Parliamentary debates: Tuesday, 22 September 2026

Well, it was absolutely fixed, and if the Minister thinks that this is a fix, then he is sadly mistaken and he should have listened to the Labour Party throughout the process, rather than just looking to ACT—looking to Simon Court time and time again.

Hon Chris Bishop

No, we don’t listen to failed environmental lawyers.

This is going to be great for lawyers. I couldn’t quite hear what the Minister said, but this is all going to be great for lawyers, and the whole point of Labour’s reforms was to be bad for lawyers—apologies to my ex-colleagues.

But we absolutely need to have a simplified process. We had a Spatial Planning Act; spatial plans are very important and there needs to be very good community engagement in those plans. We can also have more standardisation and we absolutely need to decrease the number of plans. We had done that in our legislation. This Government, had they chosen to, could have passed a law—probably two years ago—that did some amendments to make it more right-wing, but they did not do that. Instead, they decided to go backwards from the Resource Management Act in terms of involvement of Māori, so that was bad.

Then we had, after the select committee reported back at, I don’t know 2 o’clock—was it 2 o’clock on the Monday the select committee reported back? At 4 o’clock on the Monday, or thereabouts, there was a post-Cabinet meeting where they said, “Oh, you know how the select committee’s just been looking at this bill for quite some time and has made a few changes, but not many, around Mana Whakahono ā Rohe? Oh, we’re just going to get rid of those completely.” So all those iwi and hapū groups who had been, in good faith, negotiating with councils to lead to agreements—Mana Whakahono ā Rohe—that would have led to more efficient decision-making, that was just all gutted.

The Minister will say, “Oh, well you had noticed that we were going to make this change. We announced it on a Monday after a Cabinet meeting.” That is not good lawmaking; it is terrible lawmaking.

Hon Chris Bishop

How else do you think law gets made?

Oh, how else does law get done?

Hon Chris Bishop

Cabinet makes decisions.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green)

Yes, Cabinet makes decisions, and then they send it to this House and then to a select committee and then back here. The Mana Whakahono ā Rohe came out after it had been to select committee, and this is something that this Minister does time and time again, and he should go and read Fitzgerald v Muldoon on his wall.

16:05

Tēnā koe—[Interruption] If I may, tēnā koe e te Māngai. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. It was really interesting at the top—and, actually, throughout the Minister responsible for RMA Reform’s third reading speech just now—he was talking a lot about the Resource Management Act (RMA) and how much of a handbrake that is on his perceived issues with regard to development and growth in this country and in many of our cities and towns. I think it is, therefore, just really important to underscore the fact that we actually had replaced the RMA under quite a considered and thorough process with the last Government. This Government came to office and—I believe, actually, under urgency in their first few weeks—reinstated the Resource Management Act that they have now spent the last three years railing against. Now, in their final dying breaths of this one-term Government, on this final sitting day before we get to the adjournment debate speeches tomorrow, they are passing it through its third and final reading.

I do have to say, I agree with the Minister that this was a once in a generation, once in a moment in politics opportunity to get this stuff right. It’s really interesting, because I’ve heard the Minister speak at plenty of different planning forums where he has spoken about the need for cross-party consensus to get these things right, to ensure that they stick through changes of Government. I acknowledge the work that he has done in other areas of his portfolios—the likes of the Infrastructure Commission’s pipeline—but unfortunately with the bill that we are debating today, we do not have that cross-party consensus and we therefore do not have a piece of legislation which is going to stand the test of time.

Unfortunately, what we as a House will, by virtue of their Government majority, will be passing today represents a sidelining of conservation, of the fundamental necessities necessary for life on Earth as we know it: our soil health, our water health, a climate necessary for stability of food growing capacity and so on and so forth—things that this Government proclaims that they care about—let alone our communities and the founding document of this country, Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

The Green Party has long campaigned on making it easier to build where people want to live, work, and play. I’m an Aucklander, so I can absolutely recognise that over the last 40 years, at the very least, we have seen a planning system where both central and local government politicians have kicked the can down the road on really critical decisions around where housing and growth should go. What that has meant is that instead of grappling with the opportunities that other cities have shown us are entirely possible and feasible in terms of our development—building up, protecting green spaces, ensuring that we do density well—Tāmaki-makau-rau, our largest city, is an example of where we have seen sprawl further and further out, decimating our productive food-growing capacity but also generating far higher costs for the transport infrastructure that is necessary to connect those people and, in turn, generating far more congestion by virtue of car dependency.

I just, again, lament this missed opportunity that we had to work on a cross-partisan basis, because I know that the Minister, in his heart of hearts, probably could have found a lot more common ground with us in the Greens than I believe his colleagues, who have been trying to prevent any form of development happening in Epsom. The Minister said that he want this, our country, to be a first-world country. If we were seeking genuinely to fulfil those very aspirations as laid down by the Minister, we should be a country that is actively working to protect, restore, and regenerate our biodiversity, our soil, our water, and to uphold our climate commitments. Instead, what we have represented in this legislation that we are debating this evening is a bunch of amendments that tick off the wish list of some of the biggest polluters in our country and in our economy. In fact, what we see is a reflection of the World Wildlife Fund’s recent report, which states—and I quote—“The Government’s communications on fossil fuels amount to climate misinformation and closely mirror obstruction narratives used by the fossil fuel industry to delay climate action”.

I don’t think there is any clause that reflects that as accurately and as explicitly as clause 15A in this legislation, which explicitly—explicitly—prevents considering the negative impacts of greenhouse gas emissions. Not only is that absolutely shocking and such an abdication of responsibility not only to future generations but to present generations, in terms of the bill that is mounting with regard to actually fulfilling our commitments under the Paris Agreement—which this Government apparently is still committed to—it also echoes exactly what was asked for by Federated Farmers in their submission, as we know, in workshops that were facilitated by the Minister and his officials.

I just make the point that, following that very workshop that occurred with the agriculture and horticulture sector, there was official advice on the potential narrowing of climate emissions consideration in this legislation. Officials said this move—and I quote—“has a high risk of unintended consequences and is generally not advisable”. Isn’t that interesting? That the same Minister who is introducing this legislation today, in question time just a few hours ago, was talking about the importance of following official advice in certain circumstances, but clearly not where it accords with the ideology—or, rather, the dogma—of the political parties that currently make up this one-term Government.

Now, the final point that I really want to drive home, and why it is that we oppose this legislation, is not only the sidelining of concerns around biodiversity—I don’t know, water, soil, those things that are kind of necessary for life as we know it—but the regulatory relief. It’s important to spend a moment really unpacking this, because what we have represented in this legislation is an implied property right to, effectively, destroy biodiversity.

Grant McCallum

Rubbish!

CHLÖE SWARBRICK

We’ve heard from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, we’ve heard from the Environmental Defence Society, we’ve heard from plenty of independent experts who submitted on your legislation, Grant, that this would look like a bureaucratic and litigious hot mess.

In Auckland alone, there are around 24,000 property-level protections. Right now, if this bill is to be implemented, as is intended, to be passed through the House today by this Government, in order for Auckland Council to reinstate just the basic same protections that already exist, they will have to go through an incredibly, incredibly time-consuming and uncertain process to do so. MartinJenkins estimates that implementing just the baseline protections that already exist—not increasing them, just those protections that already exist at a property level; the likes of properties that border on the Waitakere Ranges—we are talking about a cost to local governments of anywhere between $7 million to $2 billion. Riddle me that.

