Parliamentary debates: Thursday, 27 August 2026

09:00

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, for outlining just how much there is in this part. We are coming towards the end of our questions, but the Minister in the chair, last night, and I had a back and forth around clause 283A. I believe he said, “When you make a law, it has to apply.” The idea here, though, is that the Regulations Review Committee and the departmental disclosure statement have both dealt with the issues which arise from this clause, which is a very wide “Henry VIII” provision that provides for regulations to be made which are forward-looking and deliberately drafted in a way which seems to be Parliament saying with its full chest that these regulations will be for matters which may be policy matters which are not contemplated by this bill but by other Acts.

My first question to the member in the chair, Simon Court, is: at clause 283A(1)(b), we’ve got this very broad provision which allows “provisions of other legislation amended, revoked, or repealed by this bill” not to apply or to continue to apply or to apply as modified. What we’ve got there, essentially—and this is what I want to ask the member: would it be possible for regulations that applied under the Resource Management Act (RMA) to continue to apply for five years? I think that’s correct. So what would the conditions be that the member in the chair would expect those regulations to apply? Would he expect the regulations to apply within the policy intent of this bill? That’s not what it says, but that is a job for all of the parts of the funnel to make sure that the regulations do apply in a way which is consistent. For example, the cessation of Mana Whakahono ā Rohe agreements are in regulation, and this clause would allow a Cabinet, by Order in Council, to not apply that regulation for a period of five years; so to keep Mana Whakahono ā Rohe agreements in place and operative, and the ordinary 58UL of the RMA, I think, which provides for those Mana Whakahono ā Rohe—keep any regulations made under those in place.

I also want to ask him about the proposed change of subclause (2A), inserted by Amendment Paper 709, here. There’s a specific limitation that has come in at a later date, and his new amendment makes it clear that the sort of limitation in the regulations will be a shortening of time frames. Is the intention more generally that regulations will narrow in scope with the narrowing of the funnel, or is that just indicative of time frames? What are we to read from that new (2A)?

09:03

Thank you, Madam Chair. Last night, the Minister was in the chair, and I was asking questions about the provisions that will commence within a month of commencement—so presumably soon; who quite knows soon? We’ll have a debate about commencement shortly, and I will ask some questions about this. But I was asking about section 104 of the Resource Management Act, and this is one that limits what can be taken into account when assessing effects. I asked whether this was the death of urban design. I can’t remember the word that the Minister said, but it did start with “e” and it wasn’t extinct, but it was close to it.

Extinguished.

I don’t think so. It wasn’t quite extinguished either. But then the conversation somehow moved to TV screens—the placement of TV screens and Juliet balconies. We had quite a discussion about Juliet balconies. I don’t want to relitigate the Shakespearean quotes that were going around the Chamber late last night—

That’s good, because we don’t like to go backwards.

Ha, ha! But I do have two questions relating to that, and then a third question.

So the question on the conversation about the Juliet balconies and where you put the TVs, I had asked—and it was via interjection, but the member was responding—if he had examples of councils having consent conditions about the placement of a TV. He did not respond to that question. I would like an answer to that question, because he then morphed into Juliet balconies. That is obviously a cost on a developer. I understand his policy point there about wanting to be able to do affordable housing, but building a Juliet balcony and the price that goes into that is very different from somebody saying where the placement of a TV is. I have not seen examples of that, so I would like to know if there are examples of that. If that is the mischief that this commencement of the amendment to section 104 of the Resource Management Act is trying to deal with—not just Juliet balconies, but also TV placement. Then I also want to know about this word which wasn’t quite “extinction” for urban design. If the member in the chair, Simon Court, can comment further on how—it sounded like urban design was still alive, but only just. So if the member in the chair can say how alive that urban design is. Is it as threatened species? That’s what I want to know about urban design.

Then another question I asked yesterday that didn’t get answered was back in Schedule 8, rather than Schedule 11, and it was about the adverse publicity orders and this use of “built environment” and how that is a strange term and how it is to be interpreted. So I’d like the member in the chair to spend some time on that built environment and how it becomes—it’s not intuitive; unintuitive even. Is that such a word? I don’t know. I’ll leave it there.

