Parliamentary debates: Wednesday, 26 August 2026

09:00

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just for those viewers at home, to try and replicate what the Hon Scott Simpson used to do when I was in the same seat that Simon Court is in, he’d remind the viewers of the excitement of where we were with the Resource Management Act (RMA) replacement legislation. Three and a bit years on, here I am, reminding those viewers that we have just started Part 2. I have put forward my great amendments to the goals. There was not very much interest from the Minister. I’ve asked about the hierarchy of the instruments; I’ve asked about the “polluter pays” principles; so now I’m coming to—other people might be going somewhere else—clause 13, and that is “Procedural Principles”. Before I get there, I have been asking the Minister who was in the chair last night about the track changes in this Amendment Paper, and whether or not the member in the chair can tell us if it’s just a movement or if it’s a policy change. That’s the question about clause 12(1)(a)—if he can comment on that.

A movement or a policy change—was that the question?

Yes. Sorry, what I mean by that, Madam Chair, is often in these quite complicated pieces of legislation, bits will move to other bits of the bill, and then they’ll be tracked as a change, but in fact, they might just be a drafting niceness, not a policy issue. Or, of course, it could be a brand-new big policy issue that we might not spot, given that we haven’t had these changes for very long. That’s all—and that they are new from select committee. That’s what I was asking the Minister last night: if he can just take us through the track changes as shown on his Amendment Paper 709, and tell us what they mean. It’s fine to say it’s just a movement; it’s not a policy change—not that I set the rules, but if someone was asking them, that would be a fine answer.

Now, “Procedural Principles”: this is at clause 13. I have an Amendment Paper, 701, which is to delete clause 13(1)(e), which is to “act in a pragmatic way that supports practical solutions:”. I’m particularly interested in this use of “pragmatic way” in a piece of legislation. It’s not a term that I’m familiar with—you have terms like “reasonable” and “significant”, and those types of words, but not “pragmatic”. I was wondering if the member in the chair would accept my Amendment Paper to delete that, and, if not, if he can tell us why it is that such a novel term won’t add to the chaos of this new system and all of the litigation that will surround it. I’ll get to some of that chaos and ministerial decision-making shortly, but that is my question on clause 13. I’ll leave it there before I get on to clause 14.

09:04

In response to the member’s question around changes to clause 12(1)(a), that is a ministerial decision. To clarify, the decisions on consents and permits must be made in accordance with the funnel concept in this legislation. They must first consider the provisions of the relevant land-use and environmental plan, and then any national rule contained in national standards. That is policy intent.

To the second question the member asked about procedural principle, “to act in a pragmatic way that supports practical solutions”. For far too long under the Resource Management Act, we’ve seen planners and decision makers impose impractical conditions, whether through plan rules or consent conditions, on people seeking to use their land for their own purpose. We’re very clear in this legislation: “pragmatic” indicates that we expect decision makers to make trade-offs and to see the trade-offs, to see the benefits in development applications and proposals to use land, and where there are effects to be managed, to come up with practical solutions and to accept an applicant’s or proposer’s solutions to manage those effects. This is a significant culture shift between the planning system we have now and the planning system that we aspire to and intend to have.

09:06

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m just wishing to acknowledge the passing of Dolly Parton, who I think was meaningful to all of us. Moe mai rā.

In Part 2, there is reference to infrastructure and natural features as part of the goals. Last night, the Minister was quite vociferous in articulating the definitions of what those things are. It is very clear from the first part.

Part of the essential character of urban areas is the urban ngahere—trees—and the most valuable urban areas are known as leafy suburbs, because they are generally characterised by having a large number of mature trees. My first question is: which of these definitions captures urban trees? Are they infrastructure, under the definition that’s outlined in Part 1, which the Minister referred to—“infrastructure … (b) includes a natural feature that is modified in order to (i) perform a public function; or (ii) support a matter described in any of paragraph (a)(ii)(A) to (D).” Now, not all trees in urban areas are modified. For example, in the west part of Auckland where I live, most of the vegetation there is regenerating native bush. Is that captured by being modified infrastructure?

It includes also remnant forest, which is sometimes centuries old. Is that defined as infrastructure? Further on in that section of “Goals” in Part 2, clause 11(1)(g), states, “to protect from inappropriate development the identified values and characteristics of—(i) areas of high natural character within the coastal environment, wetlands, and lakes and rivers and their margins:”, which wouldn’t include urban trees, reading that as it’s written. Secondly, the goal is to protect “(ii): “outstanding natural features and landscapes:”, and I don’t think it’s clear that that includes urban trees. So where in these goals are urban trees captured?

When instituting and implementing the law, how was a planner, a council, or whomever—a developer—able to understand, in their interaction with an urban tree, where it fits in this definition? That’s my first question, and I’ve got further on the subject once I get clarity on that from the Minister, please.

09:09

I thank the member for his question. As somebody who’s lived in West Auckland, in the Waitākeres, for decades, of course we appreciate the value of trees. In answer to his question—what are trees? —well, trees can be part of an infrastructure solution; the legislation provides for that. When we’re considering developing cities or responding to intensification, providing infrastructure solutions so that we can build up and out, trees will surely form part of an infrastructure solution—whether that’s in open spaces, for community facilities, or whether that’s part of constructed wetlands, places where we can provide for managing stormwater in the urban environment. That is surely part of a well-functioning urban area.

09:10

Thank you, Madam Chair. So to that point, Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform, I believe you were answering in terms of development of new infrastructure. I accept that point, yes, and I agree that the trees are an important part of that.

What I would like to clarify is where is the existing urban ngahere, the thousands and thousands of trees that existed across the urban environment? How are they captured in this legislation and recognised as having any value? Because it’s not clear to me which category they fall into, and I feel that the Minister has given clarity that there is an infrastructural component to a developmental approach that would see the planting of new trees or wetlands or water management infrastructure, which we’re supportive of; but it’s not clear whether he regards the existing urban ngahere, which, if you fly across any of our cities, is a striking and appreciated and hugely valuable feature of what makes those cities liveable. It’s not clear whether that is captured by “outstanding natural features”, which seems to set a very high bar and wouldn’t appear to capture the value of a mature tree standing on public land or parkland or private land. I would just like further clarification. Where does the Minister see existing urban trees being captured in the definitions in the goals?

To that point, there’s a follow-up question. Currently, we have a scheduling system for trees that are seen as having exceptional value, whether it’s ecological value, botanical value, amenity value, or heritage value, and they have a special protection status. There are around 6,000 scheduled trees in Tāmaki-makau-rau Auckland alone. There are similarly large numbers in other cities, and these are the sorts of magnificent trees that you might see in Hagley Park, or you might see in the Domain, or you might see growing alongside a road, you know, a 300-year-old pōhutukawa tree, or one of the earliest oak trees planted when the British first arrived. They’re recognised for their exceptional heritage, amenity, and ecological value. Those are scheduled trees. What is becoming of the tree schedules across our cities through this legislation? Is there any maintenance of their protection, or is it a blank slate now and each of those trees needs to be individually planned for under this new regime?

09:13

Just to refer the member to definitions, that was in the interpretation section that we had debated yesterday. It’s in Part 1. With respect to where the trees are in the legislation: well, trees are provided for in terms of open areas on public land and private land. They form part of a well-functioning urban area, which is where the member’s questions are targeted. Of course, we don’t need to specify every single aspect of the urban environment in order for people to understand the concept. Where are trees provided for, the member asked, and what about the heritage trees, those wonderful trees planted by the English, those great oaks, say, in Christchurch, and many others? Some people even regard a Norfolk pine, imported here from Norfolk Island, as a tree that is worthy of some type of protection. In the new system, heritage trees—trees that have that heritage value that the member spoke of so fondly, and which I share—will be provided for in the new system.

09:14

Thank you, Madam Chair. In going back to my questions before, thank you to the member for answering about clause 12(1)(a), that’s helpful. If he could just touch on this. He said that it’s incorporating the funnel approach. Is it relevant to the Minister’s decisions? That’s just one question there.

Then, going back to clause 13, “Procedural principles”, the member talked about how great it was going to be to be practical. I would remind the member that I did ask about court cases, and with his new terminology. When we already have, in the procedural policies, “use timely, efficient, consistent, and cost-effective processes:”—that is there already—and at paragraph (c): “act proportionately to the scale and significance of the matter to which the function, duty, or power relates:”. Those are already there, as well as at paragraph (d), “ensure they have sufficient and necessary information…after considering—(i) the cost and feasibility of obtaining the information; and (ii) the scale and significance of the matter to which the decision relates:”. My question, again, which hasn’t been answered, is why keep including these new words that are unnecessary, from what the member’s answer was, when that will lead to more upset in the system? That’s my question on clause 13.

Moving now to clause 14, which is a very important clause, and it’s particularly important because, in effect, most of it will be in effect—a lot of the use of the word “effect”, isn’t it—in just one month’s time after this bill commences, and we’ll get to commencement provisions later. But it is very important that people understand effects outside the scope of this Act, because it’s happening now and councils need to understand what they can and cannot consider.

I have a couple of amendments on clause 14. One is a published amendment at Amendment Paper 697, and that is to replace, “(a) both—(i) the internal layout of the building: (ii) the external layout of any building on the site of the effects of the layout remain within the boundaries of the site:”, by deleting that (ii), and then also to specify that at—sorry, these are all very long, aren’t they. My Amendment Paper is 697, and is a change at clause 14(1)(h) so that we replace where it says “the effect on landscape if the landscape is—(ii) not outstanding; or not an area of high natural character:” with “(ii) not an area of high natural character;”—so that repeats—“or (iii) not regionally significant for the purpose of the regional spatial planning only:”. That’s a restriction of what landscape is out of scope.

Then, to add subclause (2A), which would be a new subclause (2A). Subclause (2) of this clause says, “This section does not restrict the consideration or management of—(a) areas of high natural character…” etc.; so to add to that list “green space and urban trees.”, which might deal with some of the comments that the member Steve Abel was talking about.

I also have a tabled Amendment Paper, and that was tabled at 7.36.06, and this is after clause 14(2)(e)—again, these things that can be considered well-functioning urban environments—to add in “well-functioning urban environments”, so that can be a consideration of effects. And then I did have, in the last part, the definition of “well-functioning urban environments”, which would again go to the issues that Mr Abel was concerned about.

I’m asking, really, for some comment about the importance of those effects outside the scope of this Act, and whether they can be reduced so that, rather than “the effect of the landscape if the landscape is not outstanding”, that it’s “not regionally significant”, and that we get rid of that “external layout of any building on a site of the effects of the layout remain within the boundaries of the site” and then add in—

Hon Rachel Brooking.

—thank you—these extra two regarding the well-functioning urban environment.

Those are the questions around clause 14; reminding the Minister that I did have that question around clause 12A and 13 as well.

09:20

Thank you, Madam Chair. In terms of the member’s question about 12A, I have answered that: there was a policy decision taken by the Minister responsible for RMA Reform.

But does it apply to the Minister? That was just the question.

It doesn’t apply to the Minister.

Does it? Does not?

It does not. In terms of other jurisdictions, it “does not apply to a court or person exercising a judicial power or performing a judicial function or duty.” That’s clause 13(4). I don’t mean to conflate the two things, but in terms of the member’s other questions: will there be court cases? Well, the intention is that the legislation is clear, but no doubt some will seek clarity. That’s not for me to predict, but no doubt, but let’s be clear about what we’re trying to do here with the procedural principles: we’re trying to change a deeply embedded and entrenched culture of “no” under the resource management system to a culture of permission and recognising that most of the solutions for managing effects are already well understood, which is why we’re shifting from litigating and relitigating at every consent matter, which if we followed the right process, we would say, ‘We’ve done this before. Isn’t there a way we can cut and paste?” That’s why we’re shifting to specific standards to manage effects, and the procedural principles are helpful to shift from where we are now to a more standardised approach of managing effects.

Let’s be clear: we need to raise our expectations about the performance of the planning system and those who operate in the planning system, and that is why we’ve been very clear that our expectations are that those “performing a function, [power or] duty … must take all practical steps to act in accordance with the following principles:” which includes acts “in a pragmatic way that supports practical solutions.” Most New Zealanders sitting at home or watching—and good morning New Zealand from the House of Parliament—would understand what being pragmatic means. It means making trade-offs and what is a practical solution; something that works and doesn’t cost the earth.

09:23

Thank you Madam Chair. Like my colleague the Hon Rachel Brooking, I have a question about clause 14, which is of course the clause that, essentially, deals with mandatory considerations that the duty holder must not consider, which is an interesting way of framing it. My question relates to how this clause interacts with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (BORA) and specifically clause 14(1)(f); this is that the “type of residents to be housed in a new development:” is not a consideration.

The context of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act is that we have non-discrimination provisions that are attached to the Human Rights Act, and within those provisions there is the obligation to ensure that there isn’t discrimination against disabled people. The Minister, just then, referenced most people in New Zealand will expect—well, one in four New Zealanders have a disability. According to our international obligations, we have an obligation of what’s called reasonable accommodation. This has been brought into domestic law through our case law and by signalling those lamp posts in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and the Human Rights Act, there’s a case of Smith v Air New Zealand that says the Government has a duty of reasonable accommodation.

The question to the Minister is whether this bars the councils from making directions about accommodation in that sense for our disabled population, or even in a broader way in terms of social and economic need, whether it would bar a council from setting guidance around the affordability of public housing, as well as the accessibility of public housing. We’ve got, now, this piece of legislation that when read on its own appears to give a clear direction. The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act itself says that where possible, Governments must aim to try and read in those rights, in as far as is reasonably possible, so the two must engage; they have to, by virtue of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

My question is whether this is intended to override that or whether the Minister still sees that there is some room for rights consideration as is intended by a section 6, 5 and 4 of the BORA.

09:25

Thank you, Madam Chair. First of all, responding to the member Vanushi Walters: indeed, I can confirm that this clause is intended to mean that the type of residents to be housed in a new development will not be a matter that’s in scope, because what we want is for our cities and the places where people live to be open and accessible to all, and rules and decisions not to exclude or discriminate on who the type of resident is. We’ve been very conscious, very purposeful, and very directive in making sure that in the new system, that will not be a consideration. I hope that puts the member at ease and deals with that question.

I just want to come back to questions from Rachel Brooking about clause 14(1)(h) which was a proposal to add additional qualifiers onto effects outside of the bill, being the effects on landscape, if that landscape is not outstanding or not an area of high natural character. This Government is very clear that we want plans, rules, planners, decision makers, national policy direction, and standards to focus on protecting what matters and protecting what is important. In this case, we want the system to focus on protecting outstanding landscapes and high natural character. We’ve been explicit that if it doesn’t fit into that group then it is, in effect, out of scope.

I want to just address the member’s question on clause 14(2)(a) where the member has proposed adding an additional qualifier to proposed new clause 14(2), which is, for those listening and watching: “This section does not restrict the consideration or [the] management of—(a) areas of high natural character within wetlands, lakes, rivers … in the coastal environment … within 3 nautical miles [of the shore] … (b) [and] outstanding natural [features and landscapes] in the coastal environment … (c) significant historic heritage: (d) sites of significance to Māori: [and] (e) the effects of natural hazards.”

Those are all in scope of the system. We’ve just been explicit in this part that they are not excluded, but if we’re going to start adding additional matters like green space and urban trees, the next thing is you’re really starting to introduce matters that are out of scope of the legislation in terms of what the effects are that we’re trying to manage, because there are positive effects of green spaces and positive effects of urban trees that councils or private property owners are—quite happy for them to invest in those things and to provide for those things, but they’re not an effect that needs to be managed in the context of this legislation.

09:29

Tēnā koe, Madam Chair, thank you. I have a specific question about the wording in clause 14(1)(b): “negative effects of development on trade competition” are out of scope. What is meant by “negative” in this context, because I would read it as reducing trade competition is therefore out of scope but then it says “including on competing providers of input goods and services:”, so that’s just a bit unclear. Do we think “negative effects of development on trade competition” means less competition or less competition? The second half of that paragraph seems to imply that you can’t consider that it would make things more competitive and that would adversely affect a business that’s there—let’s say, because a competing business, a competing supermarket, is going to set up. But then I would think that would be a positive effect of the development on trade competition, so I’m just a bit confused about that.

While I’m standing, just in case I don’t get another call on this part, I just want to ask the Minister: while there’s this—you would not find a bigger advocate for allowing more housing within existing urban areas than I. I want to ask: under this regime, who is responsible when the impact of a development becomes clear? I have a very specific example in Island Bay at the moment with the Erskine Chapel. A whole lot of housing was put in there, which is great—council gave consent for it. Unfortunately, there’s a lot of paved-over area because it’s very car oriented—it doesn’t need to be. But there are now constituents who live down the hill from the Erskine Chapel who say that since that development went in, their house has repeatedly flooded. Who bears the cost of that impact when that was not foreseen? The council isn’t in a position to and doesn’t seem like they’re going to be able to like. And I’m not even sure if, legally, there’s a way to hold them responsible. Where’s the developer? Is it the owners of the—you know, that’s the sort of problem and impact on individuals and families and neighbours that we’re trying to avoid through a sensible approach to planning.

I’m just a little bit concerned that in the rush to get rid of harmful rules or a harmful approach to planning, the Government is actually getting rid of everything. Obviously, that happened under the previous regime, but I could see it happening a lot more because it’s not clear. When these things become obvious after the fact of permitting and consent, who is helping these people. They’re being told their insurance company is only going to repair the job so many times; the insurance company is never going to provide the funding to significantly protect the property. It is clearly an impact from the way the development happened—not the fact that there’s more homes, but the fact that they didn’t do sufficient work to ensure that the stormwater runoff wouldn’t adversely affect places around there.

I’m just trying to get to the fact that we heard in the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, particularly around clause 4, that there were issues around cumulative impact of developments—how does that get taken into account?—because it seems like it could be excluded.

Just to the Minister’s point: why should urban trees be considered? I mean, urban trees and planting and green space are always to prevent flooding and over-inundation of our reticulated stormwater network, so that’s a reason why it probably should be in the goals.

I’m just interested if the Minister can address: under this regime, who is going to be responsible for considering what the impact of stormwater and flooding is going to be of specific developments? And how do we hold people accountable? Who pays the price when we get that wrong and we’ve permitted too much of the wrong type of development that’s then affecting other people?

09:33

In answer to the member the Hon Julie Anne Genter’s first question about effects excluded under this Act—clause 14(1)(b): “negative effects of development on trade competition, including on competing providers of input goods and services:”—the intention is that we want more competition, and that effects on a trade competitor, which have been have been brought into planning discussions in the past, are specifically excluded. So if a business wants to set up, sell something to people, trade, exchange value for value with other members of the community, their ability to carry on trade should not be a matter that the planning system needs to consider.

Madam Chair.

So in answer to the member’s second question—we’ve got two hours—about a specific case—

We’ve got longer.

Oh, yeah, I’ll be back. A specific case where it sounds like there’s some stormwater impacts on people downstream from a development. Look, nothing’s changed in the way that those type of matters are viewed between the Resource Management Act and the system that we are intending to implement. But there will always be a need to assess effects beyond the boundary, like stormwater runoff, and if the member was to look to cause 15, “Considering adverse effects of activities”, the member will be able to see what is envisaged there. Thank you.

I’ll just make a point before I take another call, in that the Minister was referring to his two hours. There’s still lots of questions, but I will note that a lot of the people asking questions are taking quite full speeches. I’m not going to close anyone down while there’s still relevant questions going, but I’d really like the questions to be a bit more succinct than what a number of them have been this morning.

Arena Williams—you’ve been very patient.

09:35

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I want to ask two brief questions of the Minister, just clarifying earlier what he said. I’m on page 45 at clause 13(4). He clarified that the hierarchy, as he is provided, doesn’t apply to the Minister’s decisions, and he drew on that, sort of, judicial power for the reasoning for that. When the Minister’s appointees are making decisions using the Minister’s public power, does that also apply to them—say, the hearings panel in Auckland, which is a special case; I just want to clarify whether it applies to them or not.

The next question I have is about both the effects and procedural principles. This is a new substantive question, it is about how the hierarchy applies when making procedural decisions when also considering the broader requirement of the duties, which exist at common law, under Te Tiriti o Waitangi: the duty of active protection, the duty of good faith, the duty to consult. I’m asking him, in a similar way to how human rights are intended to provide—at the end of all exercise of public power, you also need to comply with our international obligations in relation to human rights. We also have constitutional arrangements in New Zealand which are meant to work in the way that once you have gone through the process of exercising power which is constituted in legislation, you also need to apply the duties that exist within our constitutional framework, which are those duties to consult and of active prediction.

In relation to both the effects and the procedural principles, I understand what the member is trying to do here to limit the effects of that, but my question to him first is: if the purpose of narrowing the bill is to provide certainty around which Māori interests the planning system recognises, what happens to those legitimate Māori interests which have not been anticipated at the moment in time or by his bill? A normal way of interpreting, say, the Resource Management Act or other legislation would be to read them in, because we have that duty of active protection within our constitutional framework that sits above the legislative framework.

My second question to that is, to the member: does he accept that the courts have developed that consultation requirement specifically as part of the informed decision-making processes that we require people who are exercising a public function, because the Crown cannot always determine for itself in advance of the consultation procedure the nature and extent of Māori interests that are affected. It’s a special question in the resource management context because those rights are protected in different ways—land use, forests, rights to taonga tuku iho [treasures handed down]—and the Minister, in designing this legislation, has given some of those special precedence in the hierarchy of decision making. But the point is that we had to go through this in the court system from the 1980s to the 1990s to today because Governments have needed to update the way that consultation works under our constitutional arrangements. So I want to ask him: in the procedural principles, how we are meant to read his limiting scope and the broader scope which exists at the same time?

09:39

I’ll just come back to clauses 12(a) and 13(4). If I wasn’t clear in a previous answer: 12(a) does not apply to the Minister; 13(4) does.

In answer to the second question that the member asked, we’ve been very clear that we intend to provide for Māori interests, as set out in the goals in the scope of the legislation, through Māori participation in development of national instruments, regional spatial plans, and land use plans. The reason for that is where the most strategic matters are discussed and agreed on in terms of national instruments, national policy direction, and national standards—for example, the regional spatial plans that identify, say, where natural hazards are and where infrastructure is, and land use plans, which set the rules for a district, for example. We feel very strongly that that is the right place for Māori interests to be identified and expressed, and that extends to the identification and protection of sites of significance to Māori, some of which are identified here—it’s not an exhaustive list—enabling the development and protection of identified Māori land, because for far too long, we’ve heard that it’s too difficult to develop Māori land. There are a number of barriers to that, not all of which are covered by this legislation, but in this legislation we want to be absolutely clear that we want to enable the development of identified Māori land. That is the intention of this legislation. I’ve covered the intention of how this Government intends to provide for Māori interests.

The question that the member raised around what the courts’ job is to develop the law: the courts’ job is—and I urge the member to refer to the speech that the Attorney-General, the Hon Chris Bishop, gave to the Law Society a few weeks ago. The Minister was absolutely clear: it is Parliament’s job to establish the law through parliamentary process and it the courts’ job to interpret that law. During the development of this legislation, the Minister and I have held that front of mind, which is why we have chosen very carefully the words in the legislation, and they mean what we intend them to mean.

09:42

Thank you, Madam Chair. This is my first contribution in this debate, so I appreciate you allowing me to take a call. My call is going to focus on clause 11(1)(i), continuing on the question lines around Māori interests. I appreciate the Minister’s comments clarifying intent, but I’m more interested in the avenues by which that intent will be delivered. I have, I think, three tabled amendments which seek to strengthen and protect Māori interests within this bill, that I will speak to as well, if I have time—taking the Chair’s advice to stick to questions and not yarn for too long.

In terms of those Māori interests being provided for in the bill, I want to understand what avenues councils will have at a regional or at a city council level. What tools will they have available to make those interests known and to actually give effect to partnership between iwi or hapū and councils? Because that was the intent of Mana Whakahono ā Rohe. Those were the arrangements by which iwi and hapū and councils or local authorities could get together and develop shared principles, or plan shared aspirations for land use within their rohe, and those have now been taken out—with great announcement by the Government parties and in collaboration with Federated Farmers and other advocacy groups.

So if the Minister could let me know what some of the avenues are where that collaboration and where that planning takes place, that would be really helpful. None of us on this side of the House would say that saying, “Oh, the councils and iwi will just have to work it out.” is sufficient, because the reason that Mana Whakahono ā Rohe existed in the first place is because councils across the country were so inconsistent with their consideration of protecting special Māori interests, sites, and aspirations. What is the vehicle by which those points under clause 11(1)(i) will be actually carried through, because those are the ends we’ve got on the bill, but what are the means by which that will be expressed?

The other question that I have on that point is, how has the Minister considered the fact that so many settlements that have already been settled across the country with various iwi and some hapū groups, and those who have legislation that recognises multiple hapū within a rohe—has the Minister considered that those Treaty settlements were negotiated on the assumption that the provisions to protect Māori interests existed, which existed formally within the Resource Management Act? Now that those interests have been obliterated, how do you go about rectifying settlements that were made on assumptions that no longer exist? That’s really important.

