that was given to us, from the chair last night, that we would have a fulsome assessment of the regulatory relief provisions for biodiversity. It is on the Hansard. I tried to clarify with the chair last night whether we needed anything formal. His response was, “It is on the Hansard, it will be followed through with.”

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Yes, we’ve had a line of questioning and I’ve listened to the answers. There’s nothing new coming out of the answers. But I’ve also got another call that I’m taking. I haven’t taken a closure motion. So just let us get on with it.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. How about we just do some jumping around because we do have—I don’t think anyone’s touched on any of the schedules that apply to this part. Those Schedules are 2, 2A, 3, 4, and 5. I will pre-empt my comment by saying I don’t have very many comments on those schedules, but other members may.

At clause 128, the section about wildlife approvals, I have a tabled amendment to that, which is to—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Just to the member, I think that is Part 4.

Oh, have I moved on to Part 4 already?

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): But I’m happy to move on.

Oh, there we go. Sorry, I have moved on. So I think I’ll sit down. You won’t need to hear from me again, but, my colleagues, you do.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): So in response to my question before—

Sorry, no, I didn’t have anything. I’ve moved on to Part 4.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I’m going to take one more call.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. A few questions. Given that the existing Resource Management Act (RMA) controls that are in place with plans right now have been known to purchasers since their introduction and therefore internalised in terms of their land values, what is the justification for allowing the retrospective application for the relief regime? Now, the Government can swear black and blue that the retrospective nature does not exist, when they know full well that every single protection that currently exists—particularly for biodiversity, but across sites of significance for Māori—everything will be new under the new system and will be subject to regulatory relief. Now, we’ve already had pointed out very clearly to us, and I would like to understand if the member Simon Court has understood, the example of Auckland Council, where, before they even put in these rules, they have to do a property level assessment of over 20,000 properties that could be subject to regulatory relief. I’m really interested in that question.

My next question is: will assistance and compensation that has already been provided to landowners for RMA restrictions—and this has happened in a number of areas, but I want to give particularly the example of assistance provided to farmers in Taranaki around their riparian strips, which we all support. If that protection is then removed later on, why do the bills not require them to pay the council back?

I would also like to hear the Minister provide any possible assurances that the most important areas of biodiversity and landscape will be prioritised for protection, given the ecological and, actually, economic importance to these areas. That is different to the relative ability of the councils to actually pay for them, because I would really love to understand and hear from the member what the actual response is to the council saying not only is this unworkable; it will cause a chilling effect on biodiversity protections and sites of significance for Māori, and they will not be able to pay for it. This should be entirely relevant and something that we are able to explore, given how novel, as the member has said consistently, this regime is, and he’s also completely discredited the only part of information in that MartinJenkins report that he has. So if you don’t have that, what evidence is the member actually basing this whole novel concept on, other than ideology?