09:07

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to respond to Arena Williams’ questions about clause 283A(1)(b). Regulations under the Resource Management Act will continue to apply, as provided for in the transition. The question was: are those powers to make regulations? They would need to be consistent with the intent of this bill, and that is a reasonably standard clause in bills of this size. You cannot have regulations beyond the scope of the Act.

This is why executive Government clause go for broke.

With respect to the member’s question about the “Henry VIII” clause, which she continues to amplify from the Opposition benches: why is there a regulation-making power that enables primary legislation to be amended? Well, the transition to the new system would be complex. There’s likely to be unanticipated situations not provided for in transitional provisions. But I get the purpose of the member’s question, which, if I were to paraphrase, would be: what prevents future Governments using this power more broadly than intended? Which any member of Parliament and any of our citizens would be concerned about. This clause provides safeguards, and the changes made by select committee include more specificity around exactly what regulations can do, and include a test for the Minister to be satisfied that the regulations are necessary or desirable for the orderly implementation of this Act or the Natural Environment Act, when they are passed, and are consistent with the purposes of this Act and the Natural Environment Act. In addition, any regulations made under this provision that are still in force five years after the date of Royal assent will be revoked on that date, consistent with other provisions of the bill.

Now, I want to get to the Hon Rachel Brooking’s questions about transitional matters and around urban design and matters that are in scope and out of scope. During the transitional period, the transitional arrangements go some way towards limiting what matters may be considered internal to a boundary, internal to a premise. The bill further clarifies matters that are not relevant on private property.

The member asked for examples about “Are there any examples where the location of TVs or the provision of a Juliet balcony is part of an assessment?” Well, I have been advised that councils have asked that during consideration of consent conditions, developers respond and modify some of their proposals around indoor arrangements. If the member wants an example, the Christchurch City Council requires indoor storage provisions to be made, and so there are examples where councils are actually requiring developers and property owners who seek to build to give them what councils ask for in terms of indoor arrangements. We’re changing that because it’s important for private property owners to be able to build for the people who they intend to live in the property, not to some council’s or planner’s concept of what good looks like.

09:11

I move, That debate on this question now close.

We’ve got a wee way to go just yet.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This is a quick, very brief call on the administrative fees part of this bill. I want to ask the member in the chair just a quick follow-up on his question at the last point. On clause 283A, my question was: is it his intention that, by Order in Council, Mana Whakahono ā Rohe agreements could continue?

Briefly, no, it is not the Government’s intention that Mana Whakahono ā Rohe arrangements continue. We’ve been explicit that we do not intend for them to continue and that we have made provision in the legislation for iwi and councils that seek to come to an arrangement to do that through the provisions around iwi participation agreements.

09:12

Thank you. That is helpful. That is helpful to have on the record, but it highlights the problem that we have, which is that this is a very, very broad provision for the Public Service to, essentially, draft orders that are very broad and give a huge amount of discretion, and then, I guess, governance from the pulpit, where a Minister says, “I hope that you will do X or Y.”

Moving on to the administrative fees, clause 23B(1)—I’ll do the whole thing at once. Subclause (1)(a) through to (h) are the administrative—

Sorry, what clause was that?

It’s at page 224, and I’m on clause 283B. Here’s the thrust of the question: are we sure these are all cost recovery mechanisms, or do they also include charges for participation rights? New clause 283B(1)(ea), for instance—the Minister’s new addition—is to do with fees for monitoring. If we are clear just at this point in the debate that it is meant to be only administrative costs associated with monitoring, that’s quite different than the costs associated with monitoring that are about someone participating and meeting their obligations within legislation. For instance, I’ll put it to the member: can councils charge for iwi participation that is the work associated with hearing the iwi give evidence?

This is the converse of the question that the member Hūhana Lyndon asked him. I’m not asking whether iwi are resourced to prepare these agreements or to prepare the work; I’m asking whether, in coming to a council meeting and in presenting the work, the work associated with hearing that evidence is also charged to the iwi.