The final question that I had on Māori—

I’ve just been told that your most recent point was back in Part 1.

OK. That’s all right. I’ll come back to this point that I’ve been talking about, and, as a genuine question for the Minister, whether he and the Hon Chris Bishop have considered issuing a national direction using the tools available in this part, in terms of policy direction and policy statements, and if there’s an intention to use those instruments to actually provide direction on Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

I don’t know if the Minister is aware of this, but the competency throughout councils in this country to actually understand what Te Tiriti means, what rights were entrenched, and what different iwi and hapū have entrenched in their settlements or agreements with council is lacking. Competency is completely lacking across the country. It’s inconsistent. It depends on whether the iwi or hapū has the resources to actually participate, because some iwi are very small. They might not even have planning experts within their post-settlement governance entity or whatever entity set-up that they’ve got. Would the Minister consider issuing some form of policy instrument, mandated within this bill, to actually provide some direction on how councils will deliver Te Tiriti?

I haven’t even touched my amendments, so I’ll hopefully take another call—actually, I’ll take another call.

09:47

Look, many of the matters that the member raised were covered in debate last night on Part 1, particularly around Mana Whakahono ā Rohe agreements, but let’s be clear, Māori participation is provided for in terms of iwi participation agreements that are provided for in legislation. There may be other ways that councils seek to engage—

I’m asking for specificity.

In answer to the specific question, yes, national standards can be used to provide more detail around how that engagement may occur or is required to occur. Councils are also required to consult with iwi authorities before notifying plans that have a regional role. There is provision for it. We do recognise that, across the country, there is variability in the way local government engages with Māori groups about various matters, but in relation to this legislation, we’re very clear about what is in scope. It’s in the goals set out in clause 11(1)(i), and we intend that the Crown fulfils its obligations and that those acting under the legislation do too.

09:48

Thank you, Madam Chair. This is actually a supplementary question from a question I asked a while earlier on reasonable accommodation. I just did want to say that the Minister made the point about being clear in terms of their objectives. Of course, one of the things that courts look to is the Hansard, and, particularly, responses from the Chair during this session. In my last question, the Minister made two comments which lead to two very different conclusions, so I just want to put those back to the Minister to be clear on which outcome he is saying will eventuate from the bill as it’s drafted now. On the on the first hand, when I talked about reasonable accommodation and whether a council could set guidelines in terms of disability for example, the Minister said no at the start of his answer. For example, if the council said they wanted 10 percent of housing in a particular area that had reasonable accommodation in terms of transport, according to the first half of his answer, it sounds like that would be unlawful or outside the scope of the legislation. At the end of his answer, I was heartened because he then said “accessibility for all”. That suggested to me that his view is that the legislation, essentially, directs that all planners in this space must have their mind turned to accessibility at all times. Now, if that’s the case, that is potentially compliant with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The Minister’s laughing, but this is important because it does determine what will be the day-to-day lived experiences of thousands and thousands of New Zealanders going forward. It could also result in litigation if the Minister isn’t clear about what his intent—what the Minister’s intent is—is at this stage.

09:50

Thank you, Madam Chair. Let me clarify that. Clause 14, “Effects outside [the] scope of the Act … the type of residents to be housed in new development.” We’re very clear about that language. That’s what it means. “A person exercising or performing a function, duty, or power under this Act who is considering the effects of an activity must disregard— … the type of residents to be housed in a new development:”.

Now, the member Vanushi Walters then segued into outcomes. Look, under clause 11, “Goals”, we’re very clear the instruments of this bill “must seek to achieve the following goals”, but we’re also clear that’s not in all places at all times.

To clarify any misconception the member had that the type of residents to be housed in new development—they are effects outside the scope of the Act.

09:51

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d like to draw the Minister’s attention to new clause 15A. It is on page 46 of the bill. This was put in, I think, by the Environment Committee. I don’t sit on that select committee, so I am concerned about this particular clause. What the clause does is it says that a person, when performing a function under this Act, when considering the effects of the activity, “must not … consider any adverse effect on climate change of any greenhouse gas emissions that … may … be increased by the activity, whether directly or indirectly; [but] (b) may consider any positive effects of the activity that are associated with avoiding, reducing, removing, or displacing greenhouse gas emissions.”

There’s an imbalance there. I was trying to think through an example, and I guess one example might come down to wetlands. We know that, with some activities, developers—whoever—take particular effort to either protect an existing wetland or to restore a wetland. Of course, that has a positive impact on climate. That would be, I guess, a tick in the developer’s box. It’s a good thing to do. But, by the same token, if that same developer actually destroys a wetland, which has a negative effect on climate, then that would not count as a negative in assessing the activities, and so on.

Now, there may be better example than that, but it does seem, to me, to be an imbalance here that if a project can consider the positive impacts on climate, why can’t it also consider the negative impacts on climate? I do regard that as an imbalance. It would be good if the Minister could explain why that imbalance is thought to be appropriate and if it’s rectified somewhere else in the bill.

09:54

We’re very clear—and the reason that this new clause 15A has been inserted is, essentially, for the avoidance of doubt that we already have a cap and price on emissions through the emissions trading scheme. We already have the Climate Change Response Act, which provides for policy and regulations. The intention of this Government is to reduce regulatory duplication and overlap, avoid matters being considered in multiple scenarios, whether it’s a Building Act matter or a climate change matter, whatever it is.

So it’s very clear: there’s already legislation and systems to deal with the adverse effects of climate change, but we do want decision makers to be able to consider the positive effects of, say, reducing emissions, because there may well be cases where planners and decision makers need to make trade-offs about, say, the establishment of batteries, wind turbines, solar panels, and the impacts that that may have on others. We want to make it clear that where there are positive effects of an activity, such as providing for energy security and affordability and diversification of the energy system, that they can be considered as a positive effect.

The Government’s intention is very clear. The language is clear. It means what we say in the bill.

09:55

Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s really great to be examining the clause 15s. What I’m really keen to pick up, very briefly, is a clarification from the Minister around the “outside scope” clause 14, because I’ve got some really specific examples that we heard during the Environment Committee time, which I’m really interested in the Minister’s response to where these communities actually go, because what we’re talking about here is concerns that were raised about outstanding natural landscape and areas of high natural character, essentially, being too high of a bar.

We heard from the likes of Waitomo District Council, particularly around their cast system; their rare, their valuable, their fragile areas, like geothermal features, braided rivers, high-country tussock landscapes. What is the pathway now for these areas that don’t meet the high bar to actually be provided for and considered in the planning landscape?

I note, particularly, we had a really good submission from the New Zealand Institute of Landscape Architects, and they raised similar concerns about these cumulative losses around the landscapes that have very significant values but they have not been at that bar to actually meet either outstanding or a specific categorisation of “high natural character”. They described the exclusions as that if you really want to protect those areas of outstanding landscape or high natural areas, these exclusions of the areas that, basically, lead up to them are—they use the term—“structural blind spots.”

I really want to hear from the Minister how regions, district councils—however they’re trying to provide for these areas in the spatial plans, how they’re actually going to do this, when the bar, essentially, is really high. Thank you.

09:58

Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, I do welcome the member Lan Pham’s question, particularly as a self-confessed geology nerd. I’m familiar with the cast formations in the Waitomo district. I’ve been underground in the Waitomo Caves a number of times, including in other caves, and I’ve spent quite a bit of time on friends’ farms in that part of the country, and it is fascinating. But there is one thing that I can reassure people who are listening and watching: hardly anyone at all lives in Waitomo, and that there may well be a need—

A few people do.

Hardly anyone lives in Waitomo, compared to places like Auckland, and there may well be a need for future development, including in places where this underlying geology exists. But if we were to recognise all of the underlying geology in New Zealand and attribute some special characteristic to it, we wouldn’t get very far.

We’ve been very, very clear that, in the goal, we want to protect areas of high natural character and outstanding natural features and landscapes from inappropriate development. We intend that development proceeds in places that have these values as long as it is not inappropriate. That’s different from the resource management system, which provided for the protection of a whole lot of landscapes, features, and natural character. That has locked up land that could otherwise be developed for productive use. You might want to build a hotel on it, you might want to build a gondola, you might want to build a luge, or, you never know, you might want to set up another Waitomo Caves operation down in Waitomo.

The resource management system is far too restrictive. We recognise that New Zealand is largely empty in many of the places, even where development is possible, and we want to make sure that development that is not inappropriate can be provided for.

I’m going to take a call from the Hon Rachel Brooking. We’ve done quite a lot of coverage of this up until about Subpart 2 and we’ve just touched on clause 15, but I know that the member has a process that she follows around her questions, and so I just wanted to check to see if there are any burning questions left up until that point before Subpart 2, because I really would like to move forward.

10:01

There are, Madam Chair, and these are new questions that haven’t been addressed yet on clause 14. Clause 14 is so important because it is really the mechanism by which the ACT Party and the member Simon Court are restricting environmental considerations and are enabling what he’s specified, and so that’s why we’re quite focused on it.

I want to ask, though—as I’ve said—some quite different questions. One is in response to the member’s response to Lan Pham, and that was that with regard to these “Effects outside the scope of this Act” considered in clause 14, it’s not just for consents that these factors must not be considered but that they must be disregarded; it’s for the planning, as well. That’s the one question, and I ask whether he can confirm that.

My second question is on clause 14(1)(c), and it is that “retail distribution effects:” are outside of the scope. This is quite a new idea. I agree with what the member the Hon Julie Anne Genter was saying with regard to “trade competition,” and I take the member’s point about the wording. But with regard to “retail distribution effects:”, I’m interested in the mischief that the member is trying to avoid by including “retail distribution effects:” in that, what analysis he has and what he expects to happen without retail distribution effects being considered, and what that will do for our town centres. That’s one other question, and so that’s two questions on clause 14.

Then, at clause 14(1)(e), we have “the character, appearance, and aesthetic qualities of a use, development, or building:”. Is it the member’s understanding that paragraph (e) means that the urban design is disregarded? Where does urban design sit with regard to that paragraph (e)? Is there any room for urban design, at all? That’s three questions.

The fourth question is this: a new insertion in this Amendment Paper 709, at new clause 14(1A), is this concept that if activities are “located more than 3 nautical miles from the landward boundary of the coastal marine area,” their effects on an “outstanding natural landscape or feature:” or an “area of high natural character.” must also be disregarded. Now, I imagine that most of the activities that would be located more than three nautical miles from the landward boundary are going to be either offshore wind turbines—I don’t know if that would be onshore wind in some places—or aquaculture. If the member can talk us through why this is now in the Amendment Paper—so this is a new concept. It’s fresh. It is a policy change, and so I don’t need to ask my standard question. What is the mischief about the “3 nautical miles”, and what is it intended to capture?

Then my last question on clause 14 is this. There was a discussion earlier between the member and the Hon Julie Anne Genter about stormwater, where the member said that nothing has changed, and he was referencing boundaries. Is it the member’s understanding that the effects outside the scope of this bill which could apply to plans—if he can confirm that—is somehow restricted to boundaries, and how does his understanding of boundaries come into play with this? This is desperately important because, of course, these provisions relate to the ones that will have near immediate effect.

I can move on to clause 15. I’ve got—

Perhaps we’ll get Simon Court to answer your questions on clause 14, and then I’ll give you another call for clause 15.

Great, thank you. It’s just a short one on that.

10:05

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll just come to “retail distribution effects:” first—effects that are now outside the scope of the legislation. For far too long, those who seek to develop commercial retail premises in new communities or in new locations have faced this contention that no development must be concentrated in, say, an existing town centre—that’s what the member referred to—and, as a result, there’s been extensive time and cost delays to the establishment of, say, new supermarkets.

There was a case in Christchurch where the council in Christchurch said, “You can’t build a new supermarket in a new subdivision, because there are already enough supermarkets.” Well, this Government has been very clear that we want more trade competition. We want more places that people can go because that promotes affordability and choice, and so when it comes to excluding retail distribution effects, we’re very clear that decision makers’ plans and rules should not be able to limit where people want to set up a business because somebody in council might say, “Oh, there are enough supermarkets.” That’s not the role of Government and that’s not the role of local government.

When it comes to town centres, there are many other ways that local government, in conjunction with their business associations, can get together and work out plans to revitalise their town centres. Now, if the member wishes to engage me in a flat white after this session, I’m happy to go into it in detail, but that’s not what this legislation is intended to do, and that is why retail distribution effects are out of scope.

Now, urban design: is urban design in scope? Urban design on private property is not in scope. That is in response to the question on clause 14—

Clause 14(1)(e).

—clause 14(1)(e)—thank you, Madam Chair.

Coming to clause 14(1A), look, if you’re sitting on a beach, it’s very, very difficult to see more than three miles out to sea, which is about five kilometres, and so we’re being very clear that the effects of an activity on any outstanding natural landscape or feature or any area of high natural character must be disregarded. We intend that developments of all kinds can take place in the coastal area in order to take advantage of the economic and other opportunities that that provides, and so we’re being very clear that if it’s farther than three miles out to sea, these matters are out of scope.

Madam Chair.

The Hon Rachel Brooking indicated that she wanted to ask some questions on clause 15.

10:08

Yes—thank you, Madam Chair—and I’m just reminding the member Simon Court that I did have a question about what processes clause 14 applies to beyond consents. I asked whether it applies to plans and the Minister’s decisions, as well, and so there’s that question.

In clause 15, “Considering adverse effects of activities”, at subclause (1)(b), there is “must not consider a less than minor adverse effect”—and “less than minor” is a term that will be familiar to practitioners—“except where their cumulative effect results in a minor or more than minor adverse effect.” My question on this is: how does the member envisage the identification of cumulative effects in this system?

We know that cumulative effects have always been a problem within the resource management framework because, of course, they are difficult to manage if you just say that they are cumulative. Whilst one application on its own might not do very much damage, if you were to have 10 applications, then, combined, they could have a very negative effect, and so that is the cumulative effect. If he can explain how that is going to be managed in clause 15, that would be very useful. It’s difficult—cumulative effects is difficult.

Then I just have one final question on this subpart. That goes to new clause 15A, “Considering climate change effects”, and there was an exchange before between the Hon Dr Deborah Russell and Simon Court, the member in the chair. He talked about the positive effects of the activity that could be and that can be considered, and the references were to batteries and things like that. Now, I’m interested in urban planning. Does he think that those positive effects can also apply to urban planning? An example would be something around public transport. If you were putting in a bus lane, do you get the advantage of that consideration of a public effect under new clause 15A(b)? Those are my questions on Subpart 1 of Part 2.

10:11

Look, I thank the member for her question. I’ll just come back to a question that she asked in a previous question about stormwater matters. The effects of stormwater beyond the property are in scope and will continue to be.

Where does it say that?

Well, the member’s free to ask another question when she gets the next call. Yes, clause 14 applies to all in the system. The question about cumulative effects in relation to clause 15, “Considering adverse effects of activities”—cumulative effects can be detected through monitoring and the need for enforcement, and then councils can choose to change plans, change rules, and, potentially, there can be changes to national standards as a result of identifying issues associated with cumulative effects through monitoring and fulfilment. There are some potential cumulative effects that can obviously be assessed upfront, such as multiple small water takes from a kitchen, and that is envisaged by this system.

The member also asked a question about considering the positive effects of an activity for avoiding, remedying, reducing, or displacing greenhouse gas emissions. Would a bus lane be a positive effect? Yes, indeed. The intention of the legislation is to encourage good stuff that leads to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions but does not punish or stop other things.

I want to make it quite clear that I want to move on to Subpart 2 now, but, in fairness, does one of those three people standing up on the side of the Greens have a question prior to clause 16?

Yes, Madam Chair.

Scott Willis hasn’t asked a question yet.

10:13

Thank you, Madam Chair, I appreciate this, and certainly, my question is prior to Subpart 2—clause 15A. We’ve had two previous questions from my colleagues in Labour, but the Minister yesterday asserted that climate change is dealt with elsewhere, so it shouldn’t be in the Planning Bill. I missed the irony in that response, because we can see that climate change is dealt with in the fast-track legislation because it’s going to open up the Denniston Plateau, and that climate change is dealt with in the Gas Security Fund. Those are bits of legislation that are opening up.

My question is about this asymmetric upside that this bill gives us, because new clause 15A(a) says that a person “must not … consider any adverse effect on climate change of any greenhouse gas emissions that will or may result from or be increased by the activity, whether directly or indirectly”, but then clause 15A(1)(b), as we’ve heard, says that we “may consider any positive effects of the activity that are associated with avoiding, reducing, removing, or displacing greenhouse gas emissions”. How is it rational that we can consider the upside but not the downside? We can’t consider the greenhouse gas emissions of a coalmine, but we can count the use of electric vehicle heavy vehicles at the coal mine. Can the Minister really explain the rationale behind this, where we’re not considering the adverse effects but we are considering some of the positive impacts, and we have a commitment to meet our climate change greenhouse gas emissions by 2050? I’m really trying to understand how this works together—why it’s rational.

10:15

We’ve gone over that ground extensively with the Minister last night. I’ve answered a number of questions today which were basically on the same topic. The legislation’s very clear; the drafting is very clear. It means what it says.

I am going to take a call now from the Hon Rachel Brooking, because we are moving on to Subpart 2.

Point of order, Madam Chair.

Point of order, Steve Abel—not questioning my ruling, of course. I’ve made it very clear that we need to keep moving. I’ve made notes of all of the things that have been discussed and we are starting to go over old ground, so I want to move on. The Hon Rachel Brooking.

10:16

Thank you, Madam Chair. I do not have very many questions on Subpart 2 of Part 2, but I do have one—[Interruption]

I’m trying to hear the Hon Rachel Brooking, please.

Sorry, I’m just getting over the last call.

Thank you.

I do have one Amendment Paper that I’ll get to in a moment, but most of my questions around this subpart just relate to the changes that have been made in the Amendment Paper and whether or not they are policy changes or if they are the move-arounds that we were talking about earlier. I’d just remind the member that he didn’t answer my question about the boundaries and where it is that things are restricted to boundaries or not boundaries.

Anyway, it might just be useful if the member could go through these pages, from page 50 to—

Page 79?

Page 79, you say across there? Oh, to the end of Subpart 2. That would be useful, to say whether or not they are policy changes. Then, actually, my amendment is on Subpart 3, so I don’t have any other specific questions on Subpart 2, apart from those that might come up if the member tells us that, actually, some of these amendments are policy amendments.

10:18

As far as I can tell, there are no substantive policy changes in Subpart 2. There are changes to better reflect policy intent and Parliamentary Counsel Office drafting clarity.

I’d just come back to the member’s question around boundaries—what’s in and what’s out. She felt like that wasn’t clear. I did make it clear that stormwater effects beyond the boundary are clearly within the scope. So are things like overshadowing, but building layout and matters internal to the layout of the building are not in scope.

10:19

Thank you, Madam Chair, and I apologise, I haven’t been in the Chamber all morning—

Just for clarity, we’re on Subpart 2.

Subpart 2? Clause 14, or we’ve moved beyond—

We’ve moved on. It’s clause 16 and beyond.

Oh, OK. You can’t go back? It’s still in Part 2.

No, we’re not going back.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I was just about to take Lan Pham’s call, and then the member stood up—so, Lan Pham.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Noting that there haven’t been substantive changes, but there have been changes, I’m really keen to pick up on concerns that were raised by submitters across clause 20 and clause 21. The most consistently and strongly expressed concern was really the concern that particularly clause 20 might overprotect existing uses, particularly when it comes to hazard-prone areas. Councils were really concerned that this could undermine their own ability to reduce those risks over time by moving development away from certain areas.

This was across local government, it was professional bodies, and it was hazard agencies and insurance companies. They were all concerned about this. They raised the point about the concern that buildings might be rebuilt like for like in these areas even where risk from new information is materially increasing. We had both Taituarā, which is the professional body for local government professionals; and Greater Wellington Regional Council, in particular, pointing out that these clauses could actually frustrate their own adaptation and managed retreat planning. We also heard from Tauranga City Council, Tasman District Council, and Christchurch Council, seeking amendments that actually allowed them to remove existing use rights where new information has shown that hazards would then, essentially, pose intolerable risk, or increasing risk over time. One of the submitters we had was from the New Zealand Banking Association, and they talked, again, about just clearly how critical it is that this legislation steers individuals, steers councils, steers developers away from these areas.

My question to the Minister is: where these clauses have now arrived at, does he feel that these concerns have been addressed? Noting that there hasn’t been substantive changes, I’m really keen to hear his response.

10:22

Thank you. The member Lan Pham raises a really important point. I’ll answer the second part of the question first, on new clause 19A. New clause 19A provides for rules that can modify or extinguish the existing land-use and existing building work protections. The change that the Environment Committee added to provide a mechanism for specified natural hazard rules to enable existing land uses to be modified or extinguished to manage natural hazard risk has been retained. A further minor technical change has been provided for in this Amendment Paper to clarify that requirements for a rule to qualify is one of the special natural hazard rules that they can qualify as a natural rule or in a land-use plan and proposed land-use rules with legal effect.

But new clause 22A provides for existing activities affected by these rules to continue while the plan-making and consenting processes are completed. The reason for that is because natural hazard rules have immediate legal effect from the time they’re notified, even though the potential appeals to plan rules have not yet been completed. We’ve provided for sufficient and limited flexibility so that these activities can carry on, rather than being forced to comply before the rule is finally determined. It’s, essentially, a natural justice matter for people who are affected by this type of rule.

10:24

That makes sense to me. I thank the member for their explanation of that. I want to ask directly about clause 22 on page 51. Existing building works—this clause goes so far as to include at clause 22(1)(c)(ii) all of the allowed activities that were permissible without a consent at a certain time. We’ve written in that the natural hazard rules will apply from the beginning. In answer to Lan Pham’s point, in situations like the Tauranga Council, where they’re notifying a very large number of landowners that their properties will be affected by flooding in the future—

The member has taken care of that situation. But in the situation where you have very long-term consents, or in the situation of, say, wharves built on properties that extend out into mangroves or into swamps or into lakes or into the sea; where those didn’t need a planning consent, he’s also included those. The natural hazards rules won’t affect those because they’re not immediately impacted by flooding or any kind of environmental impact that will cause harm to life and limb.

But they are things that councils want to regulate in a different way in the future, because they will be affected by different environmental impacts in the future, like rising sea levels and erosion of beaches. In that kind of situation, existing structures, and the rules around them, do need to change with planning changes, but I think the very broad permissive nature of what’s drafted in now means that they’re not. I can understand why he’s done that for building works that are consented and they’re stuck in the system—in the situation of the Auckland developers who were just stuck in the system because the permissible activity under the old system now needed a different sort of permission in the new system. That makes sense, because the check was at the Building Act check, and those consents were short-lived, a decision maker had made a decision in a short time. But what about those wharves that are 30 years old and the fixes in the Rangitoto baches which are 90 years old—can he explain that very, very permissible (ii)? It doesn’t seem to make sense in those situations.

10:26

I thank the member Arena Williams for the question. Clause 22 is essentially a carry-over from the Resource Management Act. So status quo—no change.

But you’ve added—

The member’s free to take another call if she has further questions.

And on clause 23 the member referred to wharves. Wharves are more fulsomely covered under the Natural Environment Bill, which we’ll be getting to later in the week. I just want to be clear that if there is an existing use that was lawfully established, was permitted activity, or otherwise could have been lawfully carried out without consents, that may be sustained. And that’s just with reference to clause 23.

Lan Pham.

10:27

Ha, ha!

Tamatha Paul.

I am sorry.

That’s all right. She is a great person.

My questions—and just taking the Chair’s advice around potentially moving on from Subpart 2, I thought I’d better quickly ask a question about my amendment, which is tabled amendment 25 August 5.10.14. It is to replace the word “mitigate” with “minimise.” That’s under clause 25 “Duty to avoid, minimise mitigate, or remedy adverse effects”.

I wanted to ask the Minister whether he might consider replacing the word “mitigate” with “minimise”. I think it’s pretty self-explanatory, but, basically, mitigating means, obviously, offsetting potential adverse effects. We think that it would be good if those adverse effects didn’t happen in the first place. Therefore, maybe the person undertaking the—whatever they’re doing with their consent, or under the plans, or under the rules, whether they should be required to instead minimise that effect, as opposed to just mitigate.

10:28

Madam Chair, we've already moved on from Part 1 to Subpart 2. But I just, for the member’s benefit—

Sorry, Point of Order. Point of Order Madam Chair. It’s my understanding that we’re still in Subpart 2. Am I—

Correct. And you were referring to clause 25?

Yes, within Subpart 2 and my amendment. Sorry, the Minister just said I was referring to Subpart 1, but I was referring to Subpart 2, clause 25, and my tabled amendment, which I named and numbered.

Correct.

Thank you for clarifying that, Tamatha Paul. I thought you were harking back to clause 15.

It’s 25.

I understand you’re referring to clause 25. Thank you. I understand also that this was extensively covered in the Environment Committee and that submitters overwhelmingly favoured retaining the use of the term “mitigate,” which is a well-understood legal term, whereas “minimise” would be a novel term. The select committee did not agree to change that and neither does the Minister and I.

10:29

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m going to move forward to Subpart 3, and this is “Key instruments”. Very importantly, in this subpart there is the classification of activities.