Andy Foster

That’s pretty broad.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK

The same Government who, right now—it is pretty broad, Andy Foster. Do you know why it’s pretty broad? Because of the fact—

Hon Member

They don’t know. They’ve got no idea.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK

Exactly! I’m so glad there is consensus breaking out in the House right now that local government has no idea how to apply your legislation that you are passing through third reading today, by virtue of the implied property right to destroy biodiversity. You could drive a bus through this because nobody knows how it’s going to be applied.

As my colleagues have already outlined, this is going to make a lot of work for lawyers and, therefore, not actually make things any more efficient. In fact, this implied property right to destroy biodiversity is going to do the opposite. It is going to slow down the processes that the Ministers say they want to speed up. This is the same Government that is decrying rates increases and saying that we just have to put a rates cap in place, as they actively pass legislation that their own members are now declaring they don’t know the impacts of and will inevitably cost local authorities across this country more.

This past weekend, I was in Auckland Central with around 35,000 New Zealanders who were marching down Queen Street, who were incredibly frustrated to watch this Government sideline our country’s values of care for each other and the planet that we all share. This legislation that is passing through as a result of their majority does not represent the values of New Zealanders. We have real issues in terms of the infrastructure deficit and the climate crisis and the housing crisis, but this legislation goes nowhere towards actually, meaningfully addressing those problems, and we cannot support it.

SIMON COURT (ACT)

16:15

ACT supports this bill because it restores a basic presumption: people should be free to use, develop, and enjoy their land unless there is a justified reason to limit them. For too long, the planning system has put process and planner discretion ahead of property rights, homes, infrastructure, and growth. This bill reverses that.

The intention is to resolve the big questions once, at the right level, rather than relitigating them, plan by plan, consent by consent. That is the logic of the planning funnel in the new system. Scope is clearly established, statutory goals define what planning is there to achieve, the range of effects it can manage is narrowed, and the bar for intervention is much higher and more proportionate. National policy direction turns the goals into concrete national priorities and direction, and resolves conflicts between the goals. National standards then turn that direction into repeatable rules, methodologies, and standardised provisions. Regional spatial plans set strategic direction, land use plans apply locally, and consenting sits at the bottom.

Participation also follows the funnel logic. There should be meaningful opportunities to influence national instruments, regional spatial plans, and land use plans for Māori and non-Māori alike. At consent level, a higher notification test and tighter bounds of who has standing focus participation on those genuinely affected. Officials estimate about 45 percent of consents and permit applications currently required under the Resource Management Act (RMA) could be removed under the new system. Where consents do remain necessary, the narrower scope, higher thresholds, and tighter participation settings will make them much easier and faster to process.

National instruments in the new system are powerful, but targeted engagement, allowing for submissions and reporting requirements, provides clear and transparent guardrails around powers already available under the RMA. Where activities, effects, and provisions are common and well understood, the system should codify proven approaches instead of reinventing the wheel, consent by consent. For instance, New Zealand has around 1,175 planning zones—Japan has 13. A builder should not have to face subtly different rules every time they cross a council boundary. There will always be cases when national standards are not quite fit for local circumstances. That’s why bespoke plan provisions remain possible, but the pathway is incredibly sticky. Local departures must be justified rather than becoming the default. Regional spatial plans will identify long-term growth and infrastructure corridors, strategic assets, and significant constraints, including natural hazards. For designated infrastructure, strategic need can and must be settled at a broad level rather than relitigated when it comes time to deliver the infrastructure.

For property development, this bill goes even further. It puts competitive urban land markets into statute and creates an independent statutory officer to assess whether markets are actually competitive. That means examining real signals of scarcity and, where the councils rezone land in response, because their action or inaction has contributed, they will be required to respond. In plain English: the aim is abundant, responsive development capacity, not theoretical capacity that still leaves developable land artificially scarce. We’ve also removed barriers to private plan change requests. Proposals should be considered on their merits rather than rejected out of hand by councils at the first gate. Together, these provisions tackle planning-driven land shortages that push up the cost of housing and business.

Regulatory relief—which the Opposition still can’t quite seem to get their heads around, so I’ll explain it for you—is a broad principle that public impositions on private property for a public good should be recognised. That’s not new; it’s familiar from the Public Works Act: where specified planning rules significantly affect the reasonable use of private land, councils must confront their impact. Relief may include payments, rates relief, additional development rights, offering land in exchange, and access to grants to the landowner. Now, making councils face these costs changes their incentives. The need to justify to ratepayers who stands to benefit helps reveal genuine public value, and if ratepayers cannot be convinced that the proposed benefits are worth paying for, it can hardly be justified to impose those costs on the affected landowner. Where that public value is real, it’s only fair that those who do benefit contribute to the cost.

The Akatarawa example—it’s just up the road here in Wellington—makes the point starkly. A private property backing on to a regional park was proposed for inclusion in an Outstanding Natural Landscape, layering a public value restriction on their private property. Just announcing the Government’s regulatory relief intentions helped put that proposal on ice. Reflecting the same property rights principle in the Regulatory Standards Act, courts will also remain available to landowners who believe plan rules severely impair the reasonable use of their land and place an unreasonable and unfair burden on them. The Planning Tribunal provides another accountability mechanism: an accessible referee for disputes, including over information demands, consent processing decisions, consent conditions, and aspects of regulatory relief that should not require full Environment Court proceedings.

There’s far more on this bill than 10 minutes can cover, but this bill replaces 100 planning documents with 17 regional combined plans, and for that, I expect, the Opposition members will be grateful. It protects Treaty settlement redress and provides stronger national data and digital foundations for better decision-making. Targeted transitional changes will avoid duplicating work while the new system is being built. Among other things, the parliamentary process has clarified the role of registered permitted activities and replaced expansive Mana Whakahono ā Rohe with narrower iwi participation agreements that respect the need for councils to retain a democratic mandate for entering into long-term agreements which have implications for property owners and resource users. There are targeted changes to the Resource Management Act (RMA), as well, and existing plans to smooth the transition.

Implementation is now critical. The time frame for making instruments and the transition was extended from 30 to 39 months in response to select committee feedback. The illustrative national policy direction recently released for feedback will inform the statutory process that will follow. National standards will then follow, prioritised to support implementation milestones, but Kiwis will not need to wait for full implementation to feel the change. One month after Royal assent, new procedural principles and scope reductions begin operating through the transitional RMA framework. Existing RMA plans and consents continue while the new system is built, and the planning tribunal can be switched on in 2027.

Planning rules are not abstract. Every unnecessary restriction shows in the price of a home, a road, a power project, or a business investment. This bill shifts the balance back towards people who own the land, take the risks, employ people, and build their country. It restores the presumption of freedom, sweeps away needless inconsistency—

Hon Rachel Brooking

What do you mean, “restores”? Restores from what?

SIMON COURT

—and, Rachel Brooking, makes regulators confront the costs they impose. It gives landowners certainty, investors confidence, and New Zealand the freedom to build, produce, and grow. ACT has fought for this reform for years. It will help unlock New Zealand’s potential. ACT supports it, and I commend it to the House.

ANDY FOSTER (NZ First)

16:24

Thanks, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First. Now, we weren’t represented on the Environment Committee; we don’t have quite enough MPs yet, so we’re looking forward to an increased representation. I just wanted to, in saying that, recognise all the hard work that has been done to get this bill to this point, particularly to recognise the Hon Chris Bishop and Simon Court for the hard work they have done, and also the select committee, chaired by Catherine Wedd—a huge amount of work to get us to this point.