Madam Chair.

OK.

I’m not aware of any—

Just a minute, Simon Court. The member hadn’t finished their call, and so you may find that there are further questions, which I will take into account if the member calls again.

09:14

Let’s deal with this one, and I’m happy to come back if there are further questions. I’m not aware of any situations—although I stand to be corrected—where submitters providing information as part of a planning process have been charged for providing a submission and appearing at a hearing to give evidence.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, that’s right. The old schema of fees wouldn’t have allowed that, but the new schema of fees seems to allow that, and so it would be good to have the member just consider whether—you know, if he could say clearly whether it is his intention in future for submitters to be charged, that would be great.

I’ll bring his attention to clause 283B(1)(g), then. With regard to the fees payable for monitoring functions here, is it that any functions are related to the Act? So, now we’re getting much broader, I just want to make sure with him that because we’ve already got this levy in the system which is intended to be a general fee for the management of the whole system, this power in paragraph (g) isn’t about the whole operation of the regional Acts, since we don’t want people to be double-charged for the same thing. Is his expectation that administrative fees and the levy will be held separately, given that one is for the council, one is for the Crown?

I’ll also then bring him very quickly to section 283B(2) and (4) on page 225. Both of these powers work together. Can fees fixed under this recovery system also recover those broader costs—is the question. They’re all going to be instruments that work under the Local Government Act and under this bill, but they’re also not reviewable. There’s no tension in the system to make sure that they are reasonable, other than the people who are then being charged them can’t get out of it—and if they do kick up a fuss, they’re also kicking up a fuss with the exact person who stands in the way between them and their development of their land.

09:16

Thank you, Madam Chair. Now, going back to this Juliet balcony situation, we heard that if you put TVs over here, there will be no capital investment to an investor, and if you put Juliet balconies over here, there will be a large capital investment to somebody who’s building something. Then the member in the chair said that he’s got examples, and I was asking for examples of TV placement, or even couches. There’s no capital investment in a couch—well, we could argue about what capital it is, I guess.

The member in the chair gave an example of storage. Never in my professional career have I seen consent conditions around TV placements or couches, and so I’m asking the member, again: has he got evidence of consent conditions relating to the placement of residential couches and residential TV screens? That is important, because a lot of the development of these bills has been done via anecdote. That is a real problem, and that is not actually how the practice works.

Now, I’ve got a different question. I’m going to move tack somewhat. In Schedule 11—going back to Schedule 11—there are a lot of changes that came into the bill in Amendment Paper 709, and so that was after the select committee process. We’ve talked about some of them, but they do include quite a lot from page 569 of the Minister’s Amendment Paper about certified freshwater plans, limited certified freshwater plans, main duties of farm operators, and more about farm operators, and—I’m now over on page 572—whether the farm’s freshwater farm plan or part of a freshwater farm plan is required to be certified, the date for that certification and its audit. All of these provisions have just been stuck into the transition provisions, and I’m sure we’ll be talking more about farm plans in the natural and built—it’s not the natural and built bill—in this separated out bill. In the Natural Environment Bill, I know we will be talking about farm plans more, but they are also mentioned in this Schedule 11, and it is by amendment.

It does go to the wider fiction that the member in the chair is fixated on, and that is trying to say that you can’t have integrated management. Again, I stand here wearing my dress, which represents an urban environment, and with my earrings here, which are very much about native flora. Of course, these two things go together. So this is an example—one of the many examples—of how ridiculous it is to try and say that there is not integrated management. But anyway, that was a slight digression, but not really.

The point here is: what are all these transitional changes to farm plans that have been introduced into Schedule 11? That is one question. Two, I’m going back to: is there any evidence of any council requiring a residential consent to place a TV in a particular spot or not, or to avoid a particular spot, and could that not have been dealt with by other methods rather than totally changing the law in a month’s time from the legislation’s commencement?

09:20

Oh, what a wide-ranging series of questions. I’ll do my best to answer the members’ questions.