In the Planning Bill, we have gotten rid of non-compliant activities—and, also, controlled activities in the Planning Bill, but they come up again in the Natural Environment Bill—so most of my questions, again, are about whether the member Simon Court can take us through the changes that have been made in the Amendment Paper that was lodged at the end of last week; if they are policy changes or not. I notice, of course, that at clause 38 there is permitted activity rules that require registration. If he can comment on how they are different from a controlled activity, and if, in fact, it would be simpler just to have controlled activities rather than permitted activity rules that require registration.

My Amendment Paper that I have on this is on clause 31, “Guidance for classifying activities”, and subclause (2)(a) relates to a “permitted activity”. Something can be classified as a permitted activity if “the activity is acceptable, is anticipated, or achieves the desired level of use, development, or protection;”—and this is the important part; there is an “or” after paragraph (i)—“or (ii) the adverse effects of the activity are understood and can be managed:”. It’s one or the other, and my Amendment Paper would change that “or” and make it an “and”, so that to be a permitted activity, the activity has to be acceptable and the effects have to be understood. I’m wondering if the member can comment on my proposed amendment there—if he can also comment on the changes that have come through in this Amendment Paper and if they are changes to policy or not.

The third question was on these new permitted registration clauses—that’s at clause 38—and if it would be simpler, in fact, to have it as a controlled activity, as we will get to controlled activities when we go to the Natural Environment Bill. If not, why not? What’s the policy intent here?

10:32

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll just cover off clause 28 first. That has been deleted in its entirety as it was considered unnecessary and added complexity, and these matters can be better directed through national standards or non-statutory guidance. That was a decision that the Minister responsible for RMA Reform and I took.

On clause 31, “Guidance for classifying activities”—a “permitted activity”—the intention is that the new system is much more permissive of activities that do not have an effect that meets the threshold. We do not want to bind up planners and decision-makers and applicants—investors—in having to deal with a whole lot of different constraints if we say it’s permitted. So we won’t be accepting the member the Hon Rachel Brooking’s recommendation.

On clause 38, “Permitted activity rules that require registration”, look, there are some matters—and they can be specified in subsequent national standards—where it will be important to identify where certain permitted activities are taking place. That may well be to identify and manage the effects of, say, cumulative effects, but we didn’t feel it was necessary to retain, from the Resource Management Act, controlled activity status, because so many more activities are going to be permitted and are going to be provided for in national standards. As the member mentioned, when it comes to the Natural Environment Bill, which we’ll get to later in the week, there is a provision for controlled activities there. That’s to provide certainty for investors that they can get a consent for a matter and that the conditions that are likely to come with that consent are likely to be well understood in advance. Under the Planning Bill, what we intend is that far fewer consents will be needed at all, and that’s what this provides for.

10:35

Isn’t this registration requirement, though, effectively a need for a consent? Is the member Simon Court saying, like his use of “pragmatic”, that it’s really about slogans and to say to different lobby groups, “It’s OK. It’s permitted, but”—but, but, but—“you need to do this registration”, which makes it just like a controlled activity. Why not step above that noise and say, “Well, no, there are these things that we do need to be controlling for”—yes, you can have the certainty that the member just spoke to, about a controlled activity; that it will be granted—“but you also need to do these various different steps.” Why not just call it a controlled activity? Is it, in fact, just a political sloganeering statement to make to different lobby groups?

10:36

I reject the assertion in the member the Hon Rachel Brooking’s question. The purpose of this reform is to reduce the number of activities that need consents. When it comes to this bill, the Planning Bill, we’re intending, by providing for registered permitted activities in limited cases—and only if allowed or required by a national standard—to reduce the number of low-risk consents that are needed. This is intentional, and it’s going to have a very significant benefit. We intend that the number of consents that are required are reduced by up to 46 percent. Now, that’s just for starters, and this is one way to do it.

For the member’s benefit, and for those listening and watching, registration is a checklist exercise; it does not require an assessment. It will simply provide for identifying where certain types of activities are happening, but only once national policy direction clarifies the direction—how the legislation is to be implemented—and national standards provide for that once the development of that standard has established a need for it. It’s quite some way down the track.

10:37

I’ll move on to Subpart 4, I think, and that is “National instruments”. These are very important because so much of this bill turns on what is in the national instruments, and so much of the ministerial power that we’ve talked about leading up to this committee stage goes to decision making in these national instruments. It has been described to me like a spinning top. Whilst the Government members talk about a funnel, you can also look at it like a spinning top: you have all this weight at the top, which the Minister decides in the national direction, and then that flows down. But, if something goes wrong, the spinning top will fall over, so it’s really important that we consider how it is that these national instruments are made.

At the moment, there are not very many constraints or processes required for the making of the national direction, and it does end up with the Minister determining conflicts—the Minister is the person making the national instruments—between the goals. We’ve looked at the goals before, within the Planning Act, and I do note that at page 69 of Amendment Paper 709 there is a new definition of conflict and what conflict means. Included in the meaning of conflict, at paragraph (b), is “conflict between the goals in section 11 of this Act and the goals in section 11 of the Natural Environment Act 2025;”. I note that it’s a new institution, and it’s certainly something that the select committee advised needed to happen. The member might want to comment on that interaction between the two sets of goals and how they are different. The member, again, might want to go through and say whether there are other substantive policy changes in the Amendment Paper or whether there are more clarifications. I note there is quite a lot in there about national standards and the content of national standards. I have an Amendment Paper 751. This is a published Amendment Paper, and what 751 does is it requires a board of inquiry process for national policy direction. I have based the Amendment Paper, which is quite a large one, on the board of inquiry process that would have been used for the national planning framework within the Natural and Built Environment Act, now repealed.

I would like the members’ discussion to consider this and having the safeguard of a board of inquiry process. This is something that the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment has been calling for, in particular, and it should give the Minister some cover against judicial review in cases that will go to the Minister’s discretion and ask what was considered. If the Minister can say, “I put it to the board of inquiry and they heard submissions and they made their decisions.”, then that gives the Minister a lot of cover. It goes to the efficiency of the process and is surely something that this Government should be interested in. Plus, it goes to the community input into the process of these national instruments and the trade-offs that the member was earlier speaking about. So much of this new system relies on the national instruments that there should be a robust process for the creation of those instruments and the ability to challenge them. Thank you.

10:42

Thank you, Madam Chair. Quite a lot in that, and I appreciate that the making of national instruments is fundamental to the implementation and operation of this new system. Just to come back to considerations for national policy direction, the member has raised the matter of whether a board of inquiry would be better placed, as she proposes in her Amendment Paper, to consider national policy direction. The Government disagrees. The considerations of the process to be followed are set out in clauses 58 and 59 for the national standards. Let’s be clear, the national instruments do not replace the framework set by Parliament, but what they do is they seek to achieve compatibility between the goals as far as practical, and when the Minister is developing the proposed national policy direction, that is what the Minister will be required to do. If compatibility between the goals, whether it’s in the Planning Bill or the Natural Environment Bill—or the Acts we intend they become—can’t be achieved, then identifying and providing for the resolution of conflicts between the goals or within a goal is required to be considered by the Minister.

We also accept that national policy direction is not required to identify and provide for the resolution of every conflict. There will still be a role for standards further down the system to identify how activities are managed to an acceptable level, because we still need to carry out activities in the natural environment—for example, like installing stormwater culverts, building bridges, and clearing gravel from rivers. All of these things require us to manage the conflict between human needs, the need to protect our infrastructure, operate in the environment, and to operate around people.

So there will be a role for national standards, spatial plans—the rules and plans—to manage conflict. Much further down the funnel—which is the Government’s intended way to approach it and for those who operate in the system to see it, rather than the spinning top the member alluded to—right at the bottom, there’s still going to be the opportunity for consents to manage effects on people and property. That’s how it’s intended to work, and it’s set out very clearly in the legislation what matters need to be considered for national policy direction.

10:45

Thank you, Madam Chair. A question for the Minister in relation to the provisions under clause 52 in the Minister’s Amendment Paper 738 that inserts the following phrase: “(6B) National standards may include requirements relating to the performance or exercise of the functions, powers, and duties of the statutory officer appointed under section 188A”. So this has to do with the land market officer. My question is about the desired independence of the land market officer, and really my question is: why does the new clause touch on every function, power, and duty of the officer rather than being confined to, for example, procedural, administrative, or notification requirements? We share, I think, the Minister’s desire that the land market officer operates within their mandate and can’t be, basically, bossed around or manipulated by the Minister of the day. It seems that this clause would, basically, give the Minister of the day that ability to not just direct through the national standard those kind of administrative or procedural matters but, actually, it touches on all of the kinds of factors. I suppose another way to ask the question is: can that national standard, in this case, prescribe the officers, for example, the economic methodology that they use, the thresholds, or the substantive analytical approach? Because if that’s the case, it doesn’t seem like a good idea to me, and I’d be surprised if the Minister was supporting a provision that would risk really undermining the necessary independence of the land market officer.

10:48

Thank you, Madam Chair, and I do appreciate the member the Hon Phil Twyford’s long-term commitment to urban development and intensification, particularly in Te Atatū Peninsula where we both live. We have experienced both the benefits and the dis-benefits of urban intensification.

The intention of providing for national standards to include requirements relating to the performance or the exercise of functions, powers, and duties of the statutory officer appointed under section 188A is really around how national standards can set expectations around the standards for data collection and the way that that data can be managed, and methodologies. The purpose of national standards is to make sure that everywhere around the country where an activity is undertaken—in this case, the activities of the statutory officer—they’re undertaken in a consistent way. The planners and decision makers can make sense of the information and then respond in a consistent way.

10:49

I move, That debate on this question now close.

It’s a bit early I think, Mr McCallum.

I’ll make the questions very brief, Madam Chair. Firstly, to new subclause 45(2). I just want to ask the Minister a question around whether directions under the new formulation in the new amended version also includes ministerial directions. Are there new directions? Is that why this is here? If so, are there also meant to be directions—not in the natural meaning of the word but in this section—which apply to directives that are given by the statutory officer? Does it also then apply to directions that are given by a panel exercising the ministerial powers that are delegated to it by the Minister? That’s the first question.

The second brief question is—under new clause 51, on page 71, the reformation of the new subclause (1)(f), I want to ask whether this was changed, because it is now more explicit that national rules should set the scope of public consultation, and the consultation scope. The member in the chair will understand that I’m asking this because there are also consultation requirements which exist outside of the funnel in relation to, say, Māori rights and interests. But is it intended that—because the national rules are not primary legislation; they’re secondary legislation—it is not Parliament’s intention to delegate a function which would seek to exclude those duties which exist both in common law and in our constitutional arrangements? Actually, I’ll leave that there.

I also wanted to ask the Minister, in relation to the new statutory officer functions and the way that that will interplay with the national standards, whether the statutory officer, under new clause 52(3B) and (3C) in Amendment Paper 709, will also be able to have an influence over the way that local authorities maybe are required to exclude a rule from a plan, and, in the normal way that you’d read that, the statutory officer doesn’t seem to have that power in the order of precedence. But if my reading of directions, under clause 45 in Amendment Paper 709 is right, then I think the statutory officer might have a role there, and particularly around that restricting a local authority from including the rule in its new plan at (3)(b). Does it mean that’s only in relation to the statutory officer’s functions or does it apply more generally to that?

10:52

Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the member Arena Williams’ questions—there were quite a few in there, so I will attempt to answer them in the order that they were asked.

I understand that the member had a question around clause 45(2) in Amendment Paper 709, which relates to “Local authority and spatial plan committee must implement national instrument”. Have I got that correct?

The directives, yeah.

And (2) is “In this section, directions includes any directives or other requirements.” Look, I’ll just come back to the overriding approach we’re taking, that, as far as practical, in terms of the scope of this legislation and the Government’s policy intent, we intend to standardise the way that local authorities carry out their functions and duties and exercise their powers under this legislation. So that may well include directions including any directives or other requirements relating to the making of plans, for example. That is entirely intentional, but because the legislation has not passed yet, we’ve been able to release an illustrative national policy direction, which I urge you and other members interested in this legislation to go and have a look at, which sets out the direction of travel, the themes that will be provided for, and, under each theme, the standards that we intend to be applied in each theme or activity or domain. That is TBD. That is what that clause provides for.

In terms of your question around “Can the statutory officer tell councils what to do?”—no, they will be able to provide a determination as to whether there is any restriction on a competitive urban land market and provide information for councils to respond to, but it’s not intended the statutory officer has the same power as a Minister.

Another question that the member asked—and, forgive me, I’m actually struggling to recall what specific clause that related to the consultation scope set out in standards. Can the member just enlighten me with what clause that was?

Clause 51(1), new paragraph (f).

Clause 51(1), new paragraph (f)—“require or preclude targeted or public notification of an application for a planning consent for an activity:” Again, the intent is that we standardise, as far as practical, avoiding bespoke approaches in different parts of the country—you know, 67 towns and cities, 14 regional councils—to provide standardised methods for matters like consultation. However, that does not preclude consultation with Māori, which I understand the question was referring to, as provided for in Treaty settlements where there might be specific relationships with the rohe or a council, and, of course, in the intended iwi participation agreements. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Scott Willis—Steve Abel.

10:55

I’ll take that, Madam Chair. Thank you, Madam Chair.

So sorry, my apologies.

That’s OK. I’m not as handsome as Scott Willis.

I beg to differ!

Oh, that’s very kind—you’re entirely forgiven.

I’ve got a very narrow and specific tabled amendment to clause 49, around national standards. Initially, I thought this was a somewhat inelegant way of dealing with this problem. We didn’t have an opportunity earlier on in the bill because we moved on. It’s reflecting on the points that the Minister has already made about his intention as articulated in the legislation that the only means for trees to be protected in urban areas is through recognition of their heritage value—that means their amenity, biodiversity, and other values that they offer are not recognised, only heritage value. The consequence of that is, I fear, that he and the other Minister involved, Mr Bishop, will fail in their objective, which I take at its face value to be genuine, that this legislation is designed to improve and enhance the quality of the living spaces in our urban environments.

My proposal is that under the national standards, additional to clause 49, that after the word “standards” insert “including a national standard providing for urban tree and urban tree canopy protection.” Now, it’s a very simple broad requirement that is non-prescriptive, other than that it does set a standard. It’s a minor specific thing in one sense, legislatively, but it has a significant consequence nationwide because it recognises the huge value that trees bring to making our cities livable.

I’ll give you one specific example before finishing, Madam Chair. Trees, particularly large mature trees, are like giant outdoor air-conditioning systems. Because of the phenomenon—the extraordinary natural phenomena—of transpiration they cause an incredible localised cooling effect. That is but one of the many huge amenity values that they represent and why this amendment should be accepted by the Minister. I wonder if he can respond to that, please.

10:58

Firstly, I accept that the member Steve Abel would know what the air conditioning in a tree is like, because he spent over 240 days occupying a tree in New Lynn in West Auckland, stopping a housing development, where there are still no new houses!

But, no, we won’t be adding a qualifier to clause 49, “National standards”, “There must always be national standards.”, because the intention is that the content of national standards is set out in new clause 50A in Amendment Paper 709, and that we do not intend to be overly prescriptive in the legislation, the purpose of the legislation has a framework, and that the content of those standards can be developed further down the track.

I do urge the member to get a copy of the national policy direction (NPD). The illustrative NPD that was put out for consultation yesterday morning at 9.15 sets out very clearly the themes and the approaches to resolving conflicts, and the type of directives that this Government intends to apply in the system down the track, and also sets out under each theme, the standards that are intended to be applied under each of those themes. So I urge the member to do that. Thank you.

10:59

Thank you, Madam Chair. I am taking a call on clause 58 and the changes at the bottom of page 77 and also clause 62A, which I think are linked. I want to ask the member in the chair, Simon Court, about the new insertions, and then at the bottom of that page, how the conflict provisions are then meant to be interpreted by the Minister?

He’s created a new provision here which is a new thing in the Amendment Paper. When the Minister sees and must now be satisfied that the national planning instruments, which are the secondary legislation, might be in conflict with each other—these are the national directions for the natural environment and the national directions set for planning. The Minister must now be satisfied that he first appreciates the conflict—that is a legislative requirement—and has considered it and presumably must take advice on it for there to be evidence of that consideration. Then it steps out for him, at the primary legislative level, how he is meant to appreciate that conflict and not necessarily resolve it. I want to ask the member in the chair first, that seems to be an opening for the courts rightly to interpret, in any given context, whether the Minister has done that—not that he’s resolved it but whether he has turned his mind to the conflict.

Then there are other powers like the ones at clause 62 and 62A which help a Minister to intervene in a plan once it has been made. Really the question is, firstly, is that the right interpretation of it? Are the courts now allowed to consider whether the Minister has turned his mind to the conflict at the secondary legislation level?

Then secondly, shouldn’t we have included in clause 62 and 62A the corresponding check that if the Minister does turn his mind to a conflict and does want to resolve a conflict that he or she has the power to be able to make a change at the last minute? Neither clause 62 or 62A gives us that power to resolve conflicts. The Minister has the power to resolve issues which are minor at clause 62. Then the Minister also has a power to make a change which is more fulsome, but only in relation to those two things like national standards and standards of accreditation or international obligations, but not something which is anticipated by the other plan that’s in conflict with it.

11:02

I thank the member for the question. Look, in terms of consideration for the national policy direction, clause 58(3A) is quite clear. The Minister must be satisfied that the proposed national policy direction is consistent with other national instruments, as far as practical—I’ve highlighted that in my copy on the desk here. Then looking down to clause 58(3C), the Minister must have regard to achieving compatibility as far as is practical, and in clause 58(3C)(b), identify and provide for resolution for conflict between goals if compatibility between them cannot be achieved.

We are taking a pragmatic and practical approach to the way that the legislation is implemented through national policy direction and through standards. If we try to imagine that we can make this perfect, we can anticipate every potential conflict, right down to individual property owner level, we would never deliver a framework for the enjoyment of property and for all of those other goals to be achieved in the place and at the time where they need to be prioritised, either through national standards, through spatial plans, through rules and plans, and by decision makers. We’re very intentional.

There was another question around the amendments to national policy direction without full process. In clause 62, it’s quite clear that any amendments that a Minister might need to make to national policy direction in the context of that clause are for changes that are no more than minor or to correct errors or to make similar technical alterations throughout the document.

In clause 62A, “Amendments to national standards without full process”, there are some very limited reasons provided there, which, as the member mentioned, are to implement New Zealand’s obligations under an international treaty, for example; to align with a New Zealand standard; or to extend the time frame for implementing any part of a national standard. There are some very limited matters where the Minister may recommend the making of an amendment to a national standard without going through the full consideration process.

11:05

I move, That debate on this question now close.

We’ve still got quite a way to go, I think—well, not a long way to go, because we are nearing the end. I am inviting further new material.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Actually, I do not have very much more on Part 2, but I have one Amendment Paper that I haven’t spoken to during this Part 2 debate. That was tabled on 25 August at 5.35.01. Unfortunately, it’s not a published amendment, but what it does is it brings in the provisions for Mana Whakahono ā Rohe from the Resource Management Act into this part of the bill, which is obviously a different policy position from the Government. But I’m just wondering if the member in the chair, Simon Court, would consider that and also he might want to comment on what part of Part 2 it would be best in. Oh, he’s shaking his head.

I’m just trying to relate it to a clause in Part 2.

In Part 2? Well, I would have put it in a new clause, in 15B. It had a whole lot of definitions that had gone through from new clause 15B to new clause 15P. Anyway, Mana Whakahono ā Rohe have contributed to an efficient system and I think it is abysmal that this Government has gone back on what was reported back from the Environment Committee, which continued with these documents that could still work under the system that will still continue to be in force until at least 2030. Any argument that Mana Whakahono ā Rohe somehow don’t fit with this new legislation doesn’t make any sense at all. The member might want to try and explain how it can make sense and how it is not just another example of a slogan that he can use.

11:07

The Minister was very clear when he responded to questions last night on Part 1 why Mana Whakahono ā Rohe arrangements are no longer appropriate in the context of this legislation. We are providing for iwi participation agreements which can be made in context of the scope of the new legislation. Mana Whakahono ā Rohe arrangements come from the Resource Management Act. They will end when this legislation passes through all stages and achieves Royal assent.

11:08

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just following on from that question, I’m at clause 59(3). It’s a new insertion that is the converse power but for the secondary legislation of clause 10(2), but it applies differently here because the national standards are secondary legislation, so we’ve got decision makers here who are not the Minister. This is about giving effect to Treaty settlements that have been arranged with the Crown and that Parliament intended with its full chest to give effect to. How can that be right what he has just answered in relation to my colleague the Hon Rachel Brooking’s question, when, now, he has included a provision which does recognise that those arrangements were made under the Resource Management Act and has deliberately created this clause, which is meant to give equivalency, and yet still argue that those agreements, the Mana Whakahono ā Rohe agreements, don’t have a place in this regime when that is sort of a having it both ways clause here? We do have, actually, those settlements that are made with iwi. They are meant to be given effect to, even at the secondary legislation level, even at the national plan level, as if they were still being implemented under the Resource Management Act.

11:10

The Minister covered this extensively in his responses to questions around clause 10 last night, but I’ll reiterate that the Government is committed to upholding Treaty settlements, and where those settlements have provisions in them which relate to the Resource Management Act (RMA), “to the greatest extent possible under this Act, give an effect that is the same as, or equivalent to, the effect that the [relevant] redress … arrangement” had under the RMA. It couldn’t be more clear in clause 10; couldn’t be more clear here. That’s the intention of this Government, and we hope that Parliament agrees with us.

This is a call in response to that answer. The Minister can’t keep referring to clause 10 and the answers given last night by the Minister, because iwi Māori interests and participation are not exclusive to clause 10. In fact, there are provisions that provide for Māori participation in national planning instruments, policy direction, spatial plans—

Excuse me, member, we are not—

—rules, standards—it’s throughout the entire bill.

We are not revisiting clause 10.

But what I’m trying to explain to you, Madam Chair, is that Māori participation and interests are throughout the entire bill, even in this part that we’re in right now in the standards—

We’ve covered it.

No, I will argue this point because Māori interests are provided for in various parts including this bill. So we have a right to say if the mechanism by which that is executed under the Resource Management Act was Mana Whakahono ā Rohe, and then the Minister is telling us that it is an iwi participation agreement—we have a right to try to distinguish and ascertain what that looks like. We can’t just take it as the councils will engage with iwi, because what does that mean? The reasons that Mana Whakahono ā Rohe and other participation tools and arrangements have been enshrined in legislation is because councils have not done that, historically. They have made decisions on behalf of Māori land and land that Māori have rights and interests in, and have not been consistent.

I’m asking the Chair and the Minister to consider that these interests go right throughout the bill, and every time there’s a question about Māori interests we can’t just say, “That was answered last night.”, because it’s pertinent throughout the bill on every single instrument that is in this bill.

11:12

For the benefit of the member, the legislation provides for—and we’re talking about clause 59(3)—

We’re talking about tools and instruments that come underneath the bill—I know what we’re talking about; I have a degree in it.

If the member wishes to ask another question, that’s fine, but I’m going to respond to the question that the member asked. This clause provides for, to the greatest extent possible, “to give … effect [to] the same as, or equivalent to”. But let’s be clear, Mana Whakahono ā Rohe arrangements do not meet the scope of this new legislation, and the Government has said that there will be provision for iwi participation through an iwi participation agreement. That’s clear. We’re not relitigating the policy. The member may wish to point this out during the course of debate on the legislation over the next few days. That’s fine. You continue to point it out, and the Minister or I will continue to point out we’ve made provision for it. So at a certain point, you know, maybe that will sink in and the member will understand that we’ve made provision for it.

We’re asking what that looks like, but you can’t answer that question.

Well, there was no question.

Sorry, the debate doesn’t happen across the Chamber. I’m going to take one more call. Hon Julie Anne Genter.

11:13

Thank you, Madam Chair. I actually just wanted to clarify, because there is some reference to Schedule 3 in Part 2—I have some amendments to Schedule 3, but Schedule 3 is also referenced in Part 3. When is the appropriate time to speak to amendments on Schedule 3? Are we doing that now or in the next part of the debate?

It is the next part.

The next part? Thank you.

11:14

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The question is that the Minister’s tabled amendments to Amendment Paper 709 amending clauses 47 and 52 be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Julie Anne Genter’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 709 amending clause 11(1)(a) be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Julie Anne Genter’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 709 amending clause 11(1)(b) be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Julie Anne Genter’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 709 amending clause 11(1)(c) be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Julie Anne Genter’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 709 amending clause 11(1)(d) be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Julie Anne Genter’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 709 amending clause 11(1)(e) be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Julie Anne Genter’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 709 inserting clause 11(1)(ga) be agreed to.

The question is that Oriini Kaipara’s tabled amendment to clause 11(1)(f) be agreed to.

The question is that Oriini Kaipara’s tabled amendments to clauses 11, 12, and 13 be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 709 inserting clauses 15B to 15P be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking’s amendments to clauses 57 to 62A in Amendment Paper 709 set out on Amendment Paper 751 be agreed to.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 2 set out on Amendment Paper 709 as amended be agreed to.