The key thing for us here is that we must raise productivity. That is something that’s front and centre for New Zealand First. We must raise productivity and we must raise incomes, which is exactly what the Hon Chris Bishop was talking about as he concluded his speech. This is the only long-term and sustainable way that we can actually address the cost of living crisis, as well. It’s not just by driving every little bit—a nickel here and a dime there. It’s by raising incomes, because once, we were up there with the likes of the Swiss. If you doubled everyone’s income, a lot of those other cost of living challenges would go away.

How is this relevant to this bill? It’s absolutely relevant, because this bill is about—and its partner there, which we’ll come to very shortly, the Natural Environment Bill—reducing the cost burden that there is on our economy. We know, from the New Zealand Infrastructure Commission, that just the cost of consenting infrastructure alone—and that’s the direct cost; I don’t think that includes the costs of delay, of uncertainty, and so on—is estimated at $1.3 billion every year, year after year after year. There is a really material cost, and that’s just infrastructure, let alone housing, let alone other activities, on farmers and so on. It is really, really important we do get some of those costs removed, because, as the Hon Chris Bishop said, if we don’t do that, if we aspire to be a First World country, we have to reduce some of these costs. That’s what this bill is all about doing.

I do hear messages about the bill not being perfect. I heard some of the things that the Opposition have said. You know, there’s areas which undoubtedly need to be panel-beaten. The Resource Management Act (RMA) itself, I think, has been amended—I don’t know how many times it is, but it’s a lot of times, and it was formally amended, I think, six or seven times in its first 10 years or so. You’d expect, as a new regime comes in, that there will be some panel-beating to do, and fine, that’s good. The other message that I hear from people is “Get it passed. Get it passed so we can start that work.”—start all that extra work that needs to be done on the national policy directions, the national standards, the spatial plans that need to be done, and give people some certainty, because that is key. I was one of a number of people here—the Hon Rachel Brooking was there, the Hon Chris Bishop was there, Simon Court was there, as well—at a planning conference not that long ago. That was their key message: “Please give us stability, please give us certainty, because that is how it is going to work best for ‘New Zealand Inc.’ ”

In that light, can I just finish off with one other message, and it’s a message that I got from speaking to a senior planning consultant the other day. It’s a message for councils and for people who do, essentially, regulation administration everywhere: please make sure that you treat with respect the people who are applying to you for consent to do something. Treat them as though their time is valuable. Give them certainty, because not understanding that their time is valuable, you delaying them, has real cost to them and to the economy. It’s really, really important that we do that. This is a milestone day for legislation in the House. The RMA is something which is in our lexicon. We all know what it means. Now we will move to the Planning Act and, soon, to the Natural Environment Act. I commend the bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor)

Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke—five minutes.

HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te Pāti Māori—Hauraki-Waikato)

16:28

Tēnā rā koe e te Pīka, otirā tēnā rā tātou e te Whare. E tū ana ahau ki te waha i ngā kōrero mō Te Pāti Māori i tēnei o ngā rangi ki tēnei o ngā pire, arā ko te Planning Bill, on the third reading.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker; indeed, greetings to all of us in the House. I stand to give voice to the Māori Party’s statements today on this bill, that is, the Planning Bill, on the third reading.]

There’s a specific amendment and change in implementation within this bill that directly affects my pepeha and Hauraki-Waikato specifically, and that is PC1—plan change 1. To explain to the House what that means, 31 years ago, in 1995, we had the Waikato-Tainui Treaty settlement, signed by Te Arikinui Te Atairangikaahu and, also, Queen Elizabeth, which was one of the first Treaty settlements. Then, years after that, we had the 2008 Waikato River settlement. Through that came Te Ture Whaimana o te Awa o Waikato. Te Ture Whaimana is actually a law that is implemented through this House, which is one of the laws that most needs to be recognised, and through Te Ture Whaimana comes PC1. PC1—plan change 1—is all of the tikanga and kawa to the visions, protection, and restoration of our awa.

What has happened is that this Government has paused PC1 for more than six years, for up to six years. That is going to have detrimental effects on the kids who swim in Waikato Awa. That is the life force of Hauraki-Waikato. What has happened is that is 14 years’ worth of mahi into plan change 1 that has gone from our iwi and of all the people who have worked on PC1 itself and Te Ture Whaimana, with partnerships across the board. What’s interesting here is that two landowners that took PC1 to the Environment Court have actually given $780,000 worth of political donations to the governing parties on the right, and then it was taken into this Planning Bill to pause PC1. It is pretty outstanding that you can actually influence a law.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh)

Not the Speaker.

HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE

Not you, Madam Speaker. How we see it, as Hauraki-Waikato—Rawiri has a saying—“You may not know your awa, you may not know your pepeha, but your pepeha knows you.” For me, it’s:

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

but I can’t swim in my awa, I can’t access my awa, and legislation like this, with PC1 being paused, is going to cause detrimental effects for our constituents, for our people in Hauraki-Waikato who reside there. Plan change 1, Te Ture Whaimana, the Waikato River settlement, and also the Waikato River Authority, have been longstanding ture and laws within this country to uphold the vision of not polluting our awa even more than it already is.

There was a test and some data collection done recently where I’ve seen that the Waikato River is nearly just as polluted as the Mississippi River in the United States, and to pause PC1 after 14 years’ worth of mahi in this space for our people is a huge detriment to our life force and to polluting our awa even further. Our awa cannot wait six years. Our awa doesn’t have that time, after plenty of work that’s been done to restore the visions of making sure that our awa is no longer polluted. Te Pāti Māori is in complete opposition to this bill, the Planning Bill, but as the member of Parliament for Hauraki-Waikato and as a descendant of my pepeha,

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

it is a huge, huge devastation, how dangerous this actually is, for the people who live in Waikato. Tēnā rā koe e te Pīka.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai)

16:33

Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. A good planning and environmental protection system in Aotearoa New Zealand would deliver us so much. It would mean towns and cities where people can walk and cycle and take public transport. It would mean that they could walk to the local shops and a local medical centre and the school because the housing is provided close to where the town centres are. It would ensure we had clean air. It would ensure we could hear native birdsong, that there is sufficient native tree cover, that there’s shade in the summer, and that there’s not as much run-off when we have heavy rainfall events, as we’ve had so many of in the last few years, because there’s plenty of green space.

All of these things are actually more affordable and better for people and the environment. If we have a good planning system, it will be easy to deliver these outcomes. If we have a good planning system, we will have oceans teeming with fish. Who doesn’t want that? Who doesn’t want oceans teeming with fish? Who doesn’t want Aotearoa full of indigenous biodiversity that is recovering from the brink of extinction? We all want that. We all want that, and we all celebrate that. Yet the bill that is before us today, this bill, is not going to deliver that.

That’s because the current Government is still caught in this old paradigm where they believe what’s good for big business and vested interests is somehow good for all of us, when it’s very, very clear that that is what has led us to this situation of being in the sixth mass extinction, a biodiversity crisis, and an affordability crisis. All of these things are interrelated. While the Minister, Chris Bishop, may have said and we may agree on some aspects of cities—he’s very happy about the City Rail Link, which the Greens campaigned on for years before that side of the House got on board. We campaigned for allowing more density in our cities so that there could be affordable housing close to where people work and where there’s nightlife and where there’s places where you can actually buy the essentials, like shops.

