Natural Environment Bill

Committee of the whole House

Point of order. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to seek your clarification regarding the previous part, because I think, as my colleague the Hon Rachel Brooking has suggested, there was a little bit of misunderstanding around the fact that Schedule 2 and 2A, as you just said, actually come before Schedules 3 to 5, which are in a previous section. Now, while the Hon Rachel Brooking has spoken on Schedule 5, I just want to seek clarification—there were additional questions on Schedules 3 and 4, but while we were trying to seek a call, we noticed that our microphones weren’t working and they might not be audible. I just want to check—

💬 Hon Member: You don’t need a mic.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Points of order are heard in silence, please.

I do want to check with you, Madam Chair, what is, I guess, the recourse and what are the options for us when, for example, there are still two quite substantial schedules in the previous part that we weren’t able to debate on. Again, in light of the fact that unfortunately we thought that—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): We’re now up to Part 4. No one’s mic is on unless they’re speaking, so that’s not a disadvantage. You can stand on your seat—no, you can’t, but you could wave your hands, do cartwheels in the aisle, but we won’t be going backwards.

No—no. Absolutely. I completely understand. We won’t be doing cartwheels, just for your clarification. I could do one, but I won’t. But I just want to check if it’s OK with you that in those cases, we were standing up and we were trying to take calls or raise points of order, but if the mic isn’t on, I just want to check with you that it’s OK if we raise our voice a little bit just so that any Chair in the seat is able to hear.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): As long as it’s not louder than Tom Rutherford.

💬 Tom Rutherford: Bring it on.

Is that a challenge? But yes, thank you. That’s helpful.

Committee of the whole House

Madam Chair, I’m worried for my eardrums. Anyway, clause 128: as foreshadowed, we’d like to speak about clause 128. This is “Wildlife approvals”, and I’m sure other members will have things to say about this as well because it is a substantive change in that wildlife approvals will now be able to be granted through this replacement Resource Management Act process. We raised some concerns with this in our differing view and said that the bill should retain the Department of Conservation as decision maker for the Wildlife Act approvals and that it should specify appropriate time frames, if time frames were the issue, and still keep the department as the decision maker, but if there are time issues then those could be inserted into this legislation.

I have got a tabled amendment from 7.55 p.m., 26 August—I think it was last night; yes, it was last night. It’s just to delete the whole section. It’s not the most elegant amendment and I’d be happy to amend it to make it align with our differing view.

I do want to also note a concern that we had that there was a change in the Environment Committee about looking at applicants’ behaviour and whether or not they’d been convicted before, but there was a decision in the select committee not to require this information when the approval is transferred to a third party. So if I had a bad track record and was applying for a wildlife permit, that would be relevant, but if Arena Williams had a good track record, got the permit and then transferred it to me, then that would be fine—and that seems like, well, shouldn’t I just not be getting the permit if I’ve got this bad track record? I’d invite the member in the chair, Simon Court, to consider a change around that aspect, as well as making the Department of Conservation the decision maker.

Now, I’ll just quickly flick through to Schedule 2A, and this is the schedule that’s been inserted to deal with these wildlife approvals. I note a good change that appears to be made—I mean, it might have come from somewhere else, so the member in the chair can feel free to tell me if this is not a good change; if I’m misattributing goodness. But at clause 24 of Schedule 2A on page 275, there’s an insertion at (3A) noting “The Department may recover directly from a permit authority the Department’s reasonable costs incurred in providing advice under clause 4.” Why I say that it’s good is that I, of course, would like the Department of Conservation to be the decision maker within time frames in the first place, but if I can’t have that—and I would like it and I would like the member to speak to that—then it is good that the department can do cost recovery, because they are so under-funded and they need to do that.

I also note that some of the entities that can be consulted include a relevant iwi authority or post-settlement governance entity. I wonder if there also needs to be a provision for them to recover directly any reasonable costs incurred.

So I’ll round this contribution up: on Schedule 2A, this insertion at subclause (3A) that the department may recover costs—is that new or has it just been repurposed from somewhere else? Second, what about relevant iwi authorities in terms of cost recovery? And then, going back to clause 128, would the member consider reverting to the department being the decision maker but prescribing time limits for the department to make timely decisions?