The Hon Rachel Brooking’s amendments to clause 11 set out on Amendment Paper 694 are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee of the whole House.

Tamatha Paul’s amendment to clause 11(1) is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee of the whole House.

The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking’s amendment to clause 11 set out on Amendment Paper 743 be agreed to.

Members, Steve Abel’s three tabled amendments to Part 2 relating to protection of urban trees and urban tree canopy lend themselves to being grouped. I will put a single question on them unless members indicate that they wish to vote differently on a specific amendment.

The question is that Steve Abel’s tabled amendments inserting clause 11(1)(ca) and 14(2)(f) and amending clause 49 be agreed to.

The question is that Tamatha Paul’s tabled amendment to clause 11(1)(i) be agreed to.

The question is that Tamatha Paul’s tabled amendment to clause 11(1)(i)(i) be agreed to.

The question is that Tamatha Paul’s tabled amendment replacing clause 11(1)(i)(ii) be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking’s amendment to clause 12 set out on Amendment Paper 707 be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking’s amendment to clause 13 set out on Amendment Paper 701 be agreed to.

The question is that Tamatha Paul’s tabled amendment to clause 13(1) inserting paragraph (g) be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking’s amendments to clause 14 set out on Amendment Paper 697 be agreed to.

The question is that Hūhana Lyndon’s amendments to clause 14 set out on Amendment Paper 749 be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking’s tabled amendment to clause 14(2) inserting paragraph (f) be agreed to.

Lan Pham’s amendment to clause 15A set out on Amendment Paper 732 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking’s amendment to clause 15A set out on Amendment Paper 696 be agreed to.

The question is that Tamatha Paul’s tabled amendment to clause 15A inserting paragraph (ba) be agreed to.

Tamatha Paul’s amendment to clause 25 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking’s amendment to clause 31 set out on Amendment Paper 708 be agreed to.

11:42

Thank you, Madam Chair. This is another very important part. All of it’s important, but we will get to regulatory relief in this part, which has been very controversial. As you’ve just noted, there are Schedules 2, 3, 4, and 5 as well, so I propose to go through Part 3 and then move into the schedules.

My first question is in relation to an Amendment Paper I have. That is Amendment Paper 740, and it is to clause 63C. This is about the purpose of a regional spatial plan. I’ve mentioned, in some other parts of the bill, the importance of integrated management, and the regional spatial plan seems to be somewhere we could add to this. Suggested Amendment Paper 740 is to insert, at the end of clause 63C, after “longer”—which is the last word—“and support integrated management of the region’s natural and physical resources”.

This is important, as I said, for trying to link these two different bills as one mechanism that might be able to do it, so I’d be interested in the member Simon Court’s view on that. I might leave it there, and then I’ve got more questions on clause 67B.

11:44

The purpose of having two distinct pieces of legislation—the Planning Bill and the Natural Environment Bill, which we intend to become law—is so that effects are managed in the right place and each piece of legislation has different goals. It is not our intention to integrate. I will not be accepting the member the Hon Rachel Brooking’s proposed amendment to the purpose of spatial plans.

As pointed out in the debate on the previous part, there will be conflicts between the goals. The purpose of national policy direction is to identify the Government’s priorities and how some of those goals, where they conflict, can be prioritised over others. In a regional spatial plan, the intention is that when it comes to looking at a geographic area of a region, where important matters like identifying natural hazards and showing them on a plan so that other activities that might be at risk of a natural hazard can be avoided in that area, or at least specific provision be made for them—that is the purpose of a regional spatial plan.

We do not intend to weave together and reintegrate the two pieces of legislation. We want the resolution of conflicts between goals to be clear and transparent. We do not want them to be muddied and muddled and cause years of litigation and cause uncertainty for those who seek to plan and those who seek to develop and those who seek to live in New Zealand. We will not be accepting the member’s amendment.

11:46

Thank you, Madam Chair. Quickly responding to the member Simon Court’s comment there, unfortunately, I think what he has done with these bills and these goals is totally muddy the waters, literally and figuratively, and there will be a whole lot of litigation around the conflicts in those goals, and it’s very dangerous to have it all rest on one person, being the Minister.

Anyway, moving on, I’ve got an Amendment Paper to clause 67B, which is “Core obligations when preparing and deciding regional spatial plan”, and I note other members also have amendments on this. One of them is my Amendment Paper 692, and that would, after clause 67B(2)—subclause (2) is “A regional spatial plan must—(a) map or otherwise record the broad spatial layout of the region over the next 30 years … including”—after the list there, insert “(v) blue and green natural environment networks or corridors; and (vi) environmental enhancement areas; and (vii) preferred urban form outcomes (for example, greenfield areas and intensification areas); and”. That is important for the spatial plans to actually do some planning and identify how this green infrastructure that we’ve talked a bit about over the past parts of this bill is going to be planned for. The spatial regional plans are at that higher level. They seem to be a good place to put that.

I also have one other Amendment Paper that I’ll mentioned now, which is also on this wider clause, and that is Amendment Paper 741. It relates to the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000 and the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act 2008. That is, again, clause 67B. After subclause (3)(c), insert—subclause (3) is “A regional spatial plan must”—“(d) not conflict with sections 7 and 8 of the Hauraki Gulf Marine Part Act 2000; and (e) give effect to the purpose and objectives of the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act 2008.” Again, these are pieces of legislation that I am sure other members will want to comment on as well. They are very important, as I understand it, to those communities in Auckland, and with the regulatory relief that we’ll get to, coming up, people are very worried that there will be no protections over those areas.

One method is to try to include them—[Phone rings] There’s an Auckland member next to me who’s excited by this! That relates back to this existing legislation and these existing protections for these very important areas, so that they are not undermined by this piece of legislation, where it definitely does not say on the tin that they are going to be undermined. I am interested in the member’s thoughts on those two changes, as well. Thank you.

11:50

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ll directly pick up on what my colleague Rachel Brooking has just been speaking of and expand on it, in terms of the line of questioning. I also have an amendment that specifically refers to the Waitākere Ranges heritage area, amending clause 63C that the purpose of a regional spatial plan is also to recognise and give effect to the purpose and objectives of the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Act 2008, where a regional spatial plan applied to land within the heritage area.

My question, really, specifically to the Minister is: the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Act is an excellent example of a spatial plan. It’s where the community, over the course of years and decades, has come together in agreement about how the biodiversity values, the landscape values, the exquisite natural values of that part of West Auckland should be protected and preserved from the intrusions and risks of urban sprawl. That’s exactly what the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Act was designed to do.

It’s a model example of spatial planning and, in considering an amendment to explicitly place this existing legislation into this section of the law around spatial planning, I wonder if the Minister can reflect on the fact that we are all pretty much in agreement on this principle of spatial planning and the nuances of how you do it, but to strike out or to not give correct credence to this particular example in the Waitākere Ranges heritage protection area is to do a great harm to an existing community consensus which is that those of us—I happen to be one of the people that lives in the foothills of the Waitākere, not in that sort of abstract peninsula that you call West Auckland, of Te Atatū, which is in fact the peninsula into the East Harbour, the Waitematā. Don’t know how you can really be called a West Aucklander living in Te Atatū Peninsula, Phil Twyford and—

And me.

—Minister Court and Oriini Kaipara. I’m offending everybody now. I just want to be clear —

Par for the course.

—to make the point, Mr Chair: people have moved to the Waitākere Ranges knowing it has a particular spatial planning and protection status. If that is forfeited and got rid of, we will see an intrusion and a death by a thousand cuts of what is commonly referred to as the lungs of Auckland. As you arrive by air over the West part of Auckland, you see a vast, verdant swathe of regenerating native forest. It is a spectacular part of the character of Auckland and I want certainty from the Minister that that Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Act, which covers 27,000 hectares of land, will be retained but, also, that you will put by amendment into this appropriate section of the bill under spatial planning.

11:53

To just respond to the questions from Hon Rachel Brooking and Steve Abel about the Hauraki Gulf protection Act and the Waitākere Ranges heritage Act: the intent is to carry over the existing relationship between those two Acts and the Auckland spatial plan. The Auckland regional spatial plan, as currently written, says that it must not be inconsistent with the Waitākere Ranges heritage protection Act. If you want to have a look at more detail about those transition arrangements provided for in legislation, you can have a look at Schedule 11, where the relationship, say, with spatial plans—Hauraki Gulf, Waitākere—is addressed in the consequential changes to those Acts.

In terms of Rachel Brooking’s question around adding content into core obligations when preparing or deciding regional spatial plans, the Government’s very clear: we intend to use national policy direction, and national standards to provide more detail about the content required in regional spatial plans. It’s important that spatial plans do not try and cover too many things. That’s why we haven’t included too many things in this list, under 67B(2)because we don’t want preparing spatial plans to dilute their focus on the big questions, and provide clarity and strategic direction; the big question being to set out the key drivers of growth and change in a region because for far too long, planning has been seen as a desktop exercise rather than one that has an objective and an outcome. The Government’s very, very clear in the goals of the Planning Bill and in the matters which a spatial plan much must address: we need to get New Zealand going, we need to unlock New Zealand’s potential, and spatial plans are intended to be a key driver of growth and change in our region.

11:56

Thank you, Mr Chair, I just have some follow-up questions regarding the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Act, because this has been a matter of considerable discussion in my community and, along with Mr Abel, I do reside at the gateway to the ranges. There have been community meetings; local councillors; Sir Bob Harvey, who raised his voice in terms of expressing concern that what he refers to as the lungs of Auckland will be at risk.

The member in the chair—and I see the Minister’s with us now—said that the Planning Bill was expected to be interpreted consistently with the protection Act but we do also have clause 14 in the bill, which we’ve discussed previously, and I gave the member a question on that in relation to discrimination. That’s the clause that sets out the things that will be excluded from consideration, including visual amenities and rural landscapes, except for “outstanding landscapes”. The Waitākere Ranges character protections were never framed around outstanding status, as far as I can see. Therefore, there remains a concern and, again, this to me seems to be inviting litigation but I just want the Minister’s confirmation of his view of the interaction between the two Acts and what should happen if there is a community who contests whether a decision made under the Planning Bill, soon to be had, is contrary to the intentions and the protections provided by the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Act? Will a council be obliged to give effect to the Planning Bill as opposed to the heritage areas Act?

Another question is: essentially, why isn’t the Crown providing a fund to protect naturally important environmental features on private land? Is that a signal that the intention is not truly to compensate but rather to prevent councils from protecting such things in the first place? If the Minister himself can confirm his view of the interaction between the two Acts and whether in his view it will always be the case that the protections afforded under the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Act will be given effect to. That would be hugely useful and put many minds at ease. Unfortunately, I don’t believe that the member’s comments earlier were accurate. In part, I don’t believe that because of the statement in the Environment Committee report, which says, “Our understanding is that the area could have similar protections as currently.” Not the same, but similar and, in my view, diminished protections. So, again, to the Minister.

11:59

Thank you, Mr Chair. I think it’s really good to be able to step through these clauses because each one has such significant implications. I want to pick up directly on the previous Minister in the chair’s comments about how key these spatial plans are in terms of key drivers of growth and change in a region. My amendments, which I’d love to hear the Minister’s thoughts on, are related to that specifically, because we know when these first spatial plans, in particular, are put in place, there will not be the associated environmental limits and plans that could inform those spatial plans when it comes to the environment.

When we’re talking about key drivers of growth and change, where we can actually develop, where we can actually grow, and the environmental constraints and the environmental quality or degradation, understanding where those areas need to be spatially is critical to that. I have three amendments in here that would actually spell that out. The first is actually providing and planning for in these spatial plans to meet environmental limits and provide that spatial planning to actually meet those and ensure that development is not unduly imposing on them or making things way worse, and then we’re picking up the tab later. Now, I’ve already mentioned the fact that these environmental limits won’t be in place when the first spatial plans come in, so I’m really interested to hear from the Minister how he foresees existing environmental knowledge and spatial awareness and spatial planning could actually inform these first spatial plans.

Now, the other element of that when it comes to regional spatial plans is my Amendment Paper 716—sorry, the previous ones were 678 and 715. These are about mapping areas of significant indigenous vegetation and fauna. Because we know that the other aspects of the planning system are going to erode and, I guess, threaten biodiversity, this could be a key way where, at a high level, the regional spatial plans are actually providing for those things.

Now, what I’m also interested in is when it comes to clause 67B, which outlines the core obligations when preparing and deciding these regional spatial plans, what is intended when the language refers to the requirement that spatial plans actually map constraints? So they sort of ask for this generally. And can the Minister please clarify what these constraints actually refer to? Are these specifically significant natural areas, outstanding natural features, and landscapes? That’s what I’d be really keen to understand, because the previous planning bill before we got to this stage did outline that, but now it seems that the clarity about that definition and the specificity of those constraints is actually gone. I’d be really interested to hear the Minister’s responses on all those.

12:03

I’ll deal with a couple of questions. To Vanushi Walters’ question around the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act—I understand undersecretary Court dealt with this—the point is the regional spatial plan can’t be inconsistent with the Waitakere Act. It is true that the tools in the system to do that are different from the Resource Management Act, obviously, but there are mechanisms in the new legislation so that the regional spatial plan for Auckland is not inconsistent with the Waitakere Act. So, essentially, the intention to port those controls over in a different way.

In relation to Lan Pham’s questions, it is not correct that you need to have limits before you can do a regional spatial plan. There’s been a bit of commentary that that’s required—that’s not the Government’s view. There is existing information out there around constraints to do that. The first iteration of spatial plans in the new system will obviously be less perfect than the spatial plans that come over time, because we’re not just building a system for the next five years, but we’re building a system for forever, hopefully. The second round of spatial plans in the system will be better, because at that point you will have a limits-based framework in place and there may well be more granular detail in relation to the second round of spatial plans. It is a little bit like cart before the horse. You’ve got to do something. So the first round doesn’t need limits. There’s existing information out there that councils already have that they will be able to use in relation to spatial plans.

In relation to the question around clause 67B: what do constraints mean? That is a reference to things like natural hazards, for example, lack of infrastructure, some of the other factors that the member mentioned, biodiversity, things like that. We know, for example, that a constraint on development is natural hazards. It’s a key theme of the new system, both in the bills, but also national policy direction as well. My point would be that’s at a kind of watercolour level, rather than at a granular, site-by-site land use plan level. The spatial plan sort of maps in a broad kind of watercolour palette type way that there are natural hazard constraints in a particular area, and then the land use plan and the environment plan are the more detailed, specific mapping of that.

12:06

Thank you, Mr Chair. A quick question on clause 63: now that the Minister’s explained the timing considerations and his new amendment, effectively, knocks out the Resource Management Act (RMA) entirely, I’m just asking whether that’s a requirement or a description of the factual context. At clause 63(1), does that mean that councils are required to, but there’s no punishment if they don’t, have a regional plan at all times, or is it a description in that whatever they have there—whatever it’s labelled—is the plan?

Now, my substantive question is on page 83 at clause 63(5), which is amending subclause (6). I think we’ve heard the Minister describe the way that in this Part 3, that’s the national planning framework that’s the central government control room for the policy direction setting which is meant to be done at a central government level. This is the part of the bill which gives central government most control at that watercolour level. So these exclusions then add in what no one down the pecking order might see as an interpretation issue in that they’re meant to exclude the rohe moana that are guaranteed to ngā hapū o Ngāti Porou in their settlement in 2019.

That’s a great thing—it’s a great thing to see this exclusion here—but I want to ask him whether we’re also porting the controls over, as he frames it, from other Acts which didn’t begin interacting with the RMA; they began a lot earlier than that. Ngā hapū o Ngāti Porou have an arrangement which was made in 2019, and that makes them, actually, a more simple case. When he’s trying to deal with things like the Tītī Islands legislation, which date back to 1978 and give effect to the deed of settlement, which was made in June 1864. He doesn’t have the framework of the RMA to port over. That is a very similar arrangement, really. Ngā hapū o Ngāti Porou are guaranteed customary rights of access and participation, so both public access rights and public governance rights—different in nature—in an area that is under the seas, or in rocky outcrops in their ocean. That is the same thing that named descendants are given in the Tītī Islands legislation, but that doesn’t port over in the RMA sense in a similar way.

Any sort of planning committee had to read that as completely separate, because it has its own special way of also making regulations about who has access. That’s also relevant then when you consider sort of other legislative arrangements like the Tūpuna Maunga arrangements, which are 2014. They are a bit similar to the 2019 legislation in that they were made in an RMA context, but, again, these were a bit of a harder case because they’re not quite as close to the property rights that the Minister is trying to protect. The Tūpuna Maunga arrangements are about peoples’ feelings and hopes and dreams for the maunga—that it would be inappropriate, say, to develop the maunga in a way which was not consistent with what the Crown recognises to be important cultural significance of them, and that doesn’t seem to fit clearly with something that would be decided at the regional level and should probably sit at the national level.

I also want to ask him about, at clause 67B(6)(c) here set out on Amendment Paper 709, where he’s just expressly included in the rohe moana that applies to that Act the Ngāti Porou settlement, whether any customary activities also include those in the south of Te Aitanga-a-Hauiti and Te Aitanga-a-Māhaki or in the north, Te Whānau-ā-Apanui. His definition seems to do that, but they don’t relate to the rights that have been granted to Ngāti Porou.

12:10

A complicated series of questions there, but relatively simple answers. In relation to—

I’m not getting many calls.

What’s that?

I’m not getting many calls, so I ask them all in one go.

Righty-o. In relation to the regional combined plan, clause 63, it’s a publication or requirement so plans for a region can be found together.

In relation to the Tītī Island regulation, I’m advised they don’t relate to planning issues. The legislation does not interact with the planning system so isn’t provided for in spatial planning. So that’s not really an issue, respectfully.

In relation to the customary activities—I mean, it’s pretty simple. We have reached an agreement with Ngāti Porou in relation to their settlement, which is therefore recorded at a variety of points in the legislation. Clause 67B(5) and (6) in Amendment Paper 709 mean that a regional spatial plan must map or record, essentially, settlement requirements entered into with Ngāti Porou, which also includes customary activities that are protected per their settlement and other matters.

12:12

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m interested in a comment that the Minister responsible for RMA Reform made before about spatial plans being a watercolour, and I’d refer to Labour’s previous legislation—the Spatial Planning Act—in the same way. Given that it’s a watercolour, how does the work with both clause 67D, which are the provisions in a regional spatial plan that include objectives—objectives sound “watercoloury”—but maps are a bit more difficult to make into water colours, and actions, policies, methods, but not rules. I get the rules would be a strong oil painting. I’m just interested in some more discussion about how “watercoloury” actions and maps are, and particularly with reference to this new clause 67BA that the Minister has inserted, and that is, “Regional spatial plan must include standardised plan provisions as directed by national instrument”. These sound, and the Minister can correct me, like those provisions might be quite oil-based, rather than watercolours, and then how does that link with the answer that he just gave to Lan Pham about not including limits in spatial plans because a spatial plan was a watercolour?

Limits should be limits and they should be in oil paintings, I can understand that point, but so too that the logic would be, then, that that logic should apply to those standardised planning provisions, as well. And how, also, does the “watercoloury-ness” relate to actions under the spatial plan?

Now, whilst I’m on clause 67D, I do have a tabled amendment from 7.36.01 last night, and that is to include an insertion about planning for places in 67D. So we’ve got that they must include objectives, maps, actions, policies, but not rules. I would include in there, with the objectives, “must include objectives”—at (a)—“for achieving well-functioning urban and rural environments”—being the goal—“including objectives relating to the distinctive characteristics, values, qualities, identity, and anticipated future character of place within the region.” And this is just an attempt to import some of that planning that surely we want at a watercolour level for place, given how important place is. And I’d also just want to—I’ll leave those questions there about my watercolours and oil paintings and also my Amendment Paper on planning for place.

12:15

Very briefly, at the risk of destroying the metaphor entirely, it’s a watercolour-slash-oil painting with some text-based additions, like a large caption underneath the painting. So it’s not—

Oil and water don’t mix.

What’s that?

Oil and water don’t mix, mate.

Well, you’d know. Look, it’s not just lines on maps in a broad colour scheme type thing. It is literally what it is, in the legislations. It’s the identification of constraints. It’s where the areas of growth and change are going to be, looking out into the future. There’s the requirement there for objectives. It says must include maps, must include objectives, must include actions, may include policies, but doesn’t include rules, which is down at the layer below. But there is going to have to be some supporting text there, because the text explains what the map does, right?

The point is they’re strategic, not detailed. Now, look, is there an argument about what is strategy and what is tactics? Yes, there’s hundreds of years of debate about that, and the truth is it depends. But the point is to have—and it will be largely over to people doing the first round of plans to work out what the balance is between the strategic priorities and the mapping, and what is the level of detail that should go into land-use plans. And there’ll be some hard-edge cases, and over time we’ll get better at doing this.

But I think the member the Hon Rachel Brooking agrees that spatial planning is a big advance on what we have at the moment. We sort of have a bit of that already. In Auckland, for example, some of the urban growth partnerships, Wellington Regional Leadership Committee, Smart Growth, it’s not completely unfamiliar to us as a country. The point is to do more of it, do it in other parts of the country, compared to what we have now, and have a statutory basis for it, and then get that funnel approach that we have talked about.

There’s a lot of members seeking the call here. I’m quite happy to give members the opportunity for the back and forth, and then move on to another member. Rachel Brooking.

12:17

Thank you. I’ll be very short on this. Yes, of course, Labour supports spatial plans. That’s why we had our Spatial Planning Act that you repealed.

Mention number four!

Keep counting. It’ll come again. Do not worry. But I don’t think he answered my question about why it is that standardised plan provisions can be in a spatial plan, yet limits aren’t. And that difference between—maybe the answer is that he envisages those standardised plan provisions to be at a strategic rather than a tactical level. If he could just answer that part. He’s introduced this new clause 67BA in Amendment Paper 709, why, and how is it different from limits?

12:18

Thank you, Mr Chair. This is my first contribution in Part 3 of this bill. I do want to speak to some of my tabled amendments that amend bits of Schedule 3.

But initially I just want to start with some questions around clause 67C, which is about the “Use of information and level of detail in regional spatial plan”. And it’s really about subclause 1(a)(i) and (ii), which is about the nature of the information that is used. Two questions. One is, we currently don’t know if we’re going to have a census funded in 2028. I believe Stats New Zealand is still legally required to carry out a census, but the Government is looking to move away from the census. So, I guess, how are regional spatial planning committees meant to get the data that they need to use to meet these requirements?

Secondly, I know there was a lot of criticism of Wellington City. My colleague Tamatha Paul was on the Wellington City Council at the time that they were pursuing their spatial plan, and I’m just wondering if this part—while of course we want this to be based on robust and reliable information. But does this become a point where opponents of spatial plans can judicially review or contest the information that a regional planning committee has used by claiming that it’s not robust and reliable. Is that going to be something that can be used based on this if, for example, the population growth is not as high as what was expected, or shown to be not as high?

I know that there is a concrete example of that happening, and so I’m just wondering about whether this leaves regional spatial planning committees open to judicial review or other types of court cases contesting the data that they’ve used. I guess there’s just a broader question about how the Government is going to resource with information if they’re not going ahead with the census in the future. Those are my questions for now.

12:21

The issue of a census is a live conversation, as I understand it, but regardless of whether there is a census or not, there is information and there will continue to be data. The issue of whether there is a census or not is neither here nor there, frankly. The intention is, I’m advised, that a national standard for spatial planning will cover data standards, which could include things like projections around population and natural hazards.

In relation to the member Julie Anne Genter’s question around judicial review, without forecasting the future, it is tolerably clear from a reading of both bills that judicial review is—there are multiple layers of judicial review risk, to use a generic term. I don’t want to prejudge any of that. As it exists in the Resource Management Act right now, whenever a Minister makes a decision or, in fact, a decision maker does make a decision, there’s always the risk of review, but we’re not stymieing that.

In relation to Rachel Brooking’s point around clause 67BA, the point there is that a national instrument—for example, a national policy direction—could require, for example, objectives in relation to something like competitive urban land markets, as per the goal. For example, it can’t get into the level of rules, because that’s not available for a spatial plan, but it could get into something like the objectives, as required.

12:22

Thank you, Mr Chairman. I want to speak to this. In the Minister’s Amendment Paper 709, clause 80 inserts after clause 80(4)(b)(ii) a requirement that a local authority, in producing, preparing, and deciding a land use plan, must have regard to any determination made by, in this case, the land market officer under clause 3 of new Schedule 10A on Amendment Paper 738. The Minister for RMA Reform has said that the land market officer determination will, effectively, kind of—what was the word that he used—put a finger on—

Put a finger on the pip dial.

—yeah—to, basically, nudge the process in favour of the land market officer’s finding.

I assume that there have been long discussions with the officials about this, but I just would suggest to the Minister that “have regard to” is a pretty weak formulation, and I’m interested to know why there hasn’t been more consideration of whether or not a finding or a determination by the land market officer should not be more binding on a local authority, which then has to go and make its plan. I ask whether the Minister would consider or accept an amendment that would provide more of a legal consequence for the local authority in light of a finding or a determination by the land market officer that, for example, some decision or some provision in their draft plan is going to make the land markets uncompetitive.