All of that was necessary, and so the Greens have for the longest time been campaigning on the type of planning reform that would simplify urban planning zones, and I acknowledge that that is one thing that is enabled by this, but so much more is enabled by this which will actually hurt our biodiversity and hurt our natural environment and create more red tape and higher costs for those who want to protect life on Earth and ensure that humans are living in harmony with the rest of life, not destroying it to the point where we are going to struggle to feed ourselves. That is the trajectory we are on. It’s because the parties in this Government, whether it’s their dogma or whether they are just too close to vested interests and big lobbyists, cannot help themselves. They consistently protect the interests of those who are already making money by exploiting and destroying our natural world or exploiting people rather than enabling a system where we can all have enough and do our city and town development in a way that enables us to live in harmony with nature.

Obviously, if we think longer term, as the Greens always have, we realise that it saves us all money to regulate the vehicles that are driving around our cities, because we don’t pay the price in terms of the extremely high rates of asthma and respiratory problems and cardiovascular disease, which is caused by diesel emissions, for example. Or if we regulate housing to make sure that it’s healthy, we don’t pay the price with the hospitalisation of our children because they’re in cold bedrooms. We’re paying the price of this. The costs that Andy Foster referred to are all externalised. The issue is trying to get them more internalised. That was what was promised at the beginning of this process but which has not eventuated as a result of the select committee process, because, in the end, this Government is all about big, vested interests continuing to profit at the expense of our planet and our people. That is what is happening.

The Green Party will not be supporting this bill. It is not a good piece of legislation, and it is a shame that this opportunity was wasted. Luckily, there is an opportunity to change to a Government that will actually represent the interests of our people in the long term and of all other life on these beautiful, beautiful two islands that we call Aotearoa New Zealand.

CATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki)

16:38

Look, this Resource Management Act (RMA) reform marks the most significant reform of our planning system in more than 30 years. This is a major milestone for our country and for future generations. The Planning Bill will create more efficiency, make it easier and faster to get things built, and drive our economy forward, creating jobs and opportunity. It’s time to say yes to renewable energy and critical infrastructure. It’s time to slash the red tape for farmers and growers and our industries across New Zealand. It’s time for a better planning system, which will see less plans, less duplication, and a more streamlined planning system that respects property rights.

I want to acknowledge the extraordinary amount of work that has gone into this legislation, and the Minister for his leadership and vision to replace a broken RMA with a planning system that is simpler, more efficient, and better suited to modern New Zealand. I also want to acknowledge the members of the Environment Committee, officials, advisers, and the thousands of submitters who took the time to provide us with valuable feedback. We listened, we heard, and we made hundreds and hundreds of improvements to ensure these reforms are practical, durable, and workable into the future.

Some of the most powerful feedback came from the sectors that are trying to build, grow, power, and drive New Zealand forward. Submitters from across the electricity sector were clear that if this country is serious about electrification, energy security, and lower emissions, then we need a planning system that enables renewable energy generation, transmission, and distribution infrastructure to get consented faster. The energy sector is calling out for more efficiency and more certainty, and we are delivering it.

We heard from the building, property, and development sectors about the real-world consequences of a planning system that has failed to deliver enough land, enough houses, and enough certainty. This bill supports more competitive urban land markets, reducing unnecessary barriers, and making it easier to deliver the homes and infrastructure that our communities need.

We also heard strongly from the food and fibre sector. They spoke about the frustration that rural communities have felt under a system that is too often layered with cost, delay, and uncertainty onto their day-to-day farming and growing. They called for more practical, proportionate, and risk-based approaches—one that recognises farmers as producers, innovators, land stewards, and environmental partners. That feedback mattered and it has helped shape a system that gives farmers more certainty while maintaining strong environmental expectations.

Horticulture New Zealand also made an important contribution on behalf of growers. Growers need confidence to invest in productive land, water storage, frost protection, pack houses, transport links, and the infrastructure that supports our high-value food production. The horticulture submissions support planning rules that protect the resources growers rely on, while also allowing sectors to keep producing healthy food, creating jobs, exporting dollars, and supporting regional communities. Whether it’s the electricity companies trying to build a wind farm, a farmer investing in their land, a grower expanding production, or a builder trying to deliver more homes, the message was clear: New Zealand needs a planning system that is faster, clearer, fairer, and more focused on outcomes.

A key part of the Planning Bill is the move to a clearer system of spatial planning. For too long, New Zealand has planned growth in a fragmented way, with too many overlapping plans, too much duplication, and too little certainty about where housing, infrastructure, business growth, and productive land should be enabled. The new spatial planning approach is about looking ahead and making better long-term decisions at a regional level. It will help identify where growth should go, where infrastructure needs to be delivered, where natural hazards need to be managed, and where important environmental, cultural, productive, and community values need to be recognised. That matters because good spatial planning gives communities, councils, iwi, developers, farmers, growers, infrastructure providers, and investors more certainty. It means fewer surprises, fewer delays, and better alignment between planning rules, infrastructure investment, and the future needs of each region.

The goals of the reform are also deliberately clear. They are about enabling economic growth and change, creating well-functioning urban and rural areas, making land available for housing and business development, planning and providing for infrastructure, reducing natural hazard risks, protecting important places and values, and providing greater certainty about how Māori interests are recognised. In simple terms, the goals focus the system on what matters most. They narrow the scope for endless relitigation, give clearer direction to decision makers, and help ensure that early decisions can stick. That is how we create a planning system that is more predictable, more practical, and more outcomes-focused. We need a planning system that stops getting in the way and starts getting things done.

The Resource Management Act (RMA) reform makes it easier to consent renewable energy, EV charging, and other lower-emission developments. Today is a landmark day, a day when New Zealand turns the page on a failed system and embraces a planning framework fit for the future. On this side of the House, we are fixing the basics and building the future. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour)

16:45

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, that’s a shocking speech from a member who obviously has no awareness in terms of what her Government has done in terms of Māori interests.

As Rachel Brooking has pointed out very well over the 30 hours that she covered this kaupapa, Māori interests have been insulted and ignored. That was epitomised very much by Tainui leader Tukoroirangi Morgan. It’s a shame the member wasn’t at Ngāruawāhia, but Paul Goldsmith and Tama Potaka were there, and Tuku Morgan was very, very clear that we have to kick this lot out. It’s not because Māori don’t want to work with this Government—Māori would work with this Government tomorrow. Māori, particularly iwi, don’t have a choice in terms of when they’re trying to set a future up for their mokopuna, for the generations to come. It doesn’t matter who’s the lead in Government—whether it’s National, Labour or whatever—Māori don’t have a choice on this. But when Māori set up a deal with Nick Smith and the previous National Government in terms of mana whakahono ā rohe [iwi participation arrangements], they expect Governments to respect those deals. They expect Governments to honour those deals.

Simon Court

We’re changing the law.

They don’t expect Governments to change the law—change the law—break the law, ignore the courts like the ACT Party wants to do. That’s what they want to do. They want—

Tom Rutherford

That’s rubbish.

No, it’s not rubbish. It’s a fact. They’ve said that. You say “rubbish”—that’s just not true. David Seymour’s said, “What do these judges know?” What are you saying rubbish for? He’s documented and he’s clear that judges don’t know what they’re doing, courts don’t know what they’re doing, and anyone who acknowledges partnership in terms of Māori don’t know what they’re doing. That’s not rubbish; that’s an absolute, undisputed fact—that the ACT Party does not agree with the professor over here. Duncan knows. That’s true, isn’t it? The professor’s acknowledged it; he’s given me the green light.