Committee of the whole House

I’ll respond to a couple of questions to the member Arena Williams’ questions about airports. The question was around: do existing permits need—for wildlife, birds; it might be in an airport precinct. Those permits do not need to transfer. There’s an existing permit; it stays where it is. It doesn’t need to transfer into the new system or be reissued but if they wanted to apply for a wildlife permit under the provisions of the Natural Environment Bill for something else, some other activity, that would be a matter for them to decide under which legislation they applied.

In response to member Lan Pham’s question in relation to Schedule 2A, clause 4, “Permit authority may request advice from [the] Department”: if the member’s concerned about Department of Conservation (DOC) resourcing—I answered a question in relation to Rachel Brooking’s question on clause 24(3A) of Schedule 2A, which provides for the department to be able to recover the costs of giving advice so, in that respect, that should not be a barrier to seeking advice. But I’ve been advised that clause 4(2), “The Department is under no obligation to provide advice under this clause.”—because this legislation cannot compel the department to do something, but I think it’s entirely reasonable to anticipate that where advice is sought for a matter that crosses the threshold of where it’s important, DOC would be able to provide that advice and recover the costs of it.

Committee of the whole House

I’m not familiar with the particular circumstances or status of the groups that the member Hūhana Lyndon described, but under clause 16(1) of Schedule 2A, “A permit authority must notify any relevant iwi authority or post-settlement governance entity”. I expect there will be provision for authorities that aren’t post-settlement governance entities but, again, we’re trying to be as definitive as possible about what the obligations are on decision makers. It’s pretty clear in that clause.

Committee of the whole House

It does refer to post-settlement governance entities (PSGEs)—in other words, settled iwi—but it also makes explicit provision in clause 16(1) for “any relevant iwi authority”, so there’s obviously the opportunity there for organisations that are PSGEs.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a question for the Minister regarding a mention of Schedule 2A—and this is in clause 128. But I specifically want to ask a question on clause (3)(f) of Schedule 2A. Now, my understanding is that in this case you are applying for wildlife approval, and paragraph (f) talks about “and humanely catch, hold, or kill the animals and identify relevant animal ethics processes:” But we saw in the Wildlife (Authorisations) Amendment Act 2025 that the director-general may grant an authority under, now, new section 53A of the Wildlife Act, to authorise the killing of wildlife that is incidental, and in this case, “incidental” is defined as something that is unavoidable but foreseeable as carrying out a lawful activity.

So I guess my question to the Minister is: if a person is able to get the director-general to grant authority now under section 53A of the Wildlife Act, why bother applying for wildlife approval, particularly when around subclause (3)(f) in terms of the killing of wildlife—what is the difference between the two processes in that case?

So just for reference, the particular section that is now in the Wildlife Act is section 53A, and it was something that was added in the Wildlife (Authorisations) Amendment Act 2025.

Committee of the whole House

Very briefly, in relation to Lawrence Xu-Nan’s question about the Wildlife Act, I’m advised it is a different pathway to get the same kind of authorisation under the Natural Environment Act, only we are also getting a permit.

In relation to Ms Pham’s first question, the general policy position here is that the bills require further information requests being proportionate to scale and significance of the effects of the activity and generally only occur once, and I think I heard the member say that that all seemed like sensible stuff. It’s a constant source of frustration for people, the constant requests for information and the backwards and forwards—it’s a nightmare. We’re trying to limit that down. But there need to be exceptions, and they are laid out in the relevant clause, so the applicant can agree, for example. So it may be that the consent authority comes back and says that further information is required for it to be processed properly, and if the applicant agrees, two parties voluntarily choosing to consent together, it’s happy days.

In relation to the question around the significance threshold, that is a deliberate policy decision made because we think significance is the appropriate threshold.

Committee of the whole House

Just a bit more on the significant threshold—I said before, around public notification, it’s consistent with the enabling nature of the system. Our view is that it would encourage participation earlier on in the system, and, of course, it will include standards and plans as well.