Rachel Brooking asked: is there any evidence of consent conditions relating to the location of TVs? Now, resource management practitioners who have advised me and who have provided advice to the Government on the blueprint have described situations—which have been confirmed to me in advice that I’ve received from officials—that these consent conditions aren’t necessarily going to appear, because when a developer approaches a council seeking a consent, the urban designers at council will tell them that “If you don’t change the layout and make the changes to your design that we’ve asked for, you risk having your application notified.” It’s a form of regulatory stand over. That is why the Government has chosen—and we will be asking Parliament to support this—the removal of the ability to demand those types of changes to the internal layout and arrangements inside a property, because it doesn’t affect anybody outside the property.

I urge the member to consider the intention of that policy change and the benefits it will bring, because we can’t have councils using their powers to threaten notification to a development application in order to insist on design changes based on their vibes and reckons. We’re shifting away from that. It’s a purposeful legislative and cultural change, and I hope the member is able to internalise that and get to grips with it, because it’s going to be part of the new system and the way that the planning system works in the future.

Now, let’s come back to the member’s question on fees, and then we’ll get to farm plans. Arena Williams had a question on fees. The question was: how are fees to be made and how can we be confident? Well, I’d just refer the member to clause 283B(2), where there is a fulsome explanation about how fees fixed under this clause must be prescribed and ascertained, and how a local authority may fix different fees for different costs that it incurs, but—let’s be clear—they must all be made within the bounds of the legislation.

I’ll come to Rachel Brooking’s question on farm plans. I wasn’t quite sure what the detail was or the specific question that the member had. I understand that it was more around the changes that had been made and what’s here, compared to what was considered by the Environment Committee. Look, it’s clear that there’s a need for farm plans to do the heavy lifting in the new system when it comes to managing the impacts of primary production, and that’s the Government’s stated intent, but in recognising that farm plans have an important role to play, it’s also important to recognise that different primary land uses have different impacts on the environment. Some are greater than others.

Therefore, we have made changes in order to be clear that where the impacts that farm plans are intended to manage are potentially greater and the risks are potentially greater, then those types of farm plans are going to require a higher level of certification, and for primary operations where the risks are lower, or on a particular property where there are different types of risks, then there is provision for the higher risks to be subject to certification and audit and for the lower risks to be simply subject to management—it will be described in the farm plan how it will be managed—and, of course, audit, compliance monitoring, and enforcement to make sure that those farm plans are actually managing the risks to the environment, if that’s what they’re intended to manage. If those risks are not being managed well, then, obviously, compliance monitoring and enforcement remains available to the regulator.

09:24

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to respond to some of what the member Simon Court has said to me about “vibes and reckons”, and his saying to me that I should internalise something about his policy here, but, again, he has given no evidence about consent conditions applying to TVs. So he has, with his “vibes and reckons”—

Is the member not listening?

No, he’s making policy here. I was invited by the member in the chair to agree with his policy position, but it appears that his policy position is based on “vibes and reckons”, and I want to tell him that any policy that I want to be part of needs to have some evidence behind it. Where is the evidence that councils are requiring conditions about the placement of TVs? I’ll even open that up to accept his part answer, which was about whether or not consents would be notified. Of course, hardly anything is going to get notified under this new regime, but I understand that this is an almost immediate commencement provision. So where are the TVs?

Can I just say that the Minister did address the question and he did refer to the consultants that had provided support to the Minister, but I’ll ask him to respond again and then we’ll move on from that.

Sure. Thank you for asking him to respond. He has not answered a question about TVs. He has answered the question about the internal layout of a building. That is a structural layout, not the temporary fixtures which are TVs and couches.

09:26

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to further clarify. The Government’s intention was that matters internal to a property, whether they be TVs, whether they be storage, the location of the couch, where you plug your kettle in, will no longer be subject to planning provisions and rules and consents. The intention of that is so that people who wish to develop their land and arrange their properties for the benefit of the people who will come and live inside a building can think about what might those people want rather than not have to think about what the council planner might want.

They don’t. That’s a fiction.