That’s a fact, and I just need to tell some on the other side: mana whakahono ā rohe [iwi participation arrangements] agreements were great agreements. It was a great strategy from National: bringing in iwi input, bringing in iwi leaders, bringing in support, working with the Māori, not telling Māori what to do. What I want to say today is I acknowledge the work that National did in that area. But this Government is shaming all the work and embarrassing all the work that had been done in the past. How do I know this? Because I ran into Chris Finlayson the other day and he told me this.

Tom Rutherford

Talk to the bill.

He did. Now, Chris Finlayson knows more about mana whakahono ā rohe [iwi participation arrangements] and iwi agreements; more than everyone on that other side, and most people—well, I won’t say most people on this side, because myself and Rachel and Duncan probably know a little bit more than him. But the reality is when you have learned leaders of that stature embarrassed by this Government, embarrassed the way that they’re treating Māori, you have to make that statement here in Parliament. Not only Chris Finlayson—he told me he rang Sir Doug Graham, who is the sort of godfather of Treaty settlements and everything, and Sir Doug Graham is embarrassed by this lot over there. That’s right, and none of them can look at me at the moment, because they’re hanging their heads in shame because the senior kaumātua of this useless Government has said they don’t know what they’re doing—they don’t know what they’re doing.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh)

Is your speech going to circle back to the bill, Mr Jackson?

Tukoroirangi Morgan said that. He actually said, “We know this is election year, but this [kaupapa] is bad news for people and organisations who follow the rule of law and [then] in the next breath have the government step in to override judicial directions at”—at; here’s the key—“the behest of their political donors.” That’s what Tukoroirangi Morgan said. He said, “Our catchments will now be subject to another six years of degradation which is completely and utterly unacceptable. PC1 levels the playing field for everyone who has a vested interest in the health and wellbeing of our environment and that must surely be a positive thing”—but not so for this Government.

This is such an embarrassment, because as people have said, the Government has swung the pendulum too far towards private property rights. I think those points have been made. The new purpose centres on the enjoyment of land, which we argue risks putting the interests of individual landowners ahead of good planning for entire communities. Putting property rights before human rights creates a situation where councils could be financially punished for protecting communities. This isn’t a planning bill for our communities or the common good of society; it’s a blueprint for big polluters to hold our democratic institutions to ransom if they dare enforce environmental concerns against them. The reality is the big polluters in this country seem to have a direct line to Minister Bishop and the Prime Minister. The reality is ratepayers, ultimately, carry the costs here. Instead of the polluter developer bearing the cost of environmental damage, councils, and therefore ratepayers, could face the cost of compensating property owners for restrictions imposed in the public interest.

The system doesn’t adequately plan for climate resilience—these points have been made, but I’m just reiterating these points. We have specifically highlighted the need for drainage, trees, green infrastructure, and public green space as extreme weather becomes more frequent. The reality is this bill doesn’t give any of that sufficient weight. We worry that the property rights emphasis encourages maximum development of private land without corresponding mechanisms ensuring adequate public green space. The bill produces more bureaucracy rather than less. Land use planning cannot sensibly be separated from the environment in which that development occurs.

In terms of the Māori section, again, I have read out some of the things from Tuku Morgan, but it is appropriate to talk about the principles of the Treaty because we have a few dingbats on the other side who don’t understand how important the principles of the Treaty are, and we know who those people are. Our view in terms of giving effect to the principles of the Treaty—we stand by it, so we wanted that introduction, as what we’ve got now is a worsening in terms of the Resource Management Act (RMA). Section 8 of the RMA states that “all persons exercising functions and powers under it, in relation to managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources, shall take into account the principles of the Treaty”. The general Treaty clauses in these bills have been removed.

Simon Court

That’s right.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour)

That’s right—I knew you knew that, yeah. There are specific actions—clause 8, the section 6(e) relation of Māori to lands, water, and taonga equivalent, is downgraded. It is expected this approach would limit how the Treaty is interpreted. That is the problem—that is the problem.

I want to acknowledge in particular, obviously, our representatives who’ve worked on this, Rachel in particular, but I also want to acknowledge David Parker and Kiritapu Allan, who had to traverse this in our time in Government, and it was not an easy area in terms of giving effect to the Treaty. Well, all Governments have struggled with that, giving effect to the Treaty, but you don’t give effect to the Treaty by walking away from the obligation and the responsibility, which is what this Government has done. What they’ve done with this is watered down the obligations, watered down the rights in terms of Māori, and have barely acknowledged Māori as partners through this process. It’s a sad, sad indictment on a Government that only has six more weeks in office, and then Tuku Morgan and all the other iwi leaders will be happy because we’ll see the end of the most anti-Māori Government from the past generations. Kia ora, Madam Speaker.

GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland)

16:55

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a real pleasure to rise and take a call in support of the Planning Bill. For more than three decades, New Zealanders have had to deal with a resource management system that is too complicated, too costly, and too slow. The Resource Management Act (RMA) has too often become a barrier to the very things our communities need: new homes, reliable infrastructure, renewable energy, and productive businesses that can grow and create jobs.

That matters greatly in an area like Northland. Our region has enormous potential, but too often progress has been held back by complexity and delay. Whether it is building a home, upgrading a road, strengthening electricity networks, establishing a new business or investing in the primary sector, Northlanders know how unnecessary processes can add cost and be an uncertainty.

I particularly want to focus on the area of homes. We’ve always supported a property-owning democracy as a foundation of our society. Homeownership is fundamental to a well-functioning society. I’ve got two children, both in their 20s, who will soon be wanting to buy their first home. It would be great if they didn’t have to rely on the bank of mum and dad to come and do that, as, unfortunately, as one of the legacies of the previous RMA, that has definitely been one of the things, unfortunately, that has to happen. It’s important that every person growing up in New Zealand has the opportunity to buy their own home in their own right. For that to happen, the price of land and the cost of housing developments need to be reduced. This will be one of the great outcomes of this legislation.

New Zealand cannot afford to keep planning for delay, complexity, and constraint. We need a system that gets the balance right, one that protects what matters, respects property rights and affected people, and gives communities the confidence to build for the future. For Northland, this reform means a better chance to turn opportunity into jobs, homes, infrastructure, and stronger communities. This is a practical and long overdue replacement to the RMA, and I commend the Planning Bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh)

This is a split call.

16:58

I, from time to time, joined the Environment Committee as they’ve considered aspects of these two bills. I’ve listened to our experts within our own caucus who’ve worked on these bills, the Planning Bill and the Natural Environment Bill, but, in essence, I’m coming to it fresh today. This is the first time I’ve had a speech on this bill, and I have to say it’s quite daunting picking it up and understanding what the Government over there has chosen to do.

Now, I guess I’m finding a couple of things distressing about what I’ve heard in the House this afternoon. I think I found it distressing that members on the other side, despite being now well-established members of this House, read their speeches, that they couldn’t do as we’re supposed to do in this House and genuinely speak to the bill that’s in front of us. So I come here comparatively fresh to this and ready to grapple with it and speak from the heart about some of the problems I see in this bill, and the thing is, it’s a glaring problem that starts right from the start.