In relation to the precautionary principles, there were concerns about how it would operate in practice given that some degree of uncertainty is inherent in many natural resource-use activities. Removing the principle does not remove environmental protection; decision makers will still need to use evidence, manage risks, and apply the protections in the legislation and national direction. For example, the bill provides for adaptive management where there is uncertainty about an activity’s effects, which the member can find in clause 167. It allows activities to proceed in stages, with baseline information, monitoring reporting, and clear environmental triggers. Where monitoring shows risks are greater than anticipated, activities can be modified, scaled back, paused, or, ultimately, discontinued.

This approach enables appropriate development while ensuring environmental risks are actively managed and irreversible effects are avoided. Precaution can still be applied, where appropriate, through national instruments, which can direct when and how precaution should be applied for particular resources, activities, or places. We felt that was a better approach than a simple statutory statement around endorsing the precautionary principle. The devil, as always with this stuff, is in the detail.

Committee of the whole House

Clause 129 is a carry-over from the Resource Management Act, and the key is to get these things into plans. It’s not really relevant in relation to the Treaty, because there are other provisions in both bills around Treaty obligations through settlements and also Māori interests through national instruments—and then the obligations contained in the goals, and then the national policy directions and the standards that flow from the goals in relation to Māori interests.

Committee of the whole House

I’ll just deal with the first question, and I’ll come back on the other two. In answer to the first question—“What would people choose?”—it’s over to applicants, but the Natural Environment Bill provides a one-stop shop, so why would you not just choose that?

Committee of the whole House

“Dastardly” is a bit strong; I’ll put that down to it being 11.28 at night. I mean, I think we had a discussion at question time about this—I can’t remember who it was; I had four questions to deal with today.

💬 Hon Member: Lan.

Lan, was it? Righto. The amendment the member the Hon Rachel Brooking’s proposing is inconsistent with Government policy, so we won’t be supporting it. It would mean, for example, that the Government would not be able to set standards that enable significant infrastructure or enable activities that have net public benefits that would otherwise breach environmental limits, and I refer the member to clause 79, which she was talking about.

In relation to Mr Xu-Nan’s questions, the third one is a drafting issue between “natural resources” and “natural environment”. In relation to his second question around controlled activities, the difference is that you have to grant controlled activities whereas, with restricted discretionary activities, there are limited reasons to decline, and then the plans provide further direction in relation to that.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you very much. It’s great we’ve got the Minister responsible for RMA Reform here. I wanted to ask about page 145, which is Part 4—clause 167A, related to Te Ture Whaimana o Te Awa o Waikato. I never got a chance earlier in the day, but it’s good that we’re here now and we’ve got this provision in Part 4 to explore this. The tribes of the Waikato and Waipā rivers have reached out to this side of the House. We’ve enjoyed their company today—great advocates, I have to say. They rolled out and shared correspondence with us that they had met with the Minister on 14 August. There were proposals that were agreed to in terms of what happened in the Planning Bill previously for Te Ture Whaimana o Te Awa o Waikato. I wanted to speak to this one here in clause 167A as another really good example of how the Crown has listened and has worked with iwi groupings on wording that was agreeable between parties.

Now, what we experienced previously with the Planning Bill amendment—they had understood that these agreed amendments were to be appendices to what was to be voted on, but that kind of didn’t occur. Rather, it was within the bundle. I’m wanting to explore with the Minister a way whereby—I appreciate the advocacy of the iwi group that came together and met with us and this side of the House and their advocacy around our need to tautoko Te Ture Whaimana o Te Awa o Waikato and the agreed words that have been negotiated with the Minister. If the Minister would consider clauses particular to Te Ture Whaimana o Te Awa o Waikato being pulled out as maybe appendices to this or put it as a schedule of some sort so we can actually show some tautoko for the goodwill that the Minister has shown towards Ngāti Raukawa, Te Nehenehenui, Te Arawa, Waikato-Tainui, Tūwharetoa—the grouping that has been advocating for quite some time to uphold the Treaty settlement and the health and wellbeing of Waikato and Waipā.

Committee of the whole House

I guess I’m wanting to ask for an opportunity for us to look for a way whereby we can actually vote for something in favour. It’s nearly midnight, so—

💬 Hon Chris Bishop: You can vote for the bill! Join the journey of change.