While the member heckling from the Opposition benches claims this is a fiction, I reject that. I have had advice provided to me and I have had it explained to me that in negotiations between resource management practitioners—which I understand the member Rachel Brooking once had some experience in—and during negotiations with councils it is proposed by urban designers that arrangements within a building be made to satisfy that designer. If it is not satisfied, a council will notify a project for public notification and consultation which delays it and exposes—

What fixtures? Give me an example of the fixtures.

—the developer to enormous cost. While the member asks me for an example, I have provided a description of the situation and the advice provided for me in far more than generic terms. The member might be obsessed by televisions. There are many examples that have been provided to me of the type of shakedown that occurs in discussions between developers, property owners, and local government planners on this matter. That will no longer be subject to a shakedown in the future.

Madam Chair.

Catherine Wedd. Oh, sorry—sorry. I’m sorry—I know. Katie Nimon.

09:29

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Sorry. We are almost there, but not quite.

Madam Chair, acknowledging your indulgence, I’ll just let the member in the chair, Simon Court, know that I’ll race through this so we don’t have a back and forth.

Clause 295—I’m at page 235. The repeal of the Resource Management Act in here is a new thing that the Amendment Paper introduces. We haven’t had any discussion about how that will work and that is different from, say, the Natural and Built Environment Act. Practitioners in this space will be familiar with it. It didn’t do that; it legislated for specific subordinate legislation, so I’m asking the Minister about how this will work. Like, eventually an Order in Council will set the date for the transition. I’m not asking him when; I’m asking him how all of the other planning instruments which are not defined by Schedule 1 continue to exist. The instruments like national policy statements and National Environmental Standards are defined in Schedule 1, but there are plenty of other regulations and rules which are going to be a creature of something. What? What empowers rules, regulations, directions that are made that are not instruments and that are not the regulations which are set out in this bill?

The second question is: the Amendment Paper now allows different regions to operate under different rules at different times. So the thrust of the question, for the member in the chair, is: is it possible for, say, Auckland to be operating under the new rules and under a new plan, which it will—it’s geared up to do that—and Waikato to be operating under the old rules and its old plan for, I think, a period of five years? What will that mean for places like Pōkeno, which are right on the border and many of their services like wastewater, like transport services are shared, and why was that introduced later? There must be a real-world mischief which is being solved here, that different regions can go in different times, that’s been identified along the way. So what is the justification for that, please?

09:31

There are very clear transition provisions. When it comes to national instruments like national policy statements under the Resource Management Act (RMA), we intend to replace them with a new national policy direction. There’s an illustrative version of that out now for non-statutory consultation; I urge the member Arena Williams to look at it. It’s quite clear that rather than having many different—I think I recall something around 20, maybe 21 pieces of national direction or national instruments under the RMA. We’re going to consolidate it into one piece of national policy direction, and then under each theme in that national policy direction, the member will see that there are standards set out which further particularise how the system is to be implemented. The intended transition is over five years. If it can be brought forward, of course, we would prefer that, but we’ve provided sufficient time.

There was a question around: would councils do things at different times? We have anticipated time frames where the national standard for making spatial plans will be available, followed by regulatory plans, but all of this to be occurring and fully transitioned within five years. If a council is a few months ahead of or behind another council, the Government will choose the transition date through an Order in Council when the Government at that time is satisfied that everything is in place. So those coordination issues, say, between a region like Auckland and a region like Waikato, which have made their own combined plans, should be resolved by the fact that while some provisions in those plans are under the legislation or with regard to standards can come into effect sooner, we’re not waiting for five years for the system to be implemented. We want the benefits to be available within one month of Royal assent. For some of the matters that’d be good to transition immediately, it’s set out in Schedule 11 what those matters are. I fully expect that by the time the Government says a transition is complete, we’re ready to go and turn on the new system, then all the new plans will come into effect fully at the same time. I hope that addresses the member’s question fully.

The question is that the Minister’s tabled amendments to the amendments to Part 6 set out on Amendment Paper 709 be agreed to.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 6 set out on Amendment Paper 709 as amended be agreed to.

The question is that Hūhana Lyndon’s amendment to clause 283A set out on Amendment Paper 733 be agreed to.