12:25

Yeah, the member Phil Twyford is right, and we did have a debate about this. It’s just about getting the balance right between the democratic control of plans and the ability of communities and councils to plan their cities but also making it clear that the decisions that those communities and councils make democratically have significant economic repercussions, as I know that that member appreciates. At the moment, we don’t have, in my view—and I think that the member probably agrees—the balance right, and so we’re setting up this independent economic referee.

In time, I hope that it will become entrenched to the extent that the Reserve Bank arrangements around monetary policy are. For example, politicians in 1989 and 1990 decided that they couldn’t be trusted to set monetary policy properly because the incentive was always to loosen the juice in election years or a bit before, and that was counter-productive to the sensible, stable control of monetary policy. I might be hoping in a forlorn way, but my hope is that we look back in 20 or 30 years and say that back in 2026, Parliament decided that there needed to be a strong and independent economic umpire in relation to the idea that land markets matter. I know that the member appreciates that, and I think there is actually now broad support across the House around that. There’s obviously a lot of detail to work through and a lot of things to be fleshed out, but this provides a statutory hook for all of that, alongside the national policy direction’s first draft, which we’ve published.

We thought about strengthening up the term “have regard to”. There’s a backstop power for the Minister to step in and direct things, but we thought the appropriate balance was to let—I mean, there’s a duty, and it’s in the Amendment Paper. There’s a statutory duty to respond to the land market officer’s determination and to bring land markets into line with the idea of competitiveness, and it will be over to councils and communities as to how they do that. There will be a range of different ways and it will depend on the context, it will depend on the facts, and it will depend on the finding, and so I don’t want to get ahead of that. We think that we’ve got the balance about right; others may disagree—and I’m sure people do.

12:28

Just in light of that, is it not true that, hypothetically, a council could put in place a hard urban growth boundary or down-zone a part of a city next to a rapid transit corridor, for whatever reason; the land market officer then makes a determination that this is contrary to the obligation to foster competitive land markets; and, because of this provision and the use of the term “have regard to”, the council could have regard to it, explain its position, and then carry on, regardless?

12:29

The short answer is that this is a debate about how much is in primary legislation and how much is in the national policy direction (NPD)—OK? I mean, if you read the national policy direction in relation to housing and development, there is an extensive amount of things that deal with some of what the member Phil Twyford is talking about. For example, the housing development directive 1.5 says, “To enable urban expansion, land use plans must not include urban growth boundaries or requirements for development to be connected to existing urban areas.” The member might say that that should be in primary legislation. We’ve decided that with the way that the National Policy Statement on Urban Development works at the moment, the next layer down below the bill is the appropriate place to do that.

I think there’s a legitimate debate about how much should be in primary legislation and how much should be in the NPD. We’ve tried to create a consistent framework across— because it’s not just about housing, right, which I appreciate is the member’s passion, alongside mine; there’s a whole range of other things the bill’s got to do as well. That’s directive 1.5.

Directive 1.6 is in relation to meeting development capacity. It may allow urban development in high-value growing areas, areas of high national character, or outstanding natural features, if the development meets the criteria set out in national standards.

Directive 2.2 is in relation to as much intensification as possible in city centres, which reflects the existing national policy statement on urban development (NPS-UD); very high building heights in metropolitan centres, specified catchments, town and local centres. Some of the stuff picks up on things that are already in the NPS-UD. In relation to the member’s question around whether a council could, in response to the determination, set a rural growth boundary, if you read the bill with the national policy direction, the answer would be no, and likewise in relation to—

Maybe that’s a bad example.

Sure.

It could be a smaller, more specific example that they could explain away.

Again, to finally address this point, if you read clause 188B(1) in the Planning Bill amendment tabled last night, it is headed up, in the italics version, “Duty of local authority to respond”. Clause 188B(2)(a) has the critical phrase: “if the act or omission relates to the local authority’s functions, powers, or duties”, the local authority must decide how it will address the matter, implement the decision in a timely manner, and then advise the statutory officer and the chief executive of the decision and its implementation in the manner prescribed by the regulation.

It’s a significant tightening of what the original draft was, which could be read as just saying, “Oh well, we’ve looked at it and we’ve decided not to do anything.” There is a duty to respond—to create competitive land markets.

12:32

But in light of what we’ve seen over the last few years, quite a long list of councils have prevaricated, stalled, gamed the process, and run previous Ministers and this Minister ragged in their efforts to avoid complying with national direction on these issues. I would argue that this provision underpowers the land market officer and that position’s ability to have its determinations enforced.

Well, ultimately, the Minister can step in, in the same way they can do under the Resource Management Act now. Fair enough, I understand where the member is coming from.

It just goes back to that thing I started with, which is: do you want a non - democratically elected independent central government officer being extremely didactic and directive of councils? Or do you want them to make the finding and the determination and provide some advice but leave the ultimate decision over to the council and the community as to exactly how to implement the finding, with the backstop that the Minister can, if they really take the piss, say, “Well, hang on a minute. You’ve got this determination, you’ve don’t have enough development capacity, you haven’t planned this properly, the independent umpire has told you that, you haven’t got your land efficiency indicators, you haven’t got enough capacity, you’re not doing the zoning around train stations.”—I’m just making these examples up. Well, these are not actually examples; all of this has happened. And then the officer says, “You need to do this. Here’s some suggestions for how you bring your land markets back into competitiveness. Here’s some ideas.” And then the council doesn’t do it.

Ultimately, the Minister can say, “Sorry, I’m stepping in.” Now, that’ll be contextual, and judgment- and fact-based, and all the rest of it. It’s just what the right balance is. The member has a slightly different view from me. Part of me agrees with him, frankly. But, you know, we’ve gone for this approach. Look, it’s a new thing. We’re changing the law here, and I hope we’re creating world-leading legislation around land markets; I genuinely do. It won’t be perfect on day one; the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act wasn’t either, so we change things over time as well.

12:34

Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. I particularly want to ask the Minister, straight off the bat, and it’s in regards to Part 3, clause 63 to 74G, spatial plans, given that we’ve already debated the Mana Whakahone ā Rohe. But this is really in regards to mana whenua and is different from Mana Whakahone ā Rohe.

I have an amendment here—a couple, actually—and it’s really for the Minister to consider with care and seriousness the role of Māori, particularly mana whenua, hapū. In Tāmaki Makaurau, there’s not one iwi; there’s multiple iwi. But across Aotearoa, there’s grave concern amongst Māori communities about their voices at decision-making tables. Nowhere in Te Tiriti does it say Maōri are participants. The question, really—the wānanga with Minister—is: is there provision to insert here, in this particular part of this significant bill, consideration around inclusion of mana whenua voting authority on the spatial plan committee? The question, really, is: why can the Minister—and the Minister referred to there being a lever, a backstop; the Minister will be a backstop, and that’s supposed to give us some form of assurance on the validity of these processes. However, the question, really, is: why can the Minister appoint voting members while mana whenua have no guaranteed vote?

So the amendment that I’m asking for—and there’s a series attached to this one clause, and it really does acknowledge and honour mana whenua and the position of being at the decision-making table, not as participants. So partnership with iwi authorities and customary marine title groups—we’re not just referring to whenua, awa; we are also talking about moana: taonga, beyond just painting and pictures. It’s actually the very essence of our biodiversity, but it is our moana, our awa, our maunga—everything.

So, with that, there is an innate connection between tangata whenua and everything that is taiao. So to determine decisions without mana whenua authority is a real failure. If we’re going to make landmark, world-leading, global-leading legislation, then don’t leave Māori behind, is, really, the pressing message from our stakeholders and our constituents as Te Pāti Māori.

So going back to that clause: could Mana Whakahone ā Rohe be implemented here? I heard the argument and the decision based on it being removed because it was attached to the old Resource Management Act. However, we’re talking about moving forward new legislation, so why can we not include new provisions for new Mana Whakahone ā Rohe permits in this?

12:38

I thank the member for her question. We thought quite hard about the composition of the spatial planning committees. The first thing to say is that people on them don’t have to be elected members. So I think there’s a widespread assumption that the people appointed to the committees by the local authorities will be elected councillors. They probably will be, I’m sure that will happen, but there’s actually quite broad discretion as to how that happens. Clause 71(3) says, “Every local authority in the region—(a) is entitled to appoint at least 1 member of the spatial planning committee”, and paragraph (b) says they may agree that they will not appoint a member, and there are some requirements as to who is on it, and the rest of it.

Subclause 4 states, “The local authorities must ensure that 1 or more of the members of the spatial plan committee has knowledge, skill, and experience relating to—(a) te ao Māori; and (b) Māori development.” And then in subclause 5, there is the ability for the Minister to appoint one as well. That’s a recognition that the Crown has interests here, OK? The Crown has an interest in making sure, for example, that the Bay of Plenty region is thriving and functioning and doing well, and the Crown has State highway functions, they have ports and growth and all of the things—the Crown has an interest in all of these areas, and part of the challenge in the past is we’ve not integrated those things properly enough, and that’s partly why the Ministry for Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport has been created, to bring a whole-of-Crown perspective to some of these issues.

I think that will be widely welcomed by many people. It picks up on what’s already kind of happening, right, like the city deals, urban growth partnerships, which the last Government did in Drury and in Bay of Plenty. In Wellington, the Wellington Regional Leadership Committee, you know, didn’t really take off, but there’s other reasons for that.

Ha, ha!

Why are you laughing? Do you want me to get started on that?

Yeah, get started on it!

No, no, no. Time is against me.

Don’t get the Minister started on other stuff.

No, don’t do that.

In relation to the member’s question, there’s a requirement for one or more members of the spatial planning committee to have knowledge of te ao Māori and Māori development, and we think that’s appropriate. The reason for that, for example, is that sites of significance to Māori, areas of particular cultural significance, all of those things, as I’ve said multiple times now, should be part and parcel of the planning process, and the law actually specifically provides for that in Part 1, which we’ve dealt with previously. I think it’s a good approach.

Hon Rachel Brooking—it’d be good to have some shape now to where we’re going. We’ve been largely moving around, so I’ve come back to you because you seem to be moving more methodically than some of the other members.

12:40

Thank you, Mr Chair. I was, in my last contribution, asking about the type of artwork of the spatial plan. I would now like to keep on spatial plans, which are still just at the end of Subpart 1, and also noting, Mr Chair—I can’t remember if you were in the Chair or not when we started at this Part, but the intention is to go through the clauses and then the schedules rather than jumping to the schedules, in part because it’s just a big document.

It’s the jumping around that’s making it a little bit awkward, so I think we need to keep moving forward.

Yes, no, moving forward. Clause 74E is where I’m at, and there’s an amendment here from the Minister responsible for RMA Reform that “A joint regional spatial plan—(b) must clearly identify which local authority or local authorities are responsible for administering each provision of the joint regional spatial plan.” I was wanting the Minister to give some colour to that. He’s just said that the spatial planning committees don’t have to be elected members. They can be, but they don’t have to be. How does he foresee the different councils breaking up the administration for the provisions, noting that the provisions are watercolour provisions, not oil painting provisions? Would they be mapping specific areas, or would they be doing some sort of monitoring and enforcement of objectives, or monitoring policies, methods, or all the standardised rules that are going to be inserted? I just think it would be interesting to know why this amendment was made and what it is that he thinks they should be doing.

12:42

I mean, it’s partly just a statement of the obvious, which is, in clause 74E(1), when you’ve got two regions to agree to a joint one, and that may happen. I mean, clause 74EA specifically says that Nelson and Tasman need to do a joint one for reasons that I think are relatively obvious. I don’t know, I don’t want to get ahead of other regions or imply that I think they should do that, but there may be regions that decide, “Righty-o, we’re going to do a joint one.” Clause 74E(2A) is sort of a statement of the obvious that you need to work out who’s administering each provision because, by definition, you’ve got two different regions with the boundary in the middle, and it’s intended to signal that there may be subcommittees that work on different parts of it. It’s really just, probably, a bit of a catch-all to be honest. I would say an avoidance-of-doubt clause.

12:43

Thank you, Mr Chair. Moving on, then, to land use plans and my tabled amendment at 7.36.01 last night that goes to clause 81, “Provision in land use plan”, and it is the same inclusion that I had for the spatial plans. I’m not sure if the Minister responsible for RMA Reform was in the chair then, and that is that “they must include objectives for achieving well-functioning urban and rural environments, including objectives relating to the distinctive characteristics, values, qualities, identity, and anticipated future character of places within the region.” As I mentioned earlier, that is to give some colour and to note the importance of place and plans when you are doing planning.

I say that because I’ve been worried through the select committee process and the other readings of this bill that there’s an idea that you don’t actually need any planning. That, instead, people will just be importing standardised pieces and doing the colouring in rather than actually thinking about place and how important that is, and we’ve had the discussions about green spaces before that relates to that, so I’m wondering if he would consider that amendment.

12:45

Thank you, Mr Chair. Because we did jump around a bit referring to the Minister responsible for RMA Reform’s amendment to the Amendment Paper, specifically about the statutory officer, I just wanted to signal that I think this merits a bit more discussion because it’s not something that was considered during the select committee process. It’s just been introduced quite late, so I just had a series of questions on that, but I still want to come back to some Amendment Papers about the regional spatial committee process and membership. I guess I’ll go to the statutory officer because I think it would be worth us having just a bit of a discussion about how that’s going to work.

It appears to me from the Amendment Paper that’s been tabled by the Minister on 25 August at 7.26 that the “duties of the statutory officer” is mainly relating to proposals and land use plans, or does it also apply to regional spatial plans? Does it apply to national direction at all? Would you expect the Government to be getting advice from the statutory officer for national direction? The reason I ask this is because, obviously, land use plans are meant to be consistent with spatial plans and are meant to be consistent with national direction, so just wondering if the Minister could tell us a little bit more about why this has also been introduced at this late stage. I’m not opposed at all; just really, genuinely interested and curious about how this came up, because I don’t think it’s anything that we heard about in the submissions to the select committee. I’ll leave that there, but I’ve got more.

12:46

The short answer is that it’s about land use plans, not spatial plans. The second question was about advice to Government around national direction, and the answer is yes. My expectation would be that if there are trends developing over time, the statuary officer could say to the Government that you might want to amend national direction here or use this wording, to Mr Twyford’s point before.

Take, for example, what is rapid transit? It seems relatively obvious, but we had a five-year debate in Wellington about whether or not the Johnsonville train line is indeed rapid transit; the level of the gauge, the frequency of the trains, did enough people get on? Should the train stations be counted as rapid transit? It was an interminable, annoying, frustrating, and insane debate.

Auckland Council, for example, has decided that one of the stations in the City Rail Link, I forget which, only has one main entrance now, and because it only has one entrance, the height limits around the station therefore need to be varied, even though it will be one of the most busy train stations in New Zealand history. I’m not making this up. They have recently decided to downsize various parts around the station. I take your point. I mean, I’m just getting a bit ahead of myself, but if there start to be trends and things like that developing, which I suspect there will based on previous council behaviour, then I would expect the urban land officer to tell us that.

In relation to where this came from, very briefly, as the member knows, I am passionate about driving change in our housing markets and creating competitive land markets. It would have been preferable to get into this earlier in the process. I accept that. As we reached the kind of crunch point of the bill coming back from the Environment Committee, we had a fresh look as a Government at national policy direction. I hope that this will be the first and last time we look at these issues for a while. There can be some refinements, but I don’t want to go through a Big Bang reform process again. I think, frankly, the Parliament’s over that. I think the country’s over that. The planning profession is certainly over that. Councils are definitely over it. So we want to do this once and we want to do it right. I accept that it’s a bit late in the process, but on the other hand, you want to get this right and try and create the best quality legislation that you can. That’s the explanation.

12:49

Thank you so much, Mr Chair, and thank you to the Minister responsible for RMA Reform for his answers. I guess I’m wondering—and it’s somewhat related to the example he just brought up about the station design at Maungawhau—will transport costs also be within the brief of considering competitive urban land markets? As I have raised repeatedly, you kind of can’t separate housing costs and transport costs. There’s a relationship between them. You can get much cheaper land and have much higher transport costs, and the overall impact on a household budget could be the same or worse. Low-income people are often pushed out to places that have poorer transport access because there are lower housing costs, but then they have much higher transport costs. It is entirely possible that you could get advice that you need to zone for a whole lot more land where there are not good transport infrastructure services, because that will bring down the cost of housing, but it could have a perverse impact on the overall cost to households if we’re not taking into account the transport infrastructure and services that are available.

With the Minister’s point, look, I totally think there should be more upzoning, but at the point of designing a station, if they’re value engineering a station and the Crown is paying and the council is paying, it would be good for them to have the advice that actually if you’re building a train station here, it should have more than one access point, because that will enable more access to the station. I guess what I’m trying to get at is will the statutory officer be able to consider this holistic relationship between competitive urban land markets and transportation services and infrastructure and the prices?

12:51

Yeah, I mean, some of what the member is covering is under the kind of general rubric of well-functioning urban areas, which is a theme of the—well, it’s in the goals, for starters, but it’s a general theme.

Without getting ahead of the independent officer who will do this work, if the member reads Schedule 10A of the Amendment Paper she was referring to, the assessment framework is the key bit. The statutory officer must establish, review, and maintain an assessment framework to be used in making determinations under clause 3, which is the competitive land markets thing, and in the manner prescribed by regulations and national instruments, which we haven’t done yet, so the short answer is possibly yes, but the point is the land market officer has to do the framework and we’re actually leaving it over to them. There will be a bit of give and take around—you know, the Government may wish to issue some direction around that as well as per national direction and then standards. But, I mean, to be fair, there’s a bit of detail to be worked through on this. We are kind of building the plane as we fly it a bit, but I’m really confident we’re heading in the right direction.

12:52

Just one more. You’ve mentioned that it’s not applying to regional spatial plans, but land use plans have to be consistent with regional spatial plans, so how does that work?

The land use plans are where the rubber hits the road on this stuff. I mean, I suppose it’s not completely accurate to say that they don’t affect regional spatial plans, because one follows the other, but going back up, I suppose they’re tangentially related. The point is there is a focus on the land use plans because that’s where the rubber hits the road around competitiveness. Yes, it’s true that the land use plans must follow the spatial plans, but the competitiveness stuff comes in at the land use plan level. The whole point is that the spatial plans will be “watercoloury” enough so that if a land use plan change is required, that will not be inconsistent with the spatial plan. I suppose, is it possible to envisage a scenario in which that is the case? Yes, possibly. We can’t plan for literally every eventuality, but my expectation is that doesn’t happen.

12:53

Thank you, Mr Chair. This is a question that returns to the spatial planning committee reviews, which is clause 74 to the end of that subpart. The most straightforward way I can ask this question that I want to know—you’re right that the Crown has an interest in some of the arrangements that exist between iwi and council. Then there are some instances where the Crown doesn’t have an interest, but those arrangements exist just between the iwi and the council. When you end up with local councils that are participating in the spatial planning committees, my question is when the arrangements change at the council level with iwi, how is the spatial planning committee meant to take that into account? Is the council meant to go and advocate for it? You’ve created some special conditions here which mean that the spatial committee must consider that. That’s in the case of marine and coastal area title or in the environmental covenants for ngā rohe moana o ngā hapū o Ngāti Porou.

But there are other covenants which are like that which the Crown does have an interest in, like the covenants created by Te Urewera Board under Te Urewera Act. Those are legislative covenants. Then there are all of the non-legislative covenants, because of course you can enter into a private covenant. The question there is how are the spatial planning committees meant to take them into account?

The Treaty settlement legislation has grown up over a time where the Government’s resource management arrangements aren’t meant to take into account every kind of arrangement that will come up in those. They’re meant to be negotiated on a one-off. The most recent, say, was Ngāti Pāhauwera’s management charter, which also creates a kind of legislative covenant. But to have its local authority then going along and advocating at the spatial plan level to take those into account simply won’t happen, so is the eventual outcome that they almost don’t exist at the spatial plan level?

12:55

Well, all I can say in response to that is it depends. It depends. I mean, the bill lays out requirements for the appointment of spatial plan committees. Councils are separate things from local authorities, although obviously connected, because local authorities make the appointment. The short answer is it depends on what the local authorities wish to do in relation to their own arrangements with local authorities. The bill is not prescriptive around that.

12:56

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Optimistic.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I didn’t expect us to get another call this close to lunch, but I appreciate it.

We’ve jumped around a lot, but I’m going to briefly take us back on two amendments that I’ve got on the Table for clause 67B.

Going backwards without new points won’t help.

I promise you it’s new. It’s to do with what is focused on in the regional spatial plan expectations, Minister, where you set out the key drivers in clause 67B(2). One of the notable things is you’ve put in the marine and coastal area and priority areas for planning to adapt to the effects of climate change. My amendment proposes that what should also be in there is a requirement to accommodate natural hazards; priority areas for environmental protection, enhancement, or restoration; potential flood zones and flood pathways, which in the context of our climate-changing world and the desire for us to have lasting infrastructure and space seems like an important thing; significant natural areas; outstanding natural features and landscapes; ecological corridors, including potential pathways for restoration of ecological corridors; and finally, drinking water sources.

On that final point, can the Minister specifically elucidate as to why something as important as drinking-water sources would not be a thing that should be spatially planned for? We’re acutely aware of the need to protect source water, being rivers, lakes, and aquifers, which is the foundation of water supplies, particularly in regions such as Canterbury or Southland where groundwater is an essential part of the water infrastructure or water necessity for the public. I wonder if he can explain to us why he hasn’t included those things and whether he would consider including them. Thank you.

12:58

Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to move on—

Actually, no, I’m anticipating the member may take some time. We’re very near the cut-off for lunch, so save yourself for afterwards. I’ll go to the Minister.

I’m advised that not every region will need to do that. It may be that in some regions we do that. If it is significant, we may do that through national standards, but it’s not a hard legal requirement, but regions may choose to do it or we may make them.

The time has come for me to leave the Chair for the lunch break. The committee will resume following question time. Thank you.

Debate interrupted.

14:01 · to the Minister of Finance

Does she stand by her answers to oral question No. 3 yesterday?

Yes, in particular my statement that to raise core Crown revenue to 33 percent of GDP in the 2030-31 fiscal year, the Government would have to increase taxes by $10.4 billion in that year, which equates to over $100 more tax per household every week. I’m very glad that the Leader of the Opposition is listening. I’ve done his maths for him, but perhaps he should’ve done it before he made his announcement.

That’ll do, thank you. [Interruption] Just try and keep it slightly calm. We all know what the season is.

If she stops telling lies about us, I’ll stop telling the truth about her.

For the member’s sake, I’m going to pretend I didn’t hear that comment.

Well, point of order, Mr Speaker. I did hear that comment, and I will not be called a liar in this House.

Offence has been taken. The Leader of the Opposition should withdraw and apologise for that remark.

I withdraw and apologise.

What options would the Government have to raise that amount of tax?

A future Government would have several options to get core Crown revenue to 33 percent of GDP. It could, for example, introduce a capital gains tax. It could cancel the current Investment Boost policy. It could deny interest deductibility for residential rental properties. However, those policies together would only raise around $3.5 billion in the 2030-31 year, which is a long way short of $10.4 billion. More taxes would be required.

What sorts of tax increases would raise that amount of revenue?

I’m aware that members of the Labour and Green parties have a lot of ideas on that score.

No, no, sorry—your awareness of those things doesn’t matter.

Can I try again with a better answer?

No, we’ll have the final supplementary—and no one else speaking.

Could personal tax increases raise enough revenue?

Well, of course, raising that amount of revenue could be achieved a number of ways, including through increasing personal tax rates. An option for a future Government to raise core Crown revenue to 33 percent of GDP would be, for example, through increasing personal income tax rates. It could put the current 17.5 percent income tax rate up to 20 percent, and put the current 30 percent income tax rate up to 33 percent, and put the current 33 percent income tax rate up to 35 percent. These tax increases, together with a capital gains tax, scrapping Investment Boost, and denying interest deductibility, would raise $10.4 billion. So that combination would work. It would also, of course, reduce the take-home pay of New Zealanders. Households would again be paying over $100 more tax every week. To be clear: this Government is not considering any of those options.

Living in a fantasy world over there.

The Hon David Seymour and no one else, as I keep saying.

In the absence of $100 a week per household of new taxes, could the Government instead just borrow $10.4 billion a year, but what might that do to inflation and household budgets in that scenario?

Yes, well, of course, if the Government committed to a target of increasing spending to 33 percent of GDP but did not find the revenue to fund that, it would have to add to debt. That would have a couple of impacts. The first is that that degree of fiscal stimulation would lead to higher inflation than would otherwise be the case, it would then lead the Reserve Bank to lift interest rates faster and to higher levels than would otherwise be the case, and it would lead to a significantly larger debt servicing bill for every single New Zealand taxpayer.

OK, we’re moving on now to question No. 2.

Supplementary.

Yeah, no, you can call them all you like.

Oh, what, come on—I was up. I stood up quick.

Yeah, I know. Read your Standing Orders.

14:06 · to the Prime Minister

E tautoko ana ia i ngā kōrero me ngā mahi katoa a tōna Kāwanatanga?