💬 Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Madam Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Lawrence Xu-Nan, I thought you told me you had three questions before, and you asked them. I call Lan Pham.

Committee of the whole House

Madam Chair, thank you. I’m really keen to touch on some aspects of public participation—or lack of public participation, it might be. These relate to clause 146, which is about notification requirements if the previous section around mandatory public notification does not apply. I’ve got Amendment Paper 720 around that.

The reason why I’m proposing these amendments—and I’m interested in the Minister responsible for RMA Reform’s comments on this—is that, yes, this entire framework is moving to a much more permissive and enabling framework. I can absolutely understand that. Where I’m concerned about that is that, for the past few decades, where I have been involved in not only council processes but Resource Management Act processes, I’ve seen it demonstrated time and time again how valuable elements of public participation can be to making good decisions. So I’m really keen to offer the Minister an option in both of these clauses—firstly, where public notification could be permitted if there are more than minor adverse effects on the environment. That would be the first aspect of it.

The second aspect, which I’m proposing in clause 152, is that—this bill introduces what’s called, essentially, a qualifying resident test, where you can make a submission on a publicly notified application only if you are actually resident in that area. Now, what we know about the jurisdictions that we have across the country is that people’s interests, people’s connection to place, doesn’t abide by, for example, district council or city or regional boundaries. Often, you have people who are living on the edges of whatever boundary, and the concern is that this is going to be a real barrier to their genuine participation in the places that they love, the places that they’re connected to, the places they may work in and live in—this is potentially a barrier.

This Amendment Paper 720 would be bringing into line what we heard so clearly from submitters, including the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, about not unduly restricting participation when it comes to public notification. It’s already met those thresholds that public notification is necessary; why limit it unnecessarily to qualifying residents? I’m keen to hear the Minister’s response to that. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Committee of the whole House

It doesn’t cover overseas convictions.

💬 Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: It does?

No, it doesn’t.

💬 Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Oh, it does.

No—no. It covers what it says in the clause.

💬 Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: But what happens if there’s an overseas conviction?

Well, it’s not covered is the short answer. It’s not covered. I mean, I love your ability to—I’m thinking of rabbits and warrens and burrows, and I admire it. Even if I find it aggravating, a big part of me finds it admirable. But, as I’m sure the member’s discovering from his luminous committee stage debates, it cannot cover everything. It does not cover overseas convictions; maybe it should. Maybe there’s an amendment to come, but it doesn’t.

In relation to Lan Pham’s amendment and other discussions which I think we’ve had a couple of times now around thresholds of public notifications, the significant threshold for public notification, as I said earlier, reflects a deliberate policy choice. Changing it would not align with the Government’s objectives for notification. There are fewer opportunities to participate in permit processes and that’s designed to encourage participation earlier in the system in national instruments and plans.

In relation to her point around affected persons, I’m advised that people out of the district or the region can still be subject to targeted notification and they can still participate, but we’ve got a clear policy intent so that people in Waipukurau don’t submit on things that don’t have anything to do with where they live.

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 50

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 1; Kapa-Kingi.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 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 50

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 1; Kapa-Kingi.

Amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking’s tabled amendment deleting clause 128 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 50

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 1; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Lan Pham’s amendment replacing clause 146(6)(a) set out on Amendment Paper 720 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 50

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 1; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Lan Pham’s amendment replacing clause 152(1) set out on Amendment Paper 719 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

Lan Pham’s amendment to clause 156(1) set out on Amendment Paper 681 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

Lan Pham’s amendments to clauses 164 and 164A set out on Amendment Paper 683 are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The Hon Rachel Brooking’s amendments deleting clauses 164(1)(c)(i) and 164A set out on Amendment Paper 747 are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that Lan Pham’s amendment inserting clause 166 set out on Amendment Paper 671 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 50

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 1; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The Hon Rachel Brooking’s amendment inserting new subpart 7 of Part 4 set out on Amendment Paper 746 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

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

Ayes 67

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

Noes 50

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 1; Kapa-Kingi.

Part 4 as amended agreed to.

Committee of the whole House

Part 5 Key roles

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, we come now to Part 5, which is the debate on clauses 215 to 241, “Key roles”. The question is that Part 5 stand part.