I want to go, in clause 4—it’s the purpose clause. What is the purpose of the Planning Bill? It’s such a limited purpose. It says, “The purpose of this Act is to provide for the enjoyment of land by establishing a framework for planning and regulating the use and development of [that] land.” Here’s the thing: purpose clauses often give a direction as to how the courts are to interpret the law. Where, in the purpose of this bill, is the need to plan for our natural environment? Where is there, in the purpose of this bill, to plan for huge issues like climate change? Where is it, in the purpose of this bill, mentioned that one of the things that New Zealanders value, that we love, is our access to the outdoors, to open spaces, to green, to the freshness of nature? We have just seen the annual Bird of the Year competition this year, where so many New Zealanders enter in this vote to choose the bird of the year, because we love where we live. This Planning Bill does not acknowledge that love.

But then I think the other gap that just comes right out of this bill is going to the sections which talk about what is to be considered or not considered when undertaking decision making under this bill. There’s a whole lot of issues that should be considered. But where was the climate? Then it turns out there is a clause specifically for considering climate change effects, and it says that when anyone is exercising a power, function, or duty under this bill, they may consider any positive effects of the activity that are associated with avoiding, reducing, removing, or displacing greenhouse gas emissions. That’s a good section to see in there. But then they say that they “must not …”—“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;”—“must not … consider any adverse effect on climate”.

We have seen an absolute litany of shameful actions from that Government, who on the one hand say that they intend to honour our climate commitments and on the other hand have taken action after action after action that have totally negated what they’ve said up front. Here it is again in this bill: “must not … consider any adverse effects on climate”. They’ve written it into law. This is a shameful bill.

RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East)

17:03

This was a wonderful bill, and I’m so pleased to be able to speak to it. Can I just take a moment to acknowledge the courage that our Minister, the Hon Chris Bishop, ably assisted by Simon Court, has taken to create this part one of two planning bills. We had the members opposite saying that they’d created a bill, and why didn’t we just support it?

Hon Rachel Brooking

An Act—it was an Act that you repealed.

RYAN HAMILTON

Well, the reality—an Act, an Act. Thank you for that correction. The reality why we didn’t support it is because it was dumb, because it was the Resource Management Act 2.0, and we had to repeal it and make something that was workable and that would fundamentally shift the productivity disease in this country. This bill, the Planning Bill, in conjunction with the environment bill, is going to be fundamental to the production and the prosperity of this country. It will be one of the hallmarks of this Government, and I’m pleased that we can celebrate this today in the third reading and what will be a significant shift in the ability to get stuff done in this country. Very quickly, changing things from 100 regional plans to 17, changing things like over 1,300 zones to what I imagine—

Hon Rachel Brooking

That sounds like our legislation.

RYAN HAMILTON

You had your call, Ms Brooking. Why don’t you just be quiet now, please? From over 1,300 planning zones to less than 100 potentially. It’s with pride that I commend this bill to the House.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North)

17:05

Kia orana. Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is a disappointing day in the New Zealand Parliament when we are looking to progress through the final stages the two remaining bills. As you’ve heard already, the Labour Party continues to be opposed to this bill, but it needs to be noted that when it comes to Resource Management Act (RMA) reform, this has been a change in direction and in tack because, originally, when bills were sent off to the select committee, there was actually quite a bit of hope that what would come back to the House would be legislation that would address some of the issues that we had raised in the first reading contributions.

I’ve been fortunate to be able to provide a contribution at first, second, and now third reading for this bill, and what is really disappointing is that not only have those issues that were identified at first reading made their way through to select committee—and we supported the bill going to a select committee—what we actually have in front of us now, having emerged out of the committee of the whole House stage, is a completely different bill.

I heard, earlier, my colleague the Hon Rachel Brooking talk about that particular Monday when the select committee report had come back, and then a matter of hours—or less than hours, actually—afterwards, a completely new approach was identified by this Government. What that signals to the numerous individuals, organisations, and community groups that took their time to engage with Parliament’s process is an absolute kick in the guts. They, effectively, engage with this process that this Parliament establishes for our community to provide their feedback on a bill, the select committee works through that, reports it back, and then a matter of hours later, on the same day, they simply land something that has a completely different tack, not only from the select committee but in terms of the issues that had been identified. What is the point of a select committee process? I can accept that there might be a few tweaks to address certain things, but when you have a Government that basically lands on the Table a complete alternative approach to things that had been worked through as part of the select committee process, that is deeply disturbing.

We continue to oppose this particular bill, which is very different from when it was at the first reading. Now, I’ve also heard about the concerns that have been expressed by one of the few statutory officers of this Parliament, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, who himself has identified that, actually, there is a lack of synergy between this bill and the one that is about to follow over the course of today.

The issue around dispute resolution, effectively, and the process around that being problematic is something that we still stand by. Why? Because these are decisions that will be taken by Ministers of this Government—for the next few weeks, at least—and there is far too much discretion that sits at ministerial level, and there is far too much power that sits with one Minister in particular. That is the particular issue that I think needs to be highlighted. I know that it has been highlighted before, but it is an issue none the less.

I’ve heard in this House, from members opposite, around how we don’t need to worry about the regulatory relief implications for local councils. Well, I do want to just identify what this will mean for local councils and, by default, members of the community who will feel it hard, potentially, in terms of the compensation in the regulatory relief provisions. This is one of the most serious concerns that I have with this legislation. It will force councils and communities to make decisions that are actually not about what is in the best interests of the community and the environment but are actually in the best interests of the back pocket. Fundamentally, that’s what these regulatory relief provisions seek to kind of indicate—some concern. Local government itself as a sector has identified concerns in the same space. Across Aotearoa New Zealand, over decades, councils have spent time pulling together plans and opportunities throughout communities that reflect really strong value in terms of what communities value in their own backyard.

When we look at the list, some of those are around biodiversity protections, some of them are around what natural areas would be considered as being significant, others around heritage buildings and precincts, and actually we talked about this just in the last few days around earthquake-prone buildings and what that might mean. Others are around the outstanding nature of landscapes, coastal protections. New Zealand, as we know, is an island nation that has coastal opportunity that is second to none than other parts of the world. Also around hazard management provisions.

Now, these protections should not be seen as something radical, they should be seen as actually being something that is astutely part of New Zealand and Kiwi life and our own sense of identity. Yet, we have a Government that seeks to focus on private interest, private implication at the expense of public and community value. And I don’t think that’s right. Where councils will be forced into considering actually, “Will compensation be required? Will regulatory relief be sought or required? What will this financial exposure be to us?”

When I talk about “us” and “we”, I’m talking about the community that are outside of these four walls, because at the end of the day, when this regulatory relief is being sought and this compensation is going to have to be paid, it is going to come out of the back pockets of communities all around Aotearoa New Zealand. It’ll come out of back pockets by way of an increase in rating capacity. It will come out of their back pockets in terms of a reduced level of service when councils reflect on what it is they will continue to provide at what level, or indeed what it is they will no longer provide because they don’t have adequate revenue to be able to do that. It will result, perhaps, in delayed infrastructure projects in communities. Why? Because councils will be forced to prioritise what they may wish to do as a result of turning their mind to regulatory relief and possible compensation. It may lead to the disposal of council assets, something that is the mantra of this particular Government, in terms of assets owned by the community—you’d actually want to make it easier to hock them off. That is the focus of this particular Government.

Fundamentally, it will result in the reduced investment in areas like recreational facilities—

Lemauga Lydia Sosene

Libraries.

Libraries—thank you—pools, museums.

Lemauga Lydia Sosene

Parks.

