Ngati Porou Claims Settlement Bill
IntroductionSubmitted 17 June 2011: As a named party in the Bill, the NZCA has provided technical comments intended to make the implementation of the provisions smoother and avoid mismatches in processes set out in the Conservation Act 1987.
Submission date: 17 June 2011
Submitted to: Committee Secretariat, Maori Affairs, Parliament Buildings
1. The New Zealand Conservation Authority is a named party in the Bill and has reviewed those provisions in Part 2 (Cultural Redress) which have a bearing on its role.
2. The Authority’s comments on the Bill are essentially of a technical nature intended to make implementation of its provisions smoother and avoid mismatches with processes set out in the Conservation Act 1987 which could give rise to frustration.
3. While there may be some general rule of law that when a named party is superseded by another party a legislative provision automatically applies to that new party, the Authority recommended that, rather than defining the conservation board and the conservation management strategy by including their current name (East Coast Bay of Plenty) in those definitions, these be defined with reference to the area of nga Whakahaere Takirua.
4. The East Coast Bay of Plenty conservation management strategy is also referred to in the definition of nga Whakahaere Takirua mo nga Paanga Whenua o Ngati Porou and nga Whakahaere Takirua.
5. Clause 23 states that nga Whakahaere Tukirua is part of the East Coast conservation management strategy but the purposes identified are not the same as those set out in section 17D(1) of the Conservation Act for conservation management strategies generally. While an additional purpose that relates to the special values of nga Whakahaere Tukirua is understandable, not having the same other purposes is likely to give rise to complications. Departmental guidance has been developed around the existing Conservation Act provisions. Aspects excluded are fundamental to the management of public conservation land and the Authority recommends that they be included in clause 23. Examples are the implementation of general policy and the objective of integrated conservation management.
6. Clause 23 includes a reference to the East Coast Bay of Plenty conservation management strategy. See previous comment.
7. Clause 24 states that nga Whakahaere Tukitua “is” a conservation management strategy whereas clause 23 states that it is “part of” the East Coast Bay of Plenty conservation management strategy. These statements do not appear to be consistent. That inconsistency raises the more general issue of whether the different processes for the two parts of the conservation management strategy are intended to coalesce in the final stage. There is some lack of clarity on this in the Bill.
8. Clause 29 provides for the parties to report to the conservation board no later than 4 months after the hearing of submissions. The Conservation Act process gives the Director-General an overall 8 months from the date of notification of the draft conservation management strategy to report to the Board. As nga Whakahaere Tukitua is part of a conservation management strategy encompassing a wider area it would be administratively simpler if the timing requirements were the same. Accordingly the Authority recommends that 29(b) be amended to refer to 8 months from the public notification of the draft for submissions.
9. The Authority commends the wording in clause 32(3) which it considers superior to that in the corresponding section of the Conservation Act and should ensure that nga Whakahaere Tukitua is kept up to date.
10. This clause refers to the conservancy by its current name. The Authority recommends against such specification in the same vein as its comments under clause 21 above. In the last decade the Department has changed the name of the conservancy that covers nga Whakahaere Tukitua a number of times.
11. The Authority commends its comments and recommendations for your consideration.