[Does he stand by all of his Government’s statements and actions?]

Yes, and I can reassure the member that there will not be an increase to 45 percent for the top tax rate; we won’t be implementing an inheritance tax, a death tax, or a rentals tax, or a wealth or asset tax.

Does he believe that his proposed resource management system will do a better or worse job of protecting the environment?

It will do a better job of protecting the environment but also getting the economy growing.

Should environmental limits protect the environment to support both ecosystem health and human health?

The new legislation strikes the right balance of getting the country moving and growing while also protecting our environment.

What does he say to Forest and Bird, Greenpeace, and the Environmental Defence Society, who put out a statement last week saying that the amended resource management bills are “Effectively removing environmental limits from the Natural Environment Bill;”?

We respect their views, but at the end of the day, we’re growing this country and we’re getting this show on the road.

Why does he think that after 30 years of degrading waterways, with nearly half the total length of rivers unsafe for swimming, that self-regulation by the dairy industry will lead to better environmental outcomes?

I reject the characterisation of that question.

Have the amendments introduced to the resource management bills addressed the concern raised by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment that the wide ministerial powers in this regime create incentives for special-interest lobbying of Ministers, and if not, why not?

In answer to the first leg of the question, no.

Question No. 3, the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins.

Is that all?

Just a moment. There’s been an enormous amount of cross-floor conversation today, an enormous amount of conversation among the benches today, and an audible sort of buzz around the place, so everybody just quieten down. One person speaks when they’re called to ask a question.

14:09 · to the Prime Minister

Does he stand by all of his Government’s statements and actions?

Yes, I do, and particularly our desire to implement and vote for a rates cap at first reading, at second reading, and at third reading to make it law to lower the cost of living for Kiwis.

Does he agree with the statement of Christopher Luxon in August 2022, “As a minimum, our health and education spending will be increasing by the amount of inflation going forward in our Government.”; if so, has health and education spending increased by at least the rate of inflation over the last three years?

Well, there have been very good investments in both health and education, but I’d just put it to the member that what’s really important are the outcomes and the results. When we look at the great work done by our Associate Minister of Education in getting 175,000 kids back into school and regular school attendance, that’s a good thing, because 45 percent, which was the record that that member left, was unacceptable for a First World nation. When we look at the improvement that we have on structured literacy and structured numeracy, and those great outcomes for kids, those are fantastic outcomes. When we look at the health outcomes—whether we take the five health metrics and targets—there’s been good progress there with more money going in, 2,100, extra nurses, 900 extra doctors since we started, and improvement in all the key targets, which is good progress.

Is the fact that health funding hasn’t increased by the rate of inflation over the last three years the reason that our hospitals are increasingly in crisis mode, you’ve got paramedics treating patients in hospital corridors, neonatal units are understaffed and unable to provide care to our most vulnerable babies, and hospital patients are sleeping in soiled bedsheets because there’s no one there to change them?

Well, I’d just say to the member, we’ve followed pretty much the same investment plan that the previous Government had. But I’d also say we’ve put $4 billion more into health spending. It’s running at $34 billion; it started at $30 billion when we came here 2½ years ago. But what’s most important is outcomes. We’re not like the last Government, which increased spending by 70 percent and delivered worse outcomes. Take the record on education and healthcare and put it up against us any day of the week, and your record was shameful.

So why is a third of nursing shifts being understaffed a positive outcome for the health system that he’s proud of?

Well, I reject those stats. What I see is we’ve got 2,100 extra nurses in our system, we’ve got 900 extra doctors in our system, and we’ve got an improvement in health targets—key health targets. Immunisation rates for under two year olds are up almost 11 percent since you left Government and I took over this Government.

Does he accept responsibility, then, for the fact that Middlemore Hospital has lost the equivalent of 74 nurses over the past two years, leaving paramedics treating patients in hospital corridors?

What I take responsibility for is a Government that has invested $17 billion almost over the last three Budgets over the forecast periods. I take responsibility for finding 2,100 extra nurses and putting that into the healthcare system; I take responsibility for putting 900 extra doctors into the system; opening up a third medical school; opening up places for nurse practitioners, nurse prescribers; putting record funding into GP private—you know, primary care.

Private.

And also making sure—yeah, go look at the numbers. Go look at the numbers—go look at the numbers, you’re more than welcome to do that. And importantly, opening up 24/7 telehealth, and $604 million into cancer drugs. We have more to do, but a good start.

Does he accept responsibility, then, for the fact that Auckland City Hospital lost the equivalent of 74 nurses over the past two years, with its emergency departments capacity being breached one day out of three over the last year?

Well, what I note is that we are in the worst influenza season in a decade; the health system is managing exceptionally high demand currently. But if I just look at Waitematā district, it has improved five points in emergency department performance in the last year. It’s gone from 63.2 percent being seen within six hours, to 72.2 percent. It was 61 percent when he left Government; it’s now 72.2 percent in Waitematā in the middle of the worst influenza season in a decade.

If the health system is getting the funding that it needs, why are only two-thirds of Starship Children’s Hospital’s cancer ward being fully staffed?

Well, again, this is a Government that’s putting more money into healthcare, it’s putting more workforce into healthcare, and it’s actually delivering better outcomes. There is more to do, but we have put more money, more resources in, and we’re getting better outcomes than your Government.

So if Government funding for education has increased by at least the rate of inflation, why are students paying fees that are nearly 20 percent higher than they were when he became Prime Minister?

Well, again, I just say look at the investments we’ve put into education. We are focusing on three things. Attendance, because in a first world country 45 percent of kids going to school regularly is unacceptable, particularly when you’ve been the education Minister for 5½ years.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. Perhaps the Prime Minister—

He doesn’t even know.

Hang on. Some of your own people are calling out.

The Prime Minister may not have heard that the question was actually about tertiary student fees, which have increased nearly 20 percent during the time that he’s been Prime Minister.

I don’t think that word was put in there, but do you just want to ask the question again. Make it clear.

If education funding has increased by at least the rate of inflation under his leadership, why are tertiary students paying fees that are nearly 20 percent higher than they were when he became the Prime Minister?

Well, this is a Government that’s put a big priority on primary and intermediate and secondary school education. This is a Government that inherited a huge mess in vocational training: a $300 million investment to create Te Pūkenga over 5½ years of a previous education Minister, with no results. Actually, we’ve put those polytechnics back out into regional New Zealand to connect people with jobs and into work. So our record on education—I know that the member doesn’t want to admit it. After 5½ years of his supposedly being a champion of education, we are fixing his mess, we are fixing those results, and we’re proud of that progress.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you, sir. Earlier, the Prime Minister sought the opportunity to compare the record of this Government to the previous Government. I therefore seek leave for there to be an urgent debate immediately after question time to debate that topic.

Leave is sought. Is there any objection to that course of action?

Yes.

14:15 · to the Minister of Local Government

Why has the Government introduced legislation to cap council rates?

14:16

Because for too long, ratepayers have been hit with steep and unexpected rates increases, adding pressure to household budgets at a time when many New Zealanders are feeling already the squeeze. Ratepayers nationwide have been hit with median increases of 14.2 percent and 9.2 percent over the past two years, respectively. Under this Government, the days of roller-coaster double-digit rates increases are coming to an end.

How will the rates cap help keep rates affordable for households?

Under this legislation, councils will be required to keep annual rates increases within a target range of 2 to 4 percent. Rates increases are cumulative, which means that the amount a household will save grows over time. Rates are also one of the biggest household costs which households have no control over. In 2024, we saw average rates increases across the country of 14 percent. If we’d had a 4 percent rates cap at that time, we would have avoided an average 10 percent increase, which cumulatively would have saved the average ratepayer approximately $2,881 over that 10-year period.

How much could ratepayers save with a rates cap?

Just to give a couple of specific examples: in Waitaki, a 17 percent rates increase on the average rates bill of $3,500 would add about $595 a year. Under a 4 percent rates cap, the maximum increase would have been around $140, saving the average ratepayer about $455 a year. In Auckland, a 7.9 percent rates increase on the average rates bill of $4,378 would add about $346 a year. Under a 4 percent rates cap, the increase would have been around $175, saving the average Auckland ratepayer around $171 a year.

How has the Government ensured that councils can continue investing in essential infrastructure under the rates cap?

Again, a rates cap doesn’t sit in isolation; it sits alongside the replacement of the Resource Management Act, which will significantly reduce the number of consents councils have to grant. It also sits alongside the changes that this Government has made to infrastructure funding and financing, which will give councils better financing options. Rates capping sits alongside a whole suite of changes that this Government has made that focuses councils on the basics and it gives them the right tools to get the job done.

14:18 · to the Minister of Finance

Does she stand by all her statements and actions?

In context, yes—particularly my answer to question No. 1 today, which the Leader of the Opposition took issue with. Everything I said in that answer was completely factually accurate.

Who is correct: Nicola Willis, when she said that the Government would “reduce food prices for Kiwis”; or Cameron Brewer yesterday, when he said, “We, as a Government, are all about more sustainable food price increases”?

Both are correct, and it’s also correct to say that food prices are lower than they would otherwise be if we had had a Government that was pumping up inflation with excessive wasteful spending.

Who is correct: Nicola Willis, when she said that “Prices coming down is exactly what we want to see”; or the Prime Minister, when he said that decreasing prices was a bad thing?

Well, again, both are correct. It can be the case that overall inflation is stable and within the target band but that there are also some prices for some goods which are falling. If she looks at the most recent food price inflation, which had food inflation slowing to 1.9 percent, she’d see that within that basket of goods, there are some food items which have reduced in price.

Why did she claim in August 2024 that she was “starting to get the cost of living under control”, given since she took office, the price of cheese has increased by 28 percent, steak by 37 percent, and butter by 88 percent?

Because when I made that statement, I was reflecting on the fact that inflation in that year had dropped dramatically. In the September 2024 quarter, it was at 2.2 percent; March 2025 quarter, 2.5; June 2025, 2.7. A fair comparison would be, for example, June 2022, when inflation was 7.3 percent; September 2022, when it was 7.2 percent, as it was in December; and March 2023, when it was 6.7 percent. The fact is this: with disciplined spending and a single mandate for the Reserve Bank, this Government has exercised much more control over inflation and therefore general price increases than the last Government ever achieved.

Does that mean that overall food prices are higher or lower than three years ago?

It is a disappointing day in this House when the Opposition finance spokeswoman needs to ask that question. Yes, it is the case that food prices are higher; it is also the case that wages are higher. What matters to people being able to get ahead is that wages rise faster than inflation and prices.

How does the Minister of Finance find it, taking lectures about prices from people who created more inflation than a bouncy castle?

No, you’ve asked a question that is designed to attack the Opposition. We’re not having that.

When did the Government’s policy change from “help bring down food prices”, “reduce food prices”, and “lower grocery prices” to “We, as a Government, are all about more sustainable food price increases”?

It has consistently been the case that we are working to ensure that food prices would be lower than they otherwise would be, in a context in which fiscal policy is so expansionary that it is driving out-of-control inflation. New Zealand has had a very recent experience with this under the last Government, when food price inflation reached 12 percent. It is the case that when Governments are disciplined about their own fiscal choices, that lowers overall inflation and food price inflation. It is also the case that there is a very live debate occurring right now in our body politic about the virtues of simply spending more without the means to pay for it. The reality of what that does is it drives up prices for everyone, as occurred during the cost of living crisis under the last Government.

14:23 · to the Minister for Regulation

What initiatives has the Government taken to ease the regulatory burden on New Zealanders?

A great many, in fact. I dare to say that cutting red tape and deleting stupid rules has almost defined this Government’s programme. Perhaps no initiative stands out more than replacing the Resource Management Act with a simpler system grounded in property rights, and for that I commend the member for his stoic and conscientious efforts, alongside Chris Bishop. That reduction in rules and red tape around using people’s own land is the single biggest initiative to make wages higher and houses more affordable as we spend more time getting stuff done and less time being told no in this country.

What practical results has the Ministry for Regulation delivered?

Well, again, in sectors from the hemp industry to hairdressers to hospitality, you are seeing the Ministry for Regulation hearing the concerns of regulated parties, which they might not have been willing to tell their regulator, and formulating plans that are now being implemented to cut red tape and delete stupid rules. For example, the benefits of reducing the time to import a horticultural or agricultural product or a veterinary medicine into this country is expected to free up $270 worth of value, just from reducing red tape. We’ve seen many small initiatives—something as simple as being able to bake a cake and sell it, or put your garden shed wherever you like—that all stacks up to saving hundreds of millions of dollars by unlocking New Zealanders’ potential to get stuff done.

What action has the Government taken to reduce unnecessary regulation in the workplace?

Well, many of these initiatives that I’ve already talked about reduce regulation in the workplace. However, there are many specific initiatives that the Government has taken—for example, those by the Minister for Workplace Relations, Brooke van Velden, who has replaced a broken Holidays Act that was so bad even Government departments couldn’t seem to work out how to pay people properly; restored 90-day trials; clarified the status of contractors vis à vis employees; and removed unnecessary employment law barriers. Brooke van Velden has also overhauled the health and safety law so that businesses can focus on critical risks and actual safety rather than tick-box exercises. I could go on, but this Government, across the board, has been committed to giving people more time to actually produce the things that they need so they can get paid more, so things can be produced more cheaply, and so they can afford them rather than being in compliance activity.

How is the Government reducing the burden imposed by earthquake-prone building rules?

Well, I mean, this is a perfect example and perhaps one of the largest and most significant initiatives the Government has taken, which is to save an estimated $9 billion in excessive earthquake compliance. These rules have destroyed people’s livelihoods. For example, a constituent of mine who lost her life savings because her body corporate did some routine maintenance which triggered earthquake strengthening work, lost everything having to comply with that law. It will now be gone. We’re going to save $9 billion. That was the work of the Hon Chris Penk. It’s very sad what happened there, but when you get military people too close to Government, they often try and take over eventually.

Question No. 7—Suze Redmayne [Interruption]. Suze Redmayne—and no one else.

14:27 · to the Minister of Agriculture

Is the Government considering a capital gains tax on farms?

14:28

No, we will not be implementing a capital gains tax on New Zealanders, just as we will not be implementing a land tax. As the Prime Minister has said, a capital gains tax would be a wrecking ball tax for the New Zealand economy. The Government is keeping taxes low so New Zealanders, including rural New Zealand, can keep more of what they earn and have more choices about what they and their families can spend their money on.

What reports has he seen about a capital gains tax on farms?

I’ve seen a report by Federated Farmers that says, and I quote, “The constant threat of new taxes completely undermines farmers’ confidence to invest in our businesses to increase productivity, efficiency and sustainability.”—and I end the quote. A capital gains and land tax, with inevitably complicated rules, would mean New Zealand businesses would pay more tax, and it would be harmful for the business confidence and the Kiwis that own those businesses. We should be finding ways to reduce tax, like the Government’s Investment Boost, so people can invest and innovate, grow their businesses, and create more higher-paying jobs.

What other reports has he seen about taxes on the rural economy?

Former finance Minister Bill English said about capital gains tax, and I quote, “I think every finance minister has a look at it, and they seem to come up with the same answer. In fact, Michael Cullen told me that at the time, he said, I’d go through it and then IRD will tell me that it’s actually not … worth it” in the end. It’s clear that successive finance Ministers have recognised that a capital gains and land tax would not drive prosperity or help New Zealand, and this is why the Government won’t be implementing either of these taxes on rural New Zealand.

Has he seen any other reports about taxes on farms?

Well, yes, I have. A farming representative said—and again I quote—“every election we find ourselves responding to proposals that unfairly target farming: methane taxes, water taxes, wealth taxes, land taxes, or capital gains taxes.” Federated Farmers describe the capital gains tax as a “mangy dog, that [would] add unacceptably high costs and complexity to the rural sector”. They are right. We should be backing the rural sector and their 360,000 jobs, not taxing them more, which is why our Prime Minister has ruled out these taxes.

14:30 · to the Minister of Education

Does she stand by all of her statements and actions?

14:31

Yes, and in particular my actions in special education. I’m really proud of the work that we’ve done in the last three years, with 142 extra special and satellite classrooms around the country; six almost full school redevelopments of our special day schools; and three new special schools: one in Drury, one in Palmerston North, and one in Gisborne—they are the first that have been built in 50 years—and tens of millions of dollars into learning support modifications. Inclusion is choice, and I’m really proud to have ruled a line in the sand to fully support the special education sector.

Why did she say, in relation to teenage use of social media, “We know the harms and we need to do something about it.”, if she doesn’t intend to pass the first reading of the Online Safety (Minimum Age and Child Safety Risk Assessment) Bill before the election?

Every parent knows the harm of social media. That’s on top of all of the reports and evidence that are now starting to flood out. I am really proud of the fact that we have worked hard for the last year to get to a point where we can introduce a bill to the House and show the country what we are proposing. We would have introduced it so much earlier—

You could do it today.

No, careful. Carry on. Thank you.

Why did she say, “We’ve watched these platforms become more sophisticated, more persuasive, and more powerful. This has to change.”, if she doesn’t intend to change it by passing the first reading of the Online Safety (Minimum Age and Child Safety Risk Assessment) Bill before the election?

It’s interesting, this line of questioning from the Opposition. They have had five months to be this passionate about it. I have given them multiple occasions viewing the bill, asking questions, having my officials at their beck and call. If they had been this passionate about it weeks and weeks ago, we could have introduced it and had a first reading, but they buggered around and here we are and we’re out of time.

Point of order. By the Minister’s own admission, sir, this is a very important issue. That was a straight question, it wasn’t political in nature, asking why—[Interruption]

Listen! A point of order gets heard without any comment from anyone else in the House. Please start your point of order again.

By the Minister’s own admission, this is a very serious issue. It is entirely legitimate and, actually, a non-political question to ask why the Government has made such a big deal about the introduction of a bill, citing its importance, but not wanting it to be read for the first time despite there being a few weeks of sitting left. For that question to be responded to—

Come to the point. What is the point of order?

The point of order is that the entire response of that straight question was political in nature, which, as you know, and, in fact, the House knows, is clearly against Speakers’ rulings. Straight questions deserve straight responses.

That’s true, but there are also Speakers’ rulings that make it clear that when a political question is asked, a political answer will be given, and it most certainly was, in my estimate.

Why, when there are more than 26½ hours of House time remaining after this week, won’t the Minister commit just one hour to passing the first reading of the Online Safety (Minimum Age and Child Safety Risk Assessment) Bill?

We’ve already made it very clear that there are not many days left of sitting. We’ve got a very, very full agenda, but as I’ve already—[Interruption]

Just a moment. Sorry, just a moment. We’ll hear the rest of this without the barracking from anywhere else in the House.

We’re right in the middle of an extraordinarily important bill brought by Minister Chris Bishop: the Planning Bill. We’ve got a very full agenda. There are only a few days left of sitting time, but as I’ve already said, we could have done this so much earlier if we had had more support from the Opposition.

You’ve said enough.

Why did she ask young people to speak publicly about their deeply personal experiences of viewing disturbing content online, including self harm and extreme violence, to highlight the urgency of this issue if she is now saying that job can wait until after the election?

Those videos have been up for some time on my social media to raise awareness of what is an extraordinarily serious issue that I have been spending the last—[Interruption]

Sorry. We’ll now hear the rest of the answer in complete silence. You can start again.

Those videos have been up on my social media for a long time because we wanted to highlight to the public, to parents, and to anyone who wants to learn about the harms of social media that this is extraordinarily important and that we are talking to young people to understand what their concerns are. But again, part of it was also to let the Opposition know, because for all of that time they wouldn’t support the bill until yesterday. [Interruption]

I’m going to have to ask one of those front bench members to either keep it down or take an early cup of tea.

Is it correct that on Monday this week at 3.30, the Government announced the introduction of the Online Safety (Minimum Age and Child Safety Risk Assessment) Bill, and on Tuesday at 2 p.m., we indicated the bill has our support, only for the Government to say at 4.25 on Tuesday that it won’t allow a first reading of the bill before the election; and if so, why is the Government seeking to use such an important issue as a political football? [Interruption]

Just a moment. This has been identified, obviously, as a political question, so we’ll listen in the same silence to the answer.

In relation to that second part of the question, I have been working extremely carefully over the last five months to not turn this into a political issue. I have given multiple briefings about the bill on multiple occasions to the Opposition, including one time when they were able to invite all of their MPs to come and see the bill in a room and only four of them bothered to show up. They have had plenty of time to support this bill and they didn’t bother to do it till yesterday, after asking 79 ridiculous questions late last week. [Interruption]

That’s enough. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer—question No. 9.

You got caught out.

Sorry, do you want to leave or not?

Oh, if you want me to, I will.

No, I don’t particularly want you to; I just want you to be a little bit more considerate of the process and particularly the opportunity for Debbie Ngarewa-Packer to ask a question.

14:39 · to the Prime Minister

Does he stand by all his Government’s statements and actions?

Yes, in particular this Government’s response not to implement a capital gains tax or a wealth tax.

Does he accept that his Government has increased taxes, levies, fees, and charges on 32 occasions despite repeatedly telling New Zealanders there would be no new taxes?

I’m very proud of the fact that this is the Government that introduced tax relief for the first time in 14 years that helps lower and middle income working New Zealanders.

Why has his Government prepared to give the largest tax cut gains to higher income households and hundreds of millions of dollars in tax relief to property investors while increasing costs on ordinary New Zealanders?

I reject the characterisation of that question.

If debt is still rising, and struggling whānau are being asked to pay more, why is asking the wealthiest New Zealanders to contribute more the one option his Government refuses to consider?

I want to correct the member: a capital gains tax or a wealth tax would be an absolute disaster for New Zealand. It would just add cost on to low and middle income working New Zealanders. This is a Government that cares deeply about low and middle income working New Zealanders, as evidenced by the fact that we were the first Government in 14 years to give tax relief—sadly, opposed by Labour, Greens, and the union movement, and that’s bad, bad, bad.

Can the Prime Minister confirm that this Government scrapped the tenant tax, and rent rises are at their lowest increases for 25 years?

I can. I can confirm that under a previous administration, it went up $180 a week. What I can say is we’ve had the lowest increase in rent in 25 years; that is a function of very sensible housing policy. We saw house prices go up 30 percent in a single year. The good news is we’ve got first-home buyers at record highs at 29 percent; affordability has improved; and, most importantly, we’ve had people sitting on a social housing State house wait-list—it went up four times under the last Government—and, I think, we’ve taken about 7,000 people off that list into proper homes, and that’s all good stuff.

14:42 · to the Minister for Resources

What announcements has he made regarding petroleum and mineral exploration in New Zealand?

Recently, I announced that the seventh petroleum permitting application has been accepted for assessment. Since the repeal of the offshore wimpy, unloved, loathsome exploration ban—

That you announced.

—imposed by Jacinda Ardern, when she misled Winston—

No—no, sorry.

Point of order.

No, it’s not necessary.

I don’t want to hear from that 3-inch toad.

No, look—[Interruption] I’ve been very clear that the rules are, and have been, for as long as this Parliament has sat, the Government cannot use questions to itself to attack the Opposition. That is exactly what was happening in that question. You get one more shot at it and then we’ll be out if it can’t come into line. Jamie Arbuckle.

Supplementary.

Point of order. I believe he called one of his colleagues a “3-inch toad”, and that shouldn’t be allowed, surely?

Well, you might find that offensive applied to you; clearly, they don’t. Can we have Jamie Arbuckle.

How many petroleum and mineral permits were approved in the past year and how does that compare to previous years?

Point of order. I’m presuming that I’m answering the primary question, sir?

No, you’re answering the supplementary.

No, your reference to me, in correcting me, was to have another go. I presume you were inviting me to—

No, I didn’t say that.

—correct my answer to the primary question.

No, I said we will have one more go at hearing the question, but we’re on the supplementary now.

So on the supplementary?

Yes—yes. Do you want it read out to you again?

I have announced, on behalf of the Government, that we have now received the seventh petroleum application. We will be considering an application from CBX Energy, and they will be proceeding in the Pegasus Basin, east of the North Island, to undertake technical studies based on existing geological geophysical data. A country that understands and backs its resource potential is better placed to control its future—a future, sadly, that was snuffed out as a consequence of a bad decision in the past. Thankfully, that future was salvaged when this Government overturned a bad decision, and, as a consequence, energy security is in far safer hands.

How does the extractive sector support the New Zealand economy?

The New Zealand economy is on a far safer footing as a consequence of an expanded mineral estate. It is important that I read into the record: 2025 calendar year, 434 petroleum mineral permit approvals—the highest number on record, more than double the 210 approvals in 2023 and greater than the previous record of 393 in 2024. Since the beginning of 2024, more than 1,000 permits have been issued.

We’ll cancel them soon.

The Government is bringing—ah, I have heard they’ll all be cancelled. This is why New Zealand cannot afford to change the Government. We have heard the Venezuelan recipe—

No, no. That’s enough. Sit down, Mr Jones.

Supplementary?

No, we’re moving on to question No. 11.

14:47 · to the Minister for Infrastructure

Does he stand by his statement that “it depends”, when asked if ratepayers will pick up the bill that would otherwise have been paid for by development contributions for fast-track approvals on land not zoned for housing; if so, what does it depend on?