This will be a—parks. You keep going, that’s great. These are the sorts of things that really will have an impact on local communities. And while Mr Court might say, well, you know, it’s only about increased revenue, or it might be about a land swap here and there, at the end of the day, this is going to hit communities at its heart.

Grant McCallum

What about the property owners?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform)

And what about the property owners? There we go. We have it exactly there, that is what this is all about; it is about private interest as opposed to community and public good. That is what it is. I’m not surprised to hear that from a Government member, because over the last week alone we have, yet again, heard that this is a Government that has a completely different view of localism. They campaigned at the last election on localism and what this means, but actually it’s about removing local choice and forcing councils into a particular corner. I’m not surprised by the interjection from the member opposite around that.

This is an approach that is going to also undermine the long-term planning opportunity for councils around the country. I’ve talked about the fact, and you yourself notice, Madam Speaker, that councils have, over decades, built up what things look like in their local community. Councils are very good at long-term planning. They are very good at long-term planning. And what’s really important is that councils can adapt to change. We all know that; they can absolutely adapt to change. Under this Government, they’ve certainly had to think a wee bit about that. But what they do actually also need is a Government that’s going to work alongside them in partnership. And what this Planning Bill does is it actually says to all of those community organisations, all of those councils, all of those individuals who submitted to a process acknowledging that reform is needed within this sector, actually what it is that you’ve had to say to this Parliament is worthless, is meaningless. At the end of the day, this bill reflects that. We don’t commend it to the House.

DAVID MacLEOD (National—New Plymouth)

17:15

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I want to start this contribution in saying resource management is an incredibly complex area. I think it’s shown in the fact that the speaker on the other side of the House lifted the one document of this particular bill and the size of it. And if you didn’t know, the Resource Management Act (RMA) is actually the second largest Act that we have on the statute book, only behind the Income Tax Act. It is significant in size, nearly 1,000 pages long. This stage here is step one of two steps that we’re taking this evening to be able to change the RMA, with this being the Planning Bill.

My experience is that back in 1991 when the RMA first came out, I think it was seen as a world-class piece of legislation. I actually do believe that, and I think that over the succeeding 30 years we saw multiple amendments, multiple uses of national instruments, whether they’re national policy statements or national environmental standards. The fact is that it became an incredibly litigious Act to use. It became very frustrating for anybody to get anything done. It took far too long to get consents and permits. It cost way too much. We used the commonly-used example of the wind farm here in Wellington, on the coast. The example there that it actually took two years to build. It was a big project to construct, itself. It took eight years to consent. No wonder we are the most expensive country in the OECD to get things built: infrastructure, everything like that. The red tape in the RMA has just been out of control. We need to fix that and this is what we’re endeavouring to do here.

I want to acknowledge the Ministers that have been involved here, both the Hon Chris Bishop and also Simon Court with the huge amount of work you’ve done at your level. But I also know the army of officials, we saw that at the select committee, that actually have been involved with the huge amount of work behind this bill here, as well as the Natural Environment Bill that’s still to come this evening.

I also want to thank the submitters. We did have a significant amount of interest, not unusually. Of course, everybody’s very keen to be part of this conversation, and it was so important to have that. And also the multiple lenses of the people that are around the table of the select committee, a number of them are here today. I was pleased to see the various conversations, the various angles that people looked at, because it was the select committee’s job to bring this bill back to the House in a better shape. We did see late amendments made as well by the Government, but we—sorry, I commend the bill to the House.

Party vote

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Planning Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 67

Noes 54

Party	Count
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	14
Te Pāti Māori	4
Named members Ferris, Kapa-Kingi	2

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Natural Environment Bill

Legislative Statement

17:19

I present a legislative statement on the Natural Environment Bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh)

That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Third Reading

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform)

I move, That the Natural Environment Bill be now read a third time.

There have been moments in which I thought this day would never come. It has been a long process to get to this point. There have been some who say, “Oh well, isn’t it bad that the Government is moving to repeal the Resource Management Act (RMA) on the final”—or second to last—“sitting day of the Parliament.” And it has taken a long time.

It is perhaps worth reflecting on the amount of progress that has happened in this term. In these three years, the Government has passed fast track in its first year, with 34 projects approved under fast track. We have passed the biggest series of changes to national direction under the RMA, ever—in three years; a new national policy statement for infrastructure, which we never had before; a much more strengthened and reliable national policy statement for renewable electricity generation; new national standards for granny flats; for the first time ever, a national environmental standard for papa kāinga housing to allow iwi to use their whenua to build papa kāinga for whānau; national environmental standards for telecommunications, that have just been promulgated, that will make it easier to build telecommunication towers; national environmental standards for electricity vehicle charging infrastructure, to stop ChargeNet and Meridian and all the EV charging companies having to go out and get individualised resource consents for projects that are, basically, functionally the same around the country; national environmental standards changes to freshwater; and a variety of other environmental changes through the national direction. All of that, and fast track and some changes to the RMA to allow for more housing in Auckland, and now today: the second of two bills—a duo of bills—to finally repeal and replace the RMA, once and for all. The RMA will be “gone-burger”—once it receives Royal assent.

I want to reflect on the environment, because the RMA—and I think this is now widely understood—has been a disaster for infrastructure and housing, and we’ve canvassed that in the Planning Bill, but it’s also been a failure when it comes to protecting the environment. Most metrics have degraded since 1991. Study after study shows two-thirds of our rivers have impaired ecological health. To the contrary to what members opposite, I think, sometimes say—or perhaps even believe—the Government’s view is that we can have a growing, thriving economy and we can do that whilst protecting the environment. In fact, the two go hand in hand. We should not pretend that it’s some binary choice between the environment and the economy. Actually, both work together. New Zealanders share pride in our pristine environment. We have a joint national collective belief in protecting this very special part of the world for our children and our children’s children.

I want to spend a little time in this speech talking about how this new system will better protect the environment. One of the failures of the RMA has been the inability to introduce proper environmental limits. We are introducing environmental limits through the new Natural Environment Bill to improve resource efficiency and improve the environment. Enforcement will be more effective and consistent. We’re considering a national regulator with a regional presence to monitor and enforce environmental rules.

There will be a huge focus on data-driven decisions through a digitised planning system. This hasn’t received a lot of attention—and that annoys me a little bit—but the Government has invested considerably, and will continue to invest, in a digitised back end for councils and for central government to drive better decisions, better monitoring, and better measurement. It’s extremely important, and I’ve been flabbergasted, frankly, over the last three years at some of the gaps in our information, the gaps in our knowledge. But with better data, you can make better decisions.

I want to be clear on what Parliament’s intent is when passing these bills into law. On environmental limits, central and local government decision-makers will be required to set binding environmental limits informed by data and community aspirations. National limits will protect human health. Regions will set ecosystem health limits for fresh water, coastal water, land and soil, and indigenous biodiversity, using methods set out in national standards. Ecosystem health limits will make sure that communities who know their rivers and waterways the best are able to make decisions over how they’re managed. It’s their aspirations for the environment that matter most, and they should be the loudest voices.

Requirements to manage limits through a cap on resource use have been removed—that is true. That does not prevent caps from being used, but means councils and Ministers have flexibility to decide best how to manage resource use to a limit. Limits will have effect the moment the relevant provisions in a natural environment plan become operative—not in 10 or 15 years’ time, as some in the Chamber continue to claim. Councils must take all reasonable steps to avoid breaching a limit. Where a limit is breached, the decision maker must set a target date for remedying the breach. If the target is more than 10 years away, temporary interim limits must be set to apply over 10-year intervals. These must be accompanied by actions to be achieved. Both the target date and interim limits must be credible, achievable, and avoid unnecessary delay.