We move on to Schedule 1. The question is that the Minister’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 709 to Schedule 1 be agreed to.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Schedule 1 set out on Amendment Paper 709 as amended be agreed to.

Hūhana Lyndon’s amendments to clauses 5(7), 12C, 13, 17, 18A, 21, 21A, 25A, and 27 of Schedule 1 set out on Amendment Paper 733 are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that Hūhana Lyndon’s remaining amendments to Schedule 1 set out on Amendment Paper 733 be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking’s amendments to Schedule 1 set out on Amendment Paper 742 be agreed to.

Tamatha Paul’s amendment to Schedule 1 deleting clauses 21, 21A, and 21B is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

Tamatha Paul’s amendment to Schedule 1 deleting clauses 21, 21A, and 21B is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

Tamatha Paul’s amendment to Schedule 1 replacing clauses 21(2) is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

Oriini Kaipara’s tabled amendments to Schedule 1, deleting clause 21(2), replacing clause 21A, and inserting new clause 21C, are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

Oriini Kaipara’s tabled amendment to Schedule 1 inserting new clause 24A is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

Oriini Kaipara’s tabled amendment to Schedule 1 deleting clause 37 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

We’ll move to Schedule 2.

The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 709 inserting clause 6(1)(n) in Schedule 2 be agreed to.

09:45

Point of order. I seek leave to correct the vote. Earlier, I voted for Tākuta Ferris.

Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. Just explain?

Tākuta Ferris had no vote for all the votes that I took for—

So, for the entire Part 6 that we’re voting on, and the schedules, there is no vote from Tākuta Ferris?

Yes.

OK. We’ll record that and adjust the results accordingly.

Thank you.

We should start again!

Pardon?

Let’s start again to be clear.

Let’s not. The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 709 be agreed to.

Lan Pham’s amendment to clause 6 of Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 731 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that Lan Pham’s amendments to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 729 be agreed to.

We move to Schedule 3.

The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking’s tabled amendments to Amendment Paper 709 amending clauses 5, 15, 16, 17, and 20 of Schedule 3 be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Julie Anne Genter’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 709 amending clause 24(2) of Schedule 3 be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Julie Anne Genter’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 709 deleting clause 26(2) of Schedule 3 be agreed to.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Schedule 3 set out on Amendment Paper 709 be agreed to.

Tamatha Paul’s amendment to Schedule 3 inserting clause 3(c) is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

Lan Pham’s amendment to clause 11(2)(b) of Schedule 3 set out on Amendment Paper 727 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that Lan Pham’s remaining amendment to clause 11 of Schedule 3 set out on Amendment Paper 727 be agreed to.

The question is that Lan Pham’s amendment to clause 18 of Schedule 3 set out on Amendment Paper 721 be agreed to.

The question is that Tamatha Paul’s tabled amendment to Schedule 3 inserting clause 26(2)(d) be agreed to.

The question is that Lan Pham’s amendments to clause 32 of Schedule 3 set out on Amendment Paper 729 be agreed to.

Lan Pham’s amendment to clause 51 of Schedule 3 set out on Amendment Paper 679 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The Hon Rachel Brooking’s amendment deleting Part 4 of Schedule 3 set out on Amendment Paper 667 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

Oriini Kaipara’s tabled amendment deleting Part 4 of Schedule 3 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that Steve Abel’s tabled amendment to Schedule 3 clause 62 relating to the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Act 2008, be agreed to.

Oriini Kaipara’s tabled amendment to Schedule 3 inserting new clause 63A is out of order as relying on an amendment to Part 1 that was lodged after time.

Oriini Kaipara’s tabled amendment to Schedule 3 inserting new clause 63B is out of order as relying on an amendment to Part 1 that was lodged after time.

The question is that Steve Abel’s tabled amendment to Schedule 3 clause 67 inserting new paragraph (f) be agreed to.

Members, we come now to Schedule 4.

The question is that the Hon Julie Anne Genter’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 709 replacing clause 2 of Schedule 4 be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Julie Anne Genter’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 709 deleting clause 5 of Schedule 4 be agreed to.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Schedule 4 set out on Amendment Paper 709 be agreed to.