In context, yes. My full statement during the environment Estimates debate last week was: “The short answer is that it depends. It depends on the project, and it depends on the conditions granted in relation to that project.” I also said that people need to read the conditions, because I think there is an assumption that, if something is fast-tracked, building can happen immediately. People should read the conditions. They’re often extremely extensive around highway upgrades, waste water and stormwater, local roading upgrades, wetland restoration, the need for network capacity or an alternative solution if there is no capacity, and more, before a project can even happen.

Does he agree with Auckland Council analysis cited in the letter from the mayors of Auckland and Queenstown that ratepayers could end up subsidising the infrastructure costs of current fast-tracked greenfield projects by up to $1.5 billion?

I haven’t seen the underlying analysis around that claim, but I do agree with the general point, which is that, in relation to the wider network infrastructure effects, we should maintain a core principle that growth should pay for growth. That’s why the Government has announced amendments to the Local Government Act in order to make sure that development contributions can be lifted in response to out-of-sequence greenfield fast-track projects.

Why should Waimakariri ratepayers have to pay infrastructure costs for Carter Group’s Ōhoka development that has twice been rejected due to major concerns over flooding, transport, and infrastructure and is now being considered again via fast track?

A couple of points there: one, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on that, because that project is before—

Looking after your mates.

Well, it is before an independent panel appointed under fast track, so it would not be appropriate for me to comment. In a more general sense, in relation to all projects, I would just encourage the member, as I said in response to the primary question, to go and read some of the conditions attached to greenfield fast-track projects, which, as I read out, are often extensive, often mean the projects will be staged once the infrastructure has been built, and often require the developers to provide a range of infrastructure upgrades.

Were the mayors of Queenstown and Auckland wrong when they told the Government, “The unchecked use of the fast-track system to force tens of thousands of houses into rural areas with limited public infrastructure is not helpful”, and will in fact make things worse for many ratepayers?

Well, there’s any number of factual inaccuracies in that statement. I have huge respect for both mayors. Firstly, the powers are not unchecked; secondly, there is no compulsion or force required; and, thirdly, housing can go in rural areas as long as there is infrastructure required to service that development. That literally has been the process of development in New Zealand for the last 150 years, and the Government stands by fast track.

Why does he continue to support the Delmore project when he said, “If the infrastructure is not there, not only should you not be allowed to do it, you actually can’t.”, since that project will have to truck sewage to Whangārei?

Well, in relation to Delmore, it’s not a case of whether or not I support it or not; it’s a case of whether or not it has gone through an independent expert panel process, which it has. Again, I repeat what I’ve said twice now, I encourage members to read the decisions and read the conditions. Stage two of that project cannot go ahead until all—

Sewage to Whangārei. Read it.

Listen—listen. You might learn something. I know it’s difficult for you, but you might learn it. Stage two cannot go ahead until all necessary infrastructure—roading, waste, and waste water—is addressed. For waste water, this could include a connection to a public network, expansion of the stage one private waste water treatment plant to service the entire development, or another solution. You need to read the conditions of all these projects.

How can he claim that fast track is working well when he has left ratepayers on the hook for hundreds of millions in infrastructure spending?

I can claim that fast track is working well because near where she is, the Hananui Aquaculture Project, which was declined under the Resource Management Act, will provide hundreds of millions of dollars of investment in a salmon farm in the South Island and give effect to a Treaty settlement. I can claim it’s working well because Precinct Properties got approval to build a billion-dollar development in Commercial Bay in just six months. I can claim it’s a success because 1,000 megawatts of renewable energy generation capacity has been consented in the last 18 months alone. I can claim it’s a success because the Waitaha Hydro scheme, the first hydro to be built in New Zealand in 20 years, got approved after seven months when it was declined under the previous Government. And I can claim it’s a success because, in the Waikato, we’re building a waste steel recycling facility providing hundreds of jobs. Fast track is getting New Zealand building again, we’re building the future, and we stand behind it. [Interruption]

Question No. 12, Chlöe Swarbrick, and, I say it again, no one else.

14:53 · to the Prime Minister

E tautoko ana ia i ngā kōrero me ngā mahi katoa a tōna Kāwanatanga?

[Does he stand by all of his Government’s statements and actions?]

Yes, and particularly our decision not to implement a 45 percent top income tax rate, and particularly our decision not to implement an inheritance tax, a gift tax, a rentals tax, or an asset tax.

Does the Prime Minister stand by his many previous statements that increased costs for businesses will result in increased costs for consumers; and if so, does he understand that his intention to make power companies pay for his billion-dollar liquefied natural gas (LNG) import facility will result in higher power bills for New Zealand consumers?

Well, as I said to the member yesterday, the good news is—and I know she takes a great interest in this because failed energy policy from the previous administration had people lose their jobs—wholesale electricity prices have dropped 35 percent since the peak of 2024. Our energy plan is definitely working; we’re lowering the risk premium, that’s lowering the bills. And look, this is more good news: the Meridian CEO said that he’s going to pass on to commercial customers next year that drop in wholesale electricity prices, so the strategy is working. We have a strategic coal reserve in Huntly, we have a strategic diesel reserve in Whangārei, we have an LNG import facility coming as a backstop, and most importantly, we have a renewables boom under way in this country and that’s fantastic.

So does the Prime Minister think that energy is the only sector in the economy whereby increased costs on businesses are not passed on to consumers?

Well, as I said yesterday, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment and National Infrastructure Funding and Financing are working through the LNG import facility. It will not be funded by a levy on power bills. It’s very simple for us. We are de-risking the dry year risk, and as a result we’re lowering power bills. That’s a good thing. You’ve just seen it in wholesale electricity prices. The failed policies of the last administration led to $800 per megawatt-hour wholesale electricity prices. I just encourage the member to get on the website and look out and check out the forward electricity wholesale electricity prices and you’ll see some really great value there.

Supplementary.

Supplementary.

We’ll just do one over here. Chlöe Swarbrick.

Why is the Prime Minister comfortable using billions of dollars of taxpayer money to underwrite the LNG import facility, which is not backed by any independent expert or economist?

Well, again, as I said, we’re working through a process, and when we complete that process we’ll have more to say about it. But I just want to say to the member, the energy strategy of this Government is actually lowering wholesale electricity prices. We were in an absolutely tragic situation where destroying and banning oil and gas led to $800 megawatt-hour wholesale electricity prices, and mills and regional jobs were lost across this country, thank you to the previous Labour-Greens administration.

Can he imagine believing that residential rental property was the only sector in the economy where increasing taxes wouldn’t be passed on to consumers—i.e., tenants?

Well, there’s a very good case, you know—the Deputy Prime Minister raises a very good point there, which is that, under this Government, by restoring interest deductibility, managing the brightline back to the period of time, we’ve actually been able to lower rents in this period. Having stable, lower rents; we’ve actually had the lowest increase in 25 years—25 years—after $180 a week increase under the previous administration. That helps regular New Zealanders. That’s how you actually help them, support them in a cost of living crisis. And that’s why I just ask the member to please, please support the rates cap.

If his Cabinet can delay critical decisions on who pays for climate adaptation, why can his Cabinet not delay critical decisions on billion-dollar fossil fuel infrastructure until after the election, when he could argue that he has won a political mandate for something that he did not previously campaign on?

Well, I think New Zealanders appreciate downward pressure on power bills. That’s what the energy policy of this Government is delivering and that’s what we care about. We actually care about lower power bills. We care about working people getting supported in a cost of living crisis, and putting downward pressure on energy prices. That’s exactly what we need to be doing. A 35 percent decrease since the 2024 peak created by the failed policies of the last administration is actually fantastic news because that means lower prices next year are going to get passed on to commercial customers. That’s great for our economy: businesses grow, costs are lowered, and jobs are created.

Point of order. Mr Speaker, again, I appreciate that the Prime Minister does not actually have to answer the question, but he did not even attempt to address the question, which very specifically was about whether the Government would consider delaying the LNG import facility decision, which will be underwritten, potentially, by a billion dollars of taxpayer money until after the election.

Good. You’ve outlined your argument, but not exactly a point of order. But the Prime Minister most certainly addressed the question that was put to him. Do you have another supplementary?

I’ll take one.

I think we’ll leave it there. That concludes oral questions.

I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Planning Bill, the Natural Environment Bill, and the Emergency Management Bill No (2).

15:01

Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, as you’ve said, we’ve been working through Part 3. We’ve not got near the schedules yet, nor regulatory relief. I’m sure we’ll all want to talk about regulatory relief; that comes in at clause 92 and I’ve got an Amendment Paper on that. Before then—and I think maybe my Green Party colleagues might have other questions, I’m not sure—we’ve got clauses 84(a) and 84(b), which are all struck out, which are the requirements for rules that control fishing. I know there was a small debate on this point—well, one question—in a different part of the bill about the processes of the Fisheries Act in a contribution from Rachel Boyack, but what I would like to know from the member in the chair is why was it that these changes for rules that controlled fishing happened after the select committee process, and, in fact, after another resource management bill that went through the Environment Committee that amending the fishing controls that took a lot of House and committee time last year?

It is my understanding that the provisions that were in the Resource Management (Consenting and Other System Changes) Amendment Bill—that those fishing controls then came into the Planning Bill went through the select committee process. I don’t think there were very many amendments to them, but now they’ve come out. So why is it that they’re coming out after all of that process and after this Government has, in two different pieces of legislation, included them? That’s my question on those sections before we get to regulatory relief.

15:03

Fishing and the impacts of fishing on biodiversity and on the environment are able to be managed under the Fisheries Act. What this Government’s been very clear about is we want this legislation—the Planning Bill and the complimentary Natural Environment Bill, which we intend to become law—to be very clear and focused in their scope. If the impacts of fishing can and should be managed under the Fisheries Act, then there is provision to do that. We’re just being clear about what the scope of this bill is.

15:04

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m really happy to take this call right now, because I specifically want to pick up on the Minister’s comments around fishing, because this has been a substantive change that has come in in the last-minute amendment. I’m really interested to hear directly from the Minister about what the implications will be for particularly those areas of the country who have put in protections for ocean ecosystems under their planning regimes. When they move to the new system and they’re putting in place these bills, does that mean that the protections will have to be removed when those plans are notified? I’m thinking particularly where we’ve got instances in Northland, in the Bay of Plenty, and in Marlborough. This is a serious change and those people and communities, and iwi and hapū in those jurisdictions, will be really keen to hear the Minister’s answers to that.

I also am interested to understand where the justification came for the last minute change, because some of these areas are recently put in, and why risk reopening these protected marine areas to fishing when they actually hasn’t been any thorough assessment done, and any research about what has actually happened to the affected habitats and the biodiversity in terms of recovery or otherwise? Has the Minister consulted with these councils and those communities that have been affected by this, because the rug really has been pulled out from under them.

With the Minister’s reliance particularly on the Fisheries Act, the other aspect that I really want to understand is, we know that the Fisheries Act itself has been too slow when it comes to actually being responsive to ocean ecosystems. It’s usually at the point where fisheries are collapsing when the alarm bells go off and we’re taking some form of action, or at least assessing it. So why that insistence to rely on the Fisheries Act when we know it’s been so slow?

Why as well—the Fisheries Act has as its focus the use—and, in other words, the exploitation—of fisheries, rather than ecosystems, at its centre. I note that the bills and the new framework are pretty light on protections for biodiversity in particular. But again, why go and rely on the Fisheries Act versus where things could be and where they were with Motiti?

Finally, as we know, the Fisheries Act doesn’t make any reference to either life-supporting capacity or the maintenance of indigenous biodiversity. Now, these have been key aspects which have informed the development and the arrival of where these areas have actually got to when it comes to marine protection, particularly in the coastal areas. So I’m really keen for the Minister’s responses on those, and I know the communities will be keen to hear them.

15:07

I thank the member for the question. Thank you, Madam Chair. The member and I have chatted many times, in different forums, about how we agree it’s very important that New Zealand identifies and protects marine biodiversity, and that in the places where overfishing and fishing practices have damaged the marine environment, there’s a pathway to restoring them, including through the Hauraki Gulf/Tīkapa Moana Marine Protection Act, which is a start.

The member makes a good point: it takes many years of monitoring and evaluation to determine whether the tools and the actions are having an effect on improving marine biodiversity. But I just want to be clear, we’re talking about regional plans, and while the fisheries legislation continues to be a primary mechanism for managing the effects of fishing on marine biodiversity, the existing plan provisions for some of the plans that were mentioned—in Northland, Bay of Plenty, and Marlborough—will continue to be in place throughout this transition period until the new system comes online, estimated by around 2030. By that time, it is reasonable to expect that these protections, where sustainability, where managing fisheries’ impacts have not been carried out to a satisfactory level, that the Fisheries Act then provides for that, and we expect to see action under that Act and under the leadership of the responsible Minister to drive that.

But what we’re talking about here today is the planning provisions. So I’ve been clear: the provisions we have exist until the transition period is complete. I fully expect that under the fisheries legislation, what we will see is a focus on delivering all of those protections that we agree are important, but they’re not in scope of this legislation because this is a planning bill and we’re talking about spatial plans. We will leave that to fisheries.

15:10

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to ask a question on clause 71 around the appointment of the spatial plan committees. My question is based on the answers from the previous Minister in the chair. It was actually quite an important question, and it relates to an answer he gave earlier that the local authority can appoint a non-elected member to the spatial plan committee. My question is whether that member, if they are not elected, has full voting rights and make up part of the quorum. Based on the answer to that question, I’ll have a follow-up question.

15:11

Just one little point on the fishing: the member in the chair said it is not in scope because this is the Planning Bill. But the bill as introduced included the fishing controls, so it’s totally in scope. There can’t be an argument of scope; that makes no sense whatsoever. It’s there and he’s deleted it, so it is in scope. I’m happy for the Minister to tell me why I’m wrong about that.

Moving on to regulatory relief—so I’m now on clause 92—there are many sections now on regulatory relief, but I just want to take the committee to my Amendment Paper, No. 667. I got this Amendment Paper in very early, and I do think it would be good if it were just one number earlier, because I think 666 would be very appropriate for these regulatory relief provisions. What this regulatory relief scheme is going to do is one of either two things, or both of them combined: that is, it is either going to cost ratepayers up to $2 billion—$1.99 billion by the Government’s own figures—or it is going to lead to the undoing of environmental protections, plus it is going to create great, great inefficiencies in the system, and there’ll be many more jobs for lawyers.

It can all be solved very easily. Amendment Paper 667 is part of that, and so it is the—

6-7!

Oh, no! I’m sorry, Madam Chair, but I’ve got colleagues who are talking about 6-7, but never mind.

Put it on TikTok!

Put it on TikTok—not quite on TikTok. I say thank you for the suggestion to the member for Southland. That Amendment Paper is simply to delete clause 92 and Schedule 3—we can go to Schedule 3 later. But I think there can be no justification for these regulatory relief provisions. They are dangerous, they are a total change in how New Zealanders have treated property law in this country, and I’m sure the member in the chair will be happy to claim responsibility for it. It is an importation of American ideas about property rights. There is already, in the Resource Management Act, section 85 for when land really cannot be used. This section 85 provision is rolled over at clause 105, so that is all that is needed. These regulatory relief provisions: they must go.

My question is whether the member in the chair would like to agree with my amendments and be done with these provisions that are going to lead to a whole lot of churn in the system, a whole lot of extra plans, a whole lot of extra debate, a whole lot of extra litigation, a whole lot of extra valuations, a whole lot of diminished environmental protections, and a whole lot of ratepayer costs. We can solve it all—it can just be gone.

15:15

There are a number of questions I’d like to respond to, before we get on to regulatory relief. To the member Mike Davidson, who asked about spatial plan committees, members do not need to be elected members of a local council, they can be appointed, and that is because we envisage that people with sufficient technical capability and competency will be required, and they may not come from the pool of elected members. They will have voting rights, apart from the appointee from central government, who will not.

I just want to close off that part of the debate we were having on fisheries. One of the reasons that we’re shifting away from having regional plans manage fisheries is that fish can swim across regional boundaries. Fish are not necessarily going to stay within the regional boundary of the plan made for them. So putting firmly the responsibility for managing the environmental effects of fishing back where it belongs, under the responsibility of the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries and into the Fisheries Act, where it specifies that that is one of the tasks of that Act. That’s why we’ve done it. It means that no matter where the fish swim, we’ll be able to look after them, wherever their habitat is.

Now, I want to come to the member’s obsession with the number 666. We never impugn another member’s motivations here, so I can only assume she’s a big fan of heavy metal, but her Amendment Paper 667, proposing to delete references to regulatory relief in the system, will not be accepted, and I’m going to explain why. For far too long, the cost of imposing planning controls that have public benefits—whether it’s protecting outstanding natural features and landscapes, protecting areas of high natural character, heritage overlay, and sites of significance to Māori—have been borne by the private property owner. The member proposes that those costs will instead be borne by councils. Well, they’re already being borne in the system. What we are doing is making it very clear in the new system that where councils seek to impose those types of planning controls that have a public benefit, then they will be faced with justifying the cost, with seeking the approval or acceptance of the private property owner, who may wish to voluntarily accept the benefit of a heritage overlay or a heritage planning control over their property, for example. But if they do not, then councils will have a number of options available to them. They will be able to offer regulatory relief in the form of cash, or additional planning permissions, additional planning flexibility, so that a property owner might be able to develop another part of their property to a higher intensity or another property that they own to a higher intensity, or rates relief.

Now, it is true that it will take councils some effort, firstly, to accept that they are faced with the consequences of applying planning overlays on private property, where they never have been. They’ve been able to use this thing—a highlighter—to colour in maps. I met a property owner up in Taihape. She was a widow who had responsibility for the family farm after her husband died, and she was shocked and anguished to receive a letter saying 75 percent of the property would be covered by an outstanding natural feature and landscape or a significant natural area. What that meant was to the property value and to the ability to use it for farming was potentially tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars in costs to apply for consents for things that previously had been a permitted activity.

We’re going to force councils to face that cost and to be very clear in the new system that they will only need to protect matters that have high value, that have significance, and that there will be a standardised test at a national level to help councils, to guide them as to how to apply those tests and the same—when it comes to regulatory relief—standardised approaches to help the councils. But this cost is there in the system right now. We cannot hide it. It falls on private property owners. In the new system, we’re going to make sure it’s revealed.

15:20

Kia ora. I just wanted to follow up on my colleague Lan Pham’s point around marine protections and just ask a brief pātai to the Minister around the transition, and whether, following the transition, those marine protected areas such as us in Northland will exist. Or will they cease? And then with these amendments that have come forward, what consultation or consideration has the Minister and officials undertaken with Te Uri o Hikihiki, Patukeha, Ngāti Kuta of the Bay of Islands—so, the tribes of the North—who worked really hard and advocated alongside community for these marine protection rāhui tapu areas to be installed? Will they exist afterwards, you know, with the transition? If not—oh, OK—why? But also following transition, if they are to exist, will they still exist in the same form? Kia ora.

15:21

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to pick up on this novel and controversial topic of regulatory relief. There’s a lot in this, and in sort of opening, and picking up from Rachel Brooking touching on this, I want to make it really clear that the majority of submitters—and these are literally the words from the departmental report—"of the submissions that touched on regulatory relief, nearly all expressed opposition. So this was across councils, it was Māori, it was environmental and community organisations, it was heritage groups, it was resource management practitioners, it was legal organisations and individuals. I can appreciate the theoretical place where this has come from because there are absolutely those nightmare stories out there where individual people have found themselves to have quite significant barriers put in place on their land.

Now, the question, and why I think there’s been such strong opposition to this is: what is the response to that? And this response is very extreme. Not only is it extreme, but it has been expressed clearly and time and time again by all of these submitters that it is unworkable. Not only is it unworkable in a bureaucratic sense but it clearly has been pointed out that it will result in an erosion and loss and degradation of biodiversity.

Can you come to your question.

Sorry, sorry, Madam Chair. Why I really need to provide that context is because I’m going to the questions, but that is what was so clearly established through the select committee process. I think it’s really important to touch on that to frame the questions.

When the Minister just said then that the system would only protect high-value areas and those areas of significance, this is of absolute importance to the questions because it’s admitting that we will lose biodiversity. Because a lot of our existing biodiversity isn’t big, national, native forests at a landscape scale; we’re talking about small scale dry land biodiversity, patches of kōwhai here, patches of wetland there. They are not in themselves significant, but they are absolutely important.

Let’s pick up first on the bureaucracy of this. I want to pick up on the very helpful outline that Environmental Defence Society (EDS) has put out there around what it actually looks like to try and implement this regulatory relief framework. They talked about the fact that even before any protections would be put on the table, the council would have to assess, at a property level basis, 24,000 private properties across the region that would be subject to a planning rule to which regulatory relief might apply.

Now, my question for the Minister is how are those councils—and Auckland Council is at one end of a spectrum, right? Because we know that most of our biodiversity is with these smaller councils, areas like the Waitaki, areas like Mackenzie, which have very low ratepayer bases, but they will be having to fund, before they even get to the point where they are proposing these regulatory relief rules that might actually protect areas of biodiversity, they are having to go through these processes.

Now, what EDS points out around it is that they need to assess these on a property by property basis. This is going to be an absolutely crippling burden on councils, and now on top of this—

The member’s time has expired.

15:26

The member may well be right that many submitters to the select committee were concerned about the cost, the burden of having to identify these qualifying matters at private property level. Well, let’s be clear, these costs are already being borne. They’re being borne by the property owners who have restrictions, often applied with very, very vague information based on aerial photographs, based on assumptions made from the farm gate or in the case of trees in Upper Hutt. I had a letter from my constituent who said, “There’s a tree hanging over my house. I can’t get rid of it because it’s going to cost about $10,000 in consent fees and arborist fees, and I can’t afford it.” How on earth is a pin oak that is probably 30 or 40 years old end up being such a cost to private property owner? That’s what the current system allows.

Or a woman who—I know Minister Chris Bishop has referred to a number of times—in Lower Hutt who was told that even though their mother is disabled, putting a wheelchair ramp and putting in some modern lighting so should actually see her way into the home when she gets home in the evening—not allowed because the house is heritage protection. On what basis does the member and all of those people who submitted think it’s acceptable to impose those costs for so-called public benefit on private property owners without any tension?

I’m going to come to answer the member’s questions, and we’re going to have a bit of time on this, if the member seeks to have more calls. So let’s be clear: in the new system, the burden that many of these organisations claim will fall on them, will actually be lighter. Because by lifting up what we consider important to be significant or high value, actually a lot of what the member might consider to be of some value will not need to be considered. So the burden on those carrying out these evaluations will be lighter and there are many options. Because when I think about the farms that I’ve visited, and you know, lifestyle blocks up in Whitemans Valley, not far from here in Wellington, where people have chosen voluntarily to enter into covenants to protect indigenous biodiversity, to protect wetlands on their property, that will still be available in the system.

Again, when councils have undertaken an evaluation of whether these qualifying matters applied to private property, in the first instance the private property owner will be able to accept the imposition of a proposed planning control, and without seeking relief; they might say “That’s fine. We like that patch of bush on our property. We’re quite happy to see it protected in that way.” When I hear the conflation of the problem—“It’s a burden, it’s expensive”—well, look, councils have done a whole lot of this planning from the desktop. They’ve imposed these costs on people and they face none of their own. So now they’re going to have to hold up a mirror and actually ask themselves, “Do we really believe this is significant or outstanding, and if so, are we prepared to enter into an agreement with the private property owner in order to protect these public values?” Remember, these are public values that other people apparently value. So if we’re going to apply those to private property, then the private property owner gets to have a say, and they may well be eligible for relief in the new system.

15:30

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for letting me have this call, because I want to directly discuss the issues that the Minister has just raised, and I want to do it in a really practical way.

Are you referring to clause 92?

Yes, I am. So in my area, I have specialists in landscape who have talked to me about their concerns about this bill. I also have specialists in heritage. My understanding from law school and land law was when we pick up property, what we’re picking up is a bundle of rights. Those rights will differ in different circumstances. If I buy a piece of the Mackenzie Basin, I’m buying a beautiful property, but I know it’s important to the people there, because they’ve already significantly signalled that that property has value. Now, it might not be what is called “outstanding landscape” under this bill. It might be on the hills below, and that’s how it was explained to me by one of the landscape experts that I’ve seen.

Now, when I pick that up as a farm, I don’t expect to be able to build the same kinds of things, because it’s precious to its community, and I pick it up at a price that actually resonates, and it is responsive to the rights and the limitations on my rights. So it is the common that has decided the value. When a Minister comes along and changes everything up in the Mackenzie Basin so that, now, a council in that area will have to compensate the landowner, aren’t we transferring—this is quite a philosophical question—a new property right to that party, so that they can now do anything they want with that property, or the community has to pay? So we’re paying twice, because that land has already had a value that’s reflective of what it can be used for and what it can’t.