Limits cannot be token. Decision makers must set limits and, in doing so, must prioritise the most urgent and important matters by considering the scale and pace of environmental degradation and the difficulty reversing that if action is delayed. The limit-setting process requires a deliberate, informed, and transparent decision about what level of environmental protection is acceptable. Decision makers must have regard to the impact of the proposed limit or method, including on communities, economic, social, environmental aspirations; the existing capacity of the natural environment to withstand or recover from pressure; and a cost-benefit analysis of the proposed decision. This way, any economic, social, and environmental trade-offs are surfaced and considered up front rather than being relitigated every time someone wants to develop. Limit-setting is a policy choice which includes a range of considerations. It is not intended to be a wholly scientific decision. The current state of the environment will be a relevant factor in this decision, but the limit may be set at above or below this level.

Let me be really clear: limits are critical to the Natural Environment Bill. They are the most important tool in protecting the environment in the bills, but they are not the only tool. The starting premise of the environment bill is protective in that the use of natural resources is not permitted unless allowed by a national standard, a rule, or a permit. Not all things are best managed through limits, and for these other things the intention is that plan rules and national standards can be used to manage impacts on the environment.

In relation to freshwater farm plans, we’ve made changes to create a simpler, cheaper system focused on real risk. A farm will be required to have a farm plan if it has more than 50 hectares in pastoral, arable, or viticultural orcharding land use, or more than 5 hectares in horticultural production that is not viticulture or orchards.

Farm plans are required to be certified and audited in three scenarios: first, if they’re undertaking activities prescribed in regulations as high risk, and in this situation, only the activities that are prescribed are subject to certification and auditing; second, where the catchment is prescribed in regulations; third, where the farm operator is using the freshwater farm plan to meet other regulatory requirements.

In relation to upholding Treaty settlements and other arrangements, Treaty settlement legislation gives effect to redress and arrangements that interact with planning processes and is independent of the provisions in both the Planning Bill and the Natural Environment Bill. There are provisions in the Planning Bill and the Natural Environment Bill to ensure this redress can be upheld in the new system, including by requiring the Crown to work with post-settlement governance entities (PSGEs) and other entities, if they wish to do so, to seek agreement on how settlement redress can operate in the new system.

The bills also set out specific requirements that relate to more complex arrangements—for example, aspects of Te Ture Whaimana. Until agreement is reached, decision makers in the new system are required to give the same or equivalent effect to Treaty settlement redress as it had under the RMA to the greatest extent possible in the new system. Some Treaty settlements include redress relating to wildlife. For wildlife approvals, I want to be clear that permit authorities must notify only those iwi authorities or PSGEs where necessary to give effect to Treaty settlement redress. A relevant iwi authority in this context is limited to one with relevant Treaty settlement redress. There is no requirement to notify iwi authorities or other Māori groups more generally.

The explicit intent of these bills is to deliberately reshape how we interact with the planning system. We are purposely and deliberately creating a system where we incentivise earlier participation at the planning stage, including in regional spatial plans, with more focused and targeted participation at later stages, consistent with the funnel concept. That includes iwi engagement. Iwi should not be consulted as a right on each and every consent. They don’t want that, the public don’t want that, and it erodes social licence for the planning system. Iwi should have a role in contributing and shaping plans for a region, not a role in consenting unless that consent directly affects them—in other words, the same as everyone else. This applies across both the natural environment and the planning bills.

If I could just take one more second to say that these reforms signify a large shift in how we plan and manage our land, environment, and development—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh)

The Minister’s time has expired. The Hon Rachel Brooking.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin)

17:29

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh)

Before you start, can I just say that the question is that the motion be agreed to.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs)

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m interested in some comments that we’ve just had from Ryan Hamilton about the Planning Bill that is related to this bill. He called Labour’s reforms, our Natural and Built Environment Act and Spatial Planning Act, the Resource Management Act (RMA) 2.0, but then he didn’t explain why, and then he listed a whole lot of things about this legislative scheme, which is the same as what was in Labour’s legislative scheme. Those good things—the spatial plans, the standardisation, the moving the focus of the system away from consent by consent, very expensive processes into the plans and into the national direction—those are all things that we agree with, and that is all the stuff that was in what that member called RMA 2.0. What does that make this legislation then? Is this RMA 3.0, given that logic?

Now, I’m interested in the Minister’s comments, just then, about limits. The Minister has said that the RMA has not worked for the environment and the environment has got worse. I totally agree with that premise, and that is why Labour undertook its reforms. Now, Labour had a limits-setting process in our legislation, and the Minister has made a lot of the fact that this legislation also has a limits-setting framework. But what we heard in the committee of the whole House stage of this bill, and what we saw by amendments that were made by the majority in select committee and then by subsequent amendments as well, is that any limit is going to be able to be avoided, which rather defeats the purpose of saying there is a limit.

A limit is a limit. If you’re driving your car at 120 and the limit is 110—you’re on one of those fancy new roads—then you are breaching the limit, and you can’t do it. But that is not what the limits mean in this legislation. The limits mean in this legislation that the Minister can just decide that something can ignore it. That’s not a limit. We also heard in the committee of the whole House stage that when deciding what these limits will be, at some point in the future—we could have already had the limits in play, but, no, we’re going to put out those limits further and further—that they’ve got to go through a cost-benefit analysis. How much is this going to cost some users of the system? Presumably users of the commons—that is users of a water resource—how much is it going to cost them? And if it’s a bit too much, we won’t worry about the limit. That is what Simon Court was talking about in the committee of the whole House stage. It is laughable that Government members come to this House and say that this new regime has limits and that it’s somehow going to help the environment, because it just simply is not.

We are very suspicious of this Government’s approach because what we have seen happen throughout this term of Government—and the Minister was speaking about it—is that there have been little strikes on the Resource Management Act and anything that goes to any environmental protections. We have seen that in one amendment bill and then in a second amendment bill, and with the fast-track legislation and then with an amendment to the fast-track legislation. Where has that led the country? Well, what we have seen, just last week, in urgency, is the Government having to do some sort of fix-up for development contributions for those fast-track projects that the Minister was just in this House skiting about. Those projects include huge housing developments on flood plains without any provision for development contributions. What that means is that ratepayers are going to be paying a whole lot more for infrastructure. It is just typical of this Government’s arrogant approach to lawmaking, that they speed things through, they say, “Oh, we’re listening in select committee.”, they plop out all these changes by majority, and then it doesn’t work. If only they’d listened to all those submitters who said, “It just won’t work.” But, no, they don’t do that.

We’ve also seen in the media, today, the Minister objecting to an article that’s been in The Post, where I have called this Government’s approach “reckless”—because it is reckless. We saw in the committee of the whole House stage giant Amendment Papers from this Government doing a whole lot of policy changes. Now, sometimes you can have giant Amendment Papers that reorder the bill to make it more logical, that do some little typo fix-its or fine referencing fix-its. But that wasn’t what this was. Instead, we had major policy changes coming in after the select committee process. The Minister says, “Oh well, we told people about it. We put out a press release about it.” That is not good lawmaking. Putting out a press release is not the same as scrutiny at a select committee. Again, it goes to this Government’s arrogance.

Plus the Minister said