We move now to Schedule 5.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Schedule 5 set out on Amendment Paper 709 be agreed to.

We move to Schedule 6.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Schedule 6 set out on Amendment Paper 709 be agreed to.

The question is that Oriini Kaipara’s tabled amendment to Schedule 6, clause 2(2) be agreed to.

Oriini Kaipara’s tabled amendment to Schedule 6 deleting clause 6(3) is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

We now come to Schedule 7.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Schedule 7 set out on Amendment Paper 709 be agreed to.

Oriini Kaipara’s tabled amendment to Schedule 7 inserting new clause 39A is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Schedule 8 set out on Amendment Paper 709 be agreed to.

We come now to Schedule 9. The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Schedule 9 set out on Amendment Paper 709 be agreed to.

Lan Pham’s amendment to clause 76A of Schedule 9 set out on Amendment Paper 729 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

We move to Schedule 10. The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Schedule 10 set out on Amendment Paper 709 be agreed to.

We move to Schedule 10A.

The question is that the Hon Phil Twyford’s tabled amendment to the Minister’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 709 to insert new clause 4A into proposed new Schedule 10A be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

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

Amendment to the amendment to the amendment not agreed to.

The question is that the Minister’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 709 inserting new Schedule 10A be agreed to.

We move to Schedule 11. The question is that the Minister’s tabled amendment to the Minister’s tabled amendments to Amendment Paper 709 relating to Schedule 11 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 67

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

Noes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Kapa-Kingi.

Amendment to the amendments to the amendment agreed to.

The question is that the Minister’s tabled amendments, as amended, to Amendment Paper 709 to Schedule 11 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 67

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

Noes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Kapa-Kingi.

Amendments, as amended, to the amendments agreed to.

The Hon Rachel Brooking’s tabled amendments to Amendment Paper 709 amending Part 1 of Schedule 11 to delete the amendment to Schedule 12 of the Resource Management Act 1991 are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The Hon Rachel Brooking’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 709 amending Schedule 11 to delete paragraphs (ba) and (bb) of section 18(4) is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 709 amending Part 1 of Schedule 11 to delete the amendment relating to the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Act 2010 be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking’s tabled amendments to Amendment Paper 709 amending Part 2 of Schedule 11 to delete the amendment to clause 7(3) of Schedule 4 and deleting proposed Part 2A of Schedule 11 be agreed to.

The Hon Rachel Brooking’s tabled amendments to Amendment Paper 709 amending Part 1 of Schedule 11 to delete the amendment to Schedule 12 of the Resource Management Act 1991 are 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 tabled amendments to Amendment Paper 709 amending Part 2 of Schedule 11 to delete the amendments to section 92, 95A, and 95B of the Resource Management Act 1991 be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking’s tabled amendments to Amendment Paper 709 amending Part 2 of Schedule 11 to delete the amendments to section 104C, 104D, 108AA, and 113 of the Resource Management Act 1991 be agreed to.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Schedule 11 set out on Amendment Paper 709 as amended be agreed to.

Hūhana Lyndon’s amendment to the Part 2 heading in Schedule 11 set out on Amendment Paper 733 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee of the whole House.

The question is that Hūhana Lyndon’s remaining amendments to Schedule 11 set out on Amendment Paper 733 be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking’s amendments to Part 1 of Schedule 11 set out on Amendment Paper 741 be agreed to.

The Hon Rachel Brooking’s amendment to Part 2 of Schedule 11 set out on Amendment Paper 691 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee of the whole House.

The questions is that Lan Pham’s amendment to Part 4 of Schedule 11 set out on Amendment Paper 680 be agreed to.

Tamatha Paul’s amendment to Parts 1 and 4 of Schedule 11 deleting the amendments to the Māori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act 2004 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee of the whole House.

Tamatha Paul’s amendment to Part 4 of Schedule 11 deleting the amendment to section 89(3) of the Urban Development Act 2020 is out of order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment.