Question Time for 2 May 2017

Audio, Radio New Zealand

METIRIA TUREI to the Minister for the Environment: Ki Te Minita mō Te Taiao: Ka tukua e ngā paerewa e whakaarohia akehia nei mō te pai ake o te wai i roto i te pūhera Wai Mā, te kaha kē atu, te iti kē iho rānei o te uru atu o te tūkinotanga ki roto i ō tātou awa wai, e ngā mea whakakapi? Translation: Do the proposed standards for water quality in the Clean Water package allow more pollution or less to enter our waterways than the ones they will replace? BRETT HUDSON to the Minister of Finance: How much is the Government committing to spend on infrastructure over the next 4 years? ANDREW LITTLE to the Prime Minister: Given his predecessor told the Pike River families, “I’m here to give you absolute reassurance we’re committed to getting the boys out, and nothing’s going to change that”, when, if ever, will he be announcing the re-entry of the drift? STUART SMITH to the Minister of Transport: What announcements has he made recently regarding the Government’s commitment to reinstate key transport links following the Kaikōura earthquake? JACINDA ARDERN to the Minister for Children: When was she first notified that the Ministry for Vulnerable Children Oranga Tamariki, or its predecessor CYF, were placing children and younger persons in a hotel or motel for short-term care without a supervisor, and what was her first action, if any? MELISSA LEE to the Minister of Health: Can he confirm that 55,000 care and support workers will share in the $2 billion pay equity settlement announced on 18 April 2017? GRANT ROBERTSON to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with the Dominion Post editorial that his Government has “singularly failed to answer the pressures of Auckland”; if not, why does he think they would write this? ANDREW BAYLY to the Minister for Building and Construction: How do the latest reports on the level of building activity in Auckland and nationwide for the month, quarter, and year compare with 2016? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements; if so, how? PHIL TWYFORD to the Minister of Transport: Why has the completion of the $2.4 billion Western Ring Route been delayed, and when can Aucklanders expect the new motorway to be open? EUGENIE SAGE to the Minister of Conservation: Is it Government policy to increase the logging of native forests on West Coast conservation land? Dr MEGAN WOODS to the Minister supporting Greater Christchurch Regeneration: Does she agree that the first homes in the East Frame will be completed 5 months ahead of schedule? Questions to Members CLARE CURRAN to the Chairperson of the Commerce Committee: Does she intend to call for further submissions on the petition of Dame Fiona Kidman before it is reported back to the House, in light of the recently released footage shot inside the drift of the Pike River mine?

Natural hazards and environmental assessment in New Zealand

Research Papers, Lincoln University

Environmental assessment in New Zealand is governed by the provisions of the Resource Management Act (RMA) 1991. The Act requires persons wishing to undertake certain activities to apply for resource consent from their local or regional council - a procedure termed the Resource Consent Process. The key component of a resource consent application is an Assessment of Environmental Effects (AEE) report; a statement of the environmental effects of a proposed activity. Problems arise when environmental assessments are complicated by uncertain and abnormal circumstances such as natural hazards. Natural hazards (including earthquakes, floods, tsunami, and coastal erosion) can be catastrophic to an environment. If hazards are not avoided or successfully mitigated, they can result in serious consequences to proposed development and to the environment which the proposal relates. The aim of this study is to assess the adequacy of the resource consent process (as outlined in the Resource Management Act 1991) for dealing with proposed development affected by natural hazards. This study reviews the context of the resource consent process for dealing with natural hazards to identify potential issues in the assessment process. Guidance criteria for assessing natural hazards (termed Natural Hazard Assessment) are developed to evaluate against two resource consent applications affected by natural hazards. The findings of the consent process review and case study evaluation are discussed to determine the adequacy of the consent process for dealing with natural hazards. From the review of the consent process it was evident that the process has a number of problems for accommodating natural hazards into the assessment. Although many important traits are provided for in the process, such traits are not always reflected in environmental assessments. Evaluation of two resource consent applications against the process of Natural Hazard Assessment (NHA) showed that these consent applications did not adequately detail key information relating to natural hazards. Many problems evident in these applications were not amended by the Consent Authorities in the review process and subsequently consent was granted to information-deficient applications. Problematic issues identified in this study include: • A distinct lack of guidance (legal or otherwise) for the applicant and Consent Authority regarding the boundaries of inclusion of an effect; • Deficiencies in planning documents are reflected in AEE reports, the review of the consent application and in the end-decision; • Under-utilisation of "experts" throughout the consent process; • Minimal identification and account for the degree of uncertainty throughout the consent process; • Resource consents are being granted even though information in consent applications, and the means for assessing the information is deficient. These issues reflect that decisions are not being made based on all elements involved in a potential hazard. Subsequently, the resource consent process is not adequate for dealing with all aspects of natural hazards. The Natural Hazard Assessment process provides educated assessment criteria to assess development affected by natural hazards. By accounting for the problems evident in the consent process, the introduction of a three-tier identification, risk and vulnerability assessment, and evaluation process to account for uncertainties, Natural Hazard Assessment provides a platform for a thorough assessment of natural hazards. The application of the principles of Natural Hazard Assessment to the consent applications affected by natural hazards showed that many key issues were not covered in the assessment under the consent process. The nature of a natural event is that one may not occur in a given region over many lifetimes, however they will occur at some stage and planning and environmental assessment needs to provide for the associated hazards. Implementation of Natural Hazard Assessment is needed to help provide answers for the problems experienced in the resource consent process. Natural Hazard Assessment would allow decision-makers to make informed judgements on the situation at hand, leading to better planning and land-use options. Change to current practice is needed, as following the current path of environmental assessment will be the hazard in the end.