Resource Management (Duration of Consents) Amendment Bill

Members, we now come to clause 4. Clause 4 is the debate on the amendment to section 123, the duration of consent. The question is that clause 4 stand part.

This is really a clarification question and explanation—and the Minister can tell me if I’m correct or not—about what this clause is doing. Section 123—it’s a good number, isn’t it? The duration of consent at section 123(1) gives the different time frames for different types of consents and how long they can last for. For example, in section 123(1)(aa) of the principal Act: “the period for which a resource consent for an activity that meets the requirements of a wastewater environmental performance standard or a stormwater environmental performance standard is granted is 35 years:”. Then, at subsection (2): “Despite anything in subsection (1), the period of an extant wastewater consent (as defined in section 139B) may be extended as specified in section 139C.” Beautiful Resource Management Act - amended drafting there.

But what we’re looking at here is section 123 stays, but then we’ve got this addition, “Despite anything in subsection (1)”—which is those different time frames for the different types of consents—that the period of a resource consent to which new section 123C applies are the periods specified in that section.

We will come to new section 123C in a minute, because that is what is inserted by clause 5. My question is really very simple, and it’s just for the Minister to confirm and I guess to give us some comfort that the only amendment, really, to section 123 is what is then later described in clause 5, which is the new section 123C inserted.

Madam—sorry, Mr. My apologies.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Apology accepted.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: It’s been quite a long day.

Tangi Utikere: It’s going to get longer.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yes—well, I understand we’re going through until 10 p.m., so, yes, that is definitely true. Time marches on. It’s an amazing thing.

I’ve got an answer, which is, basically, that this is a tidy-up to ensure that new section 123C is not limited by section 123, so as to ensure that new section 123C—which, as the member notes, is, essentially, the chunk of the bill, the operative part of the bill in clause 5—takes precedence for affected consents. It’s just the drafting that’s complicated.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to check something with the Minister responsible for RMA Reform and also ask the Minister to consider one of my amendments to this section. Now, the wording for this section is: “(3) Despite anything … the period … to which section 123C applies is the period specified in that section.” The use of the verb “is” makes it absolute, so you have to follow. However, if we’re looking at the original section 123, and we’re looking at section 123(2), which is also an exception to subsection (1), it says in there, “Despite anything in subsection (1), the period of an extant wastewater consent … may be extended as specified in [a different section].”

My Amendment Paper replaces the word “is” with “may be”, on the one hand to be consistent with also what’s in section 123(2), and on the other hand to allow for flexibility to the practicality of the extension to the duration of a consent. It allows for the flexibility that while what we see in clause 5 is there, it is not absolute and is not mandated. I just want to check with the Minister if the Minister would consider that. I do think that consistency between subsection (2) and subsection (3), which is in this bill, is an important one.

The short answer is no. The clause is really clear, as I’ve just read out literally to the member’s colleague exactly what it does.

I also want to clarify the provisions that apply to section 123(2) of the principal Act, just in light of what the Minister responsible for RMA Reform said—that it stops new section 123C, inserted by clause 5, being read down from what exists in section 123(1) now. I just want to clarify for the Minister that section 123(1) is the section which sets out the standard durations for consent, but section 123(2), which this amends, is just about waste water. Is the Minister suggesting that the provisions do or don’t apply to the waste-water provision set out at section 123(2)? Those are the provisions which have special rules that allow for ongoing waste-water consents to be extended under the special rules under section 139C.

Or does this apply to everything that’s set out in section 123(1), which is venues, consents, coastal payments—like, that’s everything? Then I would have some different questions about his amendments at clause 5, which creates new section 123C.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

I guess just a very small follow-up to the question I had to the Minister responsible for RMA Reform before. I understand what the Minister is saying, but, again, what we don’t know is if other alternatives have been considered. When we’re looking at this clause, what is the rationale—I get it: it’s clear; I can read that—of using an absolute “is” as opposed to a subjunctive “may”, as you see with subsection (2) of section 123, which has a similar provision. That’s my main question to the Minister, because, I mean, I don’t mind if that is an active consideration by the Minister between the two variations, but I would like to know that is a genuinely considered decision that was made, not simply because that would have been logical, or whether or not this is just how it was drafted or it was drafted in haste. It would be good to know from the Minister if this was an active intent to make it absolute.

I don’t have anything much more to add, other than I’m not going to get into a debate tonight about the meaning of the word “is”. OK, I’ll just say that one for the record.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Literally, that’s what we are doing.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, the member can yell into the void about the word “is” if he would like, but I’m not going to entertain a debate about it.

Clause 4 is relatively simple. It says, “Despite anything in subsection (1), [a] period of a resource consent to which 123C applies is [this] period specified in that section”, and then clause 5 inserts new section 123C, which goes through a schema of various different consents that are then extended for two years. The member has rightly noted the various different things about waste water. We can have a debate around that in the next section. But this is just almost like a prefatory clause to get to the actual operative clause. That’s all there is to it.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The question is that Helen White’s tabled amendment to clause 4 be agreed to.

The Hon Rachel Brooking’s tabled amendment to delete clause 4 is ruled out of order as being a direct negation of the question.

Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4, new section 123(3), inserting “in future” is ruled out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

The Hon Rachel Brooking’s tabled amendment to clause 4, section 123(3), inserting “in future and not in any way retrospectively” is ruled out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

The Hon Rachel Brooking’s tabled amendment to clause 4, section 123(3), inserting “from the date of commencement” is ruled out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 4, section 123(3), replacing “is” with “may be” is ruled out of order as not offering a serious alternative form of words.