Now, if I just take an example in my own neighbourhood of something with high historic value, it may not reach the threshold of, again, being at the extreme end, but it’s valuable to the community, and it’s often recognised as that. So those prices reflect it. I know that what the Government is doing is attempting to chill the whole policy of deciding these things as a community. But don’t we have a right as a community to decide those things? Why on earth would we compensate someone who can anticipate that those things are of certain value to the community and already knows that that limit is upon it? Aren’t we gifting a private property owner a whole new right? Isn’t that what we’re doing in this circumstance? Aren’t we actually transferring property rights, which is absolutely consistent with a right-wing agenda, but is not consistent with my agenda or the needs of my community.

I already in my area have building up. I already have more intensification than most of the communities that are represented in this House. I’m glad to do it, but I do expect some sort of control on it when, in fact, there is an issue where my community values something, it’s valuable to the community. Why would I pay the member if he owns and if he buys that property for the right that he didn’t have yesterday? Why would I be paying him for that? I cannot understand that logic as to the economic value, when the economic value is determined by the bundle of rights that that owner had at the beginning of the process.

Have you got a specific question you want to direct?

Those are all very good questions. So does he agree it’s part of his right-wing agenda in the ACT Party? Is it, in fact, giving more property rights? Is there an economic argument that says that there is a lower economic value placed on land at the time now and, in fact, he’s gifting economic value to whoever happens to own it? Is it something where the community has a right to, at the present time, stand up for itself and say, “That’s a value to us.”? And why shouldn’t that be compensated if, in fact, it loses that right? Are you going to give everyone else in the community that?

15:35

Just before we get to that member’s question, I just want to correct the committee on a comment I made in relation to clause 71, appointment of spatial planning committees. I’ve been advised that the Minister can choose or decide whether central government’s member on the spatial planning committee has voting rights or not. That’s in response to a question from the Green member Mike Davidson, so just making sure that that’s clear to the committee.

Now, let’s get back to regulatory relief. The member Helen White makes an excellent point that if you buy the land, and she raised the hypothetical of a property in the Mackenzie Basin—somewhere which is well-known for pivot irrigators and all kinds of fantastic primary production, although it is at altitude in a relatively dry area, they still get water and farm there. But let’s assume, hypothetically, that the member was to, under the new system, when regulatory relief mechanisms are in place, buy the land with those existing, let’s say, outstanding natural feature character landscape overlays already in place, then that member would be subject to a test, which I think in Latin is described as “caveat emptor” or “buyer beware”. In other words, if you choose to buy a property that has an existing control on it during the transition phase, then the purchaser will have accepted those controls. So there is no regulatory relief available in the hypothetical situation you describe.

Next: is this part of a right-wing agenda? Property rights are important in any functioning democracy and in any economy where people need to have certainty about whether the land they own, what the rules are, and if somebody—a Government, a local government—seeks to impose costs and controls on that land and on its development, they have access to some relief. Otherwise, the State could reach in and take your stuff at any time. This legislation’s very clear: we are resetting expectations that if local government—and the member mentioned a local community—places a high value on public values, that those who value it and seek to control it should be prepared to pay for that benefit. That is not extreme, that is not an agenda, it’s simply stating the obvious. If there are values a community wish to protect, and some of those values are on private property, and they have an impact on the value or the use of that property, then the community should willingly seek to contribute towards the protection of those values on private property. But if it turns out that community is not prepared to pay for it, then maybe they didn’t value them as highly as they were assumed to. What this legislation does with the regulatory relief mechanism will reveal that. It will create a process where the values of some and costs on the others will be revealed. It’s intentional and it’s going to be better for everybody who owns private property, including those who enjoyed the values that the member has described.

15:39

Thank you, Madam Chair. Two quick questions in response to the member in the chair. One is: can he clarify—I think this was his answer, so this is just a simple clarification—that if there is an existing protection, say, an indigenous biodiversity protection, on someone’s land, that regulatory relief will not apply to anything that is existing? That’s one question.

Then the second question is: does he agree with, then, the premise, given what he’s just said about private property rights, that one of the fundamental shifts in this piece of legislation is that the costs are shifted from private individuals to the community? Those are my two questions on that issue.

But then I think I could move on—

No.

No? I’ll sit down before moving to Schedule 2.

15:40

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll just take the opportunity to follow on from Helen White, who raised what she thought was a theoretical situation; actually, it’s a very real situation in the Mackenzie.

So the question to the Minister is: the reality, actually—the proposed solar farms. So if we assume some landscape values across the Mackenzie, and I don’t know whether they’re outstanding or not. In fact, it’s very unclear—very unclear—in the legislation as to who is going to judge whether it’s outstanding or not and whether it will be a measure by which private property owners will be able to seek compensation from the council should the council decide that large-scale solar farms are not appropriate, yet the person bought the land, probably designated as rural land, with the expectation of being able to utilise that to put in place a solar farm. So that’s one question: does the Minister think that compensation should be able to be claimed by the person who’s proposing the solar farm but may be blocked because it may or may not be designated as an outstanding landscape?

If I can go back to the development of that very land, where it was purchased for farming purposes, but, actually, technology, which is called centre pivot irrigators, came along and allowed a change in land use. There are many who say that those centre pivots have degraded the landscape values of the Mackenzie Country. I’m not making a judgment on that other than to say, in that scenario, should the council have said no, would the landowner have been able to seek compensation under this proposed legislation? What we have seen through the Resource Management Act in the past, and I suggest through this piece of legislation as well, is that we’re very innovative Kiwis and we tend to get on and make changes to land use and change activities on land, and the thing that many have raised through submissions, I know—I’ve not been on the select committee—is one of: in changing land use expectation, does that then entitle a landowner, a property owner, to compensation claims against the council? That is a very real question, not a theoretical one, because it’s happening right now.

15:43

In response to the member’s question, who will develop the regulatory relief mechanism, it’s intended to be developed as a national standard. The reason for that is because the Government intends that these processes not be bespoke and that they be applied consistently across the country. In order to do that, a standard will be developed. That is our intention.

I’m not going to provide a legal opinion on the member’s hypothetical about solar panels and farms and change of land use. The intention of this legislation is to provide for people who wish to use their property to have fewer barriers when it comes to planning and consenting. What we are doing through a number of mechanisms throughout the legislation, including through regulatory relief, is to relieve the burden on property owners, that those who hold highlighters and pens and use the Resource Management Act we currently have to stop them doing things that that would be imminently reasonable, where the effects are well understood and can be managed, from getting in their way. We are focused on growth and change, and we want to unlock New Zealand’s potential, and regulatory relief is just one tool in resetting expectations amongst planners and decision-makers and tilting the playing field, finally, level for private property owners.

15:45

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, just for the opportunity to carry on with that discussion. I suggest that it may be that people who have pens and highlighters will be replaced with people with quills, who used to be called lawyers. The question for the member—well, the member states that there will be a standard across the country. The landscape values in the Mackenzie are quite different from those of south Westland or, indeed, of north Auckland.

There’s not much pressure for a solar farm down there, though.

No. A lot of very good quality farming down south Westland.

Can I just say that that subjectivity is indeed part of the challenge that faced the Resource Management Act and faced councils up and down this country, but I struggle to understand—and maybe the Minister can explain—how he will establish a fair and consistent landscape value that applies to the Mackenzie Country, applies to Punakaiki Rocks, and applies to the Ninety Mile Beach to ensure that property owners are dealt with equitably, which I presume is his theoretical approach to this.

15:46

In response to the member Damien O’Connor’s questions, regulatory relief will be established—the process will be established through regulations, and the standards I referred to will apply specific methodologies, say, for example, to outstanding natural features and landscapes.

Now, it’s true that New Zealand has different geology, different features. This morning, we talked about karst landscapes, of which I’m a massive fan. But let’s be clear: we need to have a nationally consistent approach to determining what’s significant. And it may well be that there are unique features in a particular district or region that are truly significant, and the legislation allows for those to be protected.

Madam Chair—Madam Chair.

Is this a follow-on question?

Yes, it is.

The Hon Damien O’Connor.

15:47

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and I raise it while you’re in the Chair because you’re very familiar with this issue, and that is of outstanding biodiversity, significant natural areas, actually, that everyone discredited, said they were absolutely outrageous, laid down in the Resource Management Act (RMA). So dare I suggest, the challenge was that people on the West Coast saw significant natural areas, areas of significance in terms of biodiversity, as insignificant because they had lots of them.

So I struggle to understand how the Minister is going to just wave a magic wand and come up with a consistent policy when it comes to biodiversity that says that 2 hectares of native bush—we call it bush on the West Coast—in or around Auckland or in Canterbury that truly has significant outstanding features is insignificant in the hundreds of thousands of hectares in the West Coast. So how is the Minister going to solve the problem that we have faced through the RMA, how is this piece of legislation going to lay down one consistent approach to biodiversity and its significance in each and every region of New Zealand?

15:48

If I could just briefly address that, I’ve been clear: we’re going to adopt standardised approaches through regulation and through development of national standards. It may well be that most of the West Coast, which appears, as the member pointed out, to be covered in “bush” is all significant, or it may be that, actually, when you apply a standardised methodology and you stand back a little bit, you discover that, actually, there are things that do need protection because of their significance or value. But potentially, a whole lot of stuff that’s protected now doesn’t need to be. But if the member would care to hold off any questions about indigenous biodiversity and so on until we get to the Natural Environment Bill, I’m sure we could come back to it.

15:49

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll just remind the members opposite that we’ve not yet touched on the schedules. So it’s my intention to go now to the schedules, noting that one of the schedules does, again, deal with regulatory relief.

But if we go to Schedule 2, because we have not touched on Schedule 2 yet, I would like to talk about clause 6 of Schedule 2. Schedule 2 is regional spatial plans—and I know we’ve had some discussion earlier about some things about spatial plans that are at quite a high level, and then we get the detail of these regional spatial plans in Schedule 2. At clause 6 it is “Documents and other matters to have regard to when preparing draft regional spatial plans”. There are a number of documents listed there, and there are quite a lot of strikeouts and underlining in the Minister’s Amendment Paper, so it would be useful if the member in the chair could tell us if that’s just some sort of grammar issue or if it is something more substantial, and what the substantial changes are in there. That’s my first question.

The second question is—and I know my colleague from the Greens, Lan Pham, also has a published amendment on this section, but I have a tabled amendment and that is that after (m) in that long list to include (n), which is “in Auckland, Plan Change 120: housing intensification and resilience”. My question is if the member would consider including that as a specific issue to be considered for the Auckland regional spatial plan.

This aligns with another amendment I’ve made to a different part of the bill that I’ve raised earlier. My policy objective for including this here is simply to let what has been a very torturous planning process in Auckland run, really. Not going into the attributes or the deficits of Plan Change 120, but simply that there is a lot of effort and a lot of energy and a lot of money going into this plan change. How can it be enabled to not just be dismissed out of hand when this new process comes in, and how can it be enabled to run? That is my question on Schedule 2.

15:52

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m pleased to be able to take a call on Schedule 2. I’ve been looking at this. It’s not an area—unlike my colleague Rachel Brooking—that I am an expert in. My questions are technical questions and I’ll just refer to the specific clause number within Schedule 2 so the Minister is aware—

Sure, that would be very helpful.

Thank you. The first question I had in relation to Schedule 2 is in clause 2—and actually in clause 3 as well—we have references to preparations and changing of spatial plans, and I wanted to ask the Minister: would it be necessary to prepare as well as change under both of those sections? Because it appears to me they only apply to existing spatial plans. I just wanted to know the kind of legislative drafting reasoning for ensuring that both of those were included.

The next question I had was in relation to clause 4. This is a clause that talks about local authorities in a region working together. In clause 4(1), it’s quite a strong word—“must work together”—and I wanted to know from the Minister: what steps would be taken if there was, say, a reticence from a particular local authority that was included in that definition and they determined that perhaps one local authority decided that they didn’t want to work together, the steps that would be taken.

I also wanted to know, in relation to clause 4(1)(f)—that refers to “other matter prescribed in regulations.”—that would also be relevant to the process of preparing a regional spatial plan. I wanted to understand if the Minister could illuminate to the committee exactly what that would be.

I had a question in relation to clause 4(2)(b), which was in relation to the publishing of the process agreement. I wanted to know what would be considered “publish” in this instance. This is kind of an area which has probably recently changed in terms of our reliance on online sources and information. I wanted to know if that would simply be putting something on the website, for example. I’m happy for the Minister to answer my questions.

15:55

Thank you. I thank the member for the question. In terms of participation, it’s quite clear what’s set out there. I just come to the member’s question around what local authorities must do. They must work together to prepare a document—in other words, a process agreement as described in clause 4 of Schedule 2. It sets out a bunch of matters that they must do. And if they don’t, there’s a ministerial intervention power in this bill to respond to that.

I’ll just come back to the Hon Rachel Brooking’s questions around Plan Change 120 in Auckland. That keeps going under the Resource Management Act. It was a transition process, but it’s going to keep going.

There was a question that Rachel Brooking had around Schedule 2, clause 6. It is essentially a formatting matter.

In response to the member’s question around her proposed amendment, there is no need to add more documents to the list because clause 6 provides that spatial planning committees can consider “any other document or matter” that they consider relevant. We’ve sought to avoid trying to be exhaustive in the way that we describe every possible thing that participants in the system have to do. We’ve tried to provide them with as much flexibility as we feel they need when it comes to spatial planning.

15:57

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I did want to speak to my colleague’s Amendment Paper to Schedule 2. Lan Pham has a published amendment to Schedule 2, which would have amended the bill that was reported back from the Environment Committee, but I feel that we are more debating the Minister responsible for RMA Reform’s Amendment Paper 709. What this refers to is clause 6 in Schedule 2, which is laying out the documents and other matters that must have regard held to when preparing draft regional spatial plans. There have just been some technical drafting changes, it looks like. It’s no longer Roman numerals, but letters in the subclauses.

I understand the Government doesn’t want to put reducing greenhouse gas emissions or responding to climate change in the goals of the planning bill, but in Schedule 2 already—and in the Government’s Amendment Paper—there is a requirement for people who are preparing regional spatial plans to have regard to the climate adaptation plans, which is something that is a requirement for regions to prepare. It says—this is page 280—“(h) any plan relating to adapting to the effects of climate change prepared by a local authority in the region;” and they must also have regard to regional land transport plans, any Government policy statement or other document, land use plans within the district, the natural environment plan, the long-term plan prepared under the Local Government Act—you get the picture.

I think we heard very strongly from submitters at the select committee that it would make sense, since we’re already requiring that they have regard to adaptation plans, that they should also have regard to emissions reduction plans. I suspect I know what the member in the chair Simon Court is going to say, but we do need to make this point explicit on the record so that the Amendment Paper from my colleague Lan Pham is number 731. I think we would have to propose a different tabled amendment to the Government’s Amendment Paper, which is like the new version of the bill, Amendment Paper 709.

But what we would do is simply insert in Schedule 2 after clause 6(1)(h)— 6(1)(i); insert into that list of letters—a requirement to any emissions reduction plan prepared under section 5ZG of the Climate change Response Act 2002.

I think that would make a lot of sense, because just last week there was a story in the RNZ online about how Government had to consider cancelling carbon auctions after policy changes tanked prices. So this just goes to show why we can’t entirely rely on and regional communities can’t rely on the emissions trading scheme (ETS) to take care of reducing emissions, because Government policy is chaotic—at least under this current Government. It seems to be, while on the one hand they say, “We want to entirely rely on the ETS to reduce carbon emissions.”, they also have made a series of policy decisions over the past few years which have mostly driven down the price of carbon, which makes it extremely hard for people to plan long term and why we’ve had an ETS for two decades now and we’re still not really reducing emissions, especially not from transport—

Can you come to the question for the Minister?

Well, the question to the Minister is: will they consider at least putting in a requirement on regional spatial plans to take account of and have regard to any emissions reduction plan which is already legally required; if not, why not?

16:01

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Madam Chair—we haven’t even discussed Schedule 3 yet.

And I haven’t ruled, so don’t interrupt when I’m already addressing another member. Mr Hamilton, it’s a bit early. We’ve only just started on Schedule 2. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a small question also on Schedule 2. I know I said I thought I’d done my questions there, but then I saw a change to clause 4(1)(b), and that is that the word “unanimously” has been struck out, and it’s been replaced with “by consensus”. So this is clause 4, “Process agreement for preparing draft regional spatial plan”. I presume there might be some other changes like this. So my question to the member in the chair is: what does “consensus” mean? I presume in this context it does not mean being unanimous. Being unanimous means that everybody agrees, but some people think consensus means everybody needs to agree; some people say it’s just some sort of majority. If it is just some sort of majority, what sort of majority is it? So if the member could answer my question about consensus, that would be useful.

16:02

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll respond to the member Julie Anne Genter’s question and the member Rachel Brooking’s question. Rachel Brooking, consensus means what it means in the dictionary.

To the member Julie Anne Genter, the reason that climate adaptation plan is noted is because it’s important, in the context of understanding natural hazard risks, to make sure that when preparing a spatial plan, there is a relevant climate adaptation plan that identifies natural hazard risks should be incorporated into a spatial plan.

In response to the member’s question about including some of the things around emissions reduction plans, well, parts of emissions reduction plans can be considered when developing a spatial plan. As I mentioned before in response to a previous answer, committees can consider information that’s relevant. But in the case of emissions reduction, because of proceeding clauses and decisions taken, spatial planning committees will only be able to consider the positive effects of emissions reductions in their plans.

16:04

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just had a few more questions on Schedule 2 along similar lines to my previous questions—so just kind of technical questions. Apologies for not being a specialist in this area.

I had a question around clause 4(4). This talks about “The spatial plan committee and local authorities … must comply with the process”. I wanted to know what happens during a period of noncompliance. I just had a question in relation to clause 5 of Schedule 2. That talks about inter-regional content and sets out quite a prescriptive process that needs to be gone through when there is inter-regional collaboration. I wanted to know, is there a limit to the size of the regions that could work together under that inter-regional collaboration? What was the member thinking in terms of the maximum size of the inter-regional collaboration? In fact, what would be the smaller amount? Would it be simply two regional authorities, for example, that could utilise that provision?

I just had a question in relation to clause 6(1)(a)(vii), which talks about the effects of climate change being prepared by a local authority in that region. I wanted to know to what extend would the regional boundaries need to be specifically only applied to that region. So, for example, if there was a weather event that affected, say, most of the North Island, would that be considered an effect of climate change within that region, or would that be outside of the region because it would affect a larger area?

The other question I had was clause 6(1)(a)(ix), which talks about statutory acknowledgment. I just hadn’t come across that term—maybe it’s a specific Resource Management Act term—but I just wondered if the member could expand by what is meant by that, because that seems to be quite a wider term to be considered within that document. Is that a fair enough question?

He’ll be able to answer that question.

Apparently, that’s a very easy question that the member should be able to answer. So apologies for asking simple questions, but it is maybe that other people reading this bill have similar questions.

Then I wanted to ask around clause 7. This looks at incorporation from land use plan in the natural environment plan. It says that it may incorporate any of the following, and it has what I would assume would be quite helpful information, including things like ecosystem health limits in the natural environment. I wondered why those were optional—so why the member has chosen to use the word “may”.

The clause 7(2), there’s a clause here that talks about the consideration of inclusion, say, when there’s a natural disaster. So there could be, for example, a major earthquake or something, and that must be considered. I wondered why that was simply a consideration and not a more mandatory incorporation, given that on occasion these natural events could be quite disruptive.

So a few more questions just on Schedule 2, if I have time. In clause 8, there is a mandatory consultation that has to take place in relation to the spatial plan. I just wanted to know what the kind of ideal best practice consultation under clause 8 would be. I also wanted to know in clause 8(2) when the member talks about “A spatial plan committee may consult anyone else”, who did he have in mind when he listed “anyone” there?

I had some questions also in relation to Māori land and iwi authorities. In clause 9(1)(d), I wanted to know if an iwi authority didn’t agree that the issues they raised had been addressed, if there was any way that they could challenges that; and, if so, how?

16:09

I’ll just try and address some of those questions. The member would grant me some grace, because there were many questions. I’ll try and do my best, but if I miss any, happy to come back to them. Firstly, when it comes to joint spatial plans, there’s no limit on how many regions might want to get together and make them, but I think it would be unlikely to be more than two, but there is provision for more if they decided that it was necessary. We’re comfortable we can trust councils around that.

A number of other questions around pre-notification. What does best practice look like?

Well, we can leave that to guidance that, no doubt, officials will put together and provide in due course. There were a number of other questions. Can I just come back to the answer I gave on unanimity?

Consensus.

Sorry, on consensus. Obviously, there’s a definition in the dictionary, but there’s also a definition in clause 74B(5). It means general agreement or the absence of sustained opposition on any substantial issue.

That’s helpful.

Isn’t it? Thank you.

Madam Chair.

Is this a follow-on question?

No, I was going to move to—

OK. Lan Pham.

16:10

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to pick up on Schedule 2, and I’ve got a number of amendments that I’ll just refer directly to and move through those.

So the first is in Schedule 2, proposing to make a number of deletions, including clause 29 and 30 and change some wording in clause 32. The reason why I’m proposing these things is the Planning Bill and the resulting plans, particularly when it comes to regional spatial plans and natural environment plans, these are going to be in a brand-new process where people will not have the opportunity that they have been used to in actually having merit-based appeals where necessary.

The ideal, obviously, in this system, where the Government is going to—the ideal for them is that everyone is just going to be aware that these plans are happening. Unfortunately, we know that that is not going to be the case. There are going to be genuine situations and issues of real merit that it would be helpful, when it comes to the integrity of the new system, when it comes to natural justice principles, to actually extend these appeals, not just to on questions of law but to merit-based appeals.

Now, in theory, this could be phased out, but I think this would be something really critical when the consultation of our communities with iwi and hapū is so limited, this could be one improvement. So I’d really like to hear the Minister’s response to that.

The second one that I want to touch on in Schedule 2 is Amendment Paper 721—and sorry, that previous one was Amendment Paper 729. Sorry, I’ve just lost my schedule numbers—

16:13

Madam Chair, if the member would like, I can answer her first question while she recovers her paper trail.

In response to the question around what rights of appeals are there, when spatial plans are developed, they’re essentially strategies, and they won’t contain rules. So the concerns that the member raised in relation to spatial plans are unfounded. But when we get further into the regulatory plan-making, no doubt that question will arise again.

The consultation requirements are set out in the independent hearings panel process. Merits appeals will only be available for decisions made around designations that then come into the spatial plan, and that’s because of their impact on property rights. So if that helps, we can park it there and can back to the member’s further questions.

Great. Sorry, I just realised my other amendments are in Schedule 3.

Honourable Camilla Belich. Sorry, Rachel Hunter—Rachel Brooking. Sorry.

16:14

How many names—ha, ha!

I’m going to move to Schedule 3 then, as well. I had an amendment published, Amendment Paper 709. If we go to Schedule 3, Schedule 3 contains many things, but at the start, it’s preparing and changing plans in Part 1, before we get on to private plan changes and then legal effect of rules and then regulatory relief.

Part 1 is about this preparing proposed plans, which are very important, because, as the member just said, these are the things that can include the rules; these are the oil paintings, rather than the water colours.

Sorry to interrupt. Could you just refer us to the Amendment Paper number?

Amendment Paper—sorry, it’s not a published one. That’s why you can’t find it. Sorry. My apologies. It was lodged at 7.36.07, and it is in relation to Schedule 3, Part 1 is what it starts off with. What it is about is who can submit on a plan, because, as I was just saying, in the scheme of things, these plans are the regulatory documents. They are the oil paintings. And these are where people will need to have appeal rights, and I think the member in the Chair just acknowledged that. So who can get to those appeal rights is very important, and you get to them by being able to submit on a plan.

So what this Amendment Paper is about, it is about who can submit on those. So at clause 5, there’s a pre-notification consultation on proposed plan. At clause 5(2), there is a “However, a local authority is not required to consult a person or a group described in subclause (1).” So I want to delete that.

Then, if we go over to clause 15, which is pages away, it is notifying proposed plan for submissions. At clause 15(1), there is this word “targeted”, so it refers to “targeted submissions under clause 16”, so we should delete that and then delete all of clause 16 as well, which is about notifying proposed plan for targeted submissions.

Then at clause 17, which is who may make submissions on proposed plan notified for submissions, to replace clause 17(1)(a), which at the moment talks about a clarifying person, to replace that with “a resident of the district of the territorial authority for a proposed land use plan prepared by territorial authority or the region of the regional council for a proposed natural environment plan or proposed land use plan prepared by regional council or an organisation whose objects or purpose relate to a matter addressed by the proposed plan, whether or not the organisation is based in the district of the region.” I’ll come back to that in a minute.

Then at clause 20, I have another deletion of the word “qualifying” in clause 20(1)(a) and also the deletion of clause 20(2), which refers to who can make a further submission.

Now, this is because this bill is really restricting who can make submissions and saying that those groups who have a particular interest in something like heritage—I’m wearing a heritage sort of outfit today—that unless they live in the area, then they cannot make a submission. These are groups that can make very thoughtful submissions and very relevant submissions, so that is why I have this Amendment Paper to enable better representation of a wider range of things that are going to be in these plans, which are the sticky part of the system. So can the member tell me if he will accept that Amendment Paper and the widening of who can be involved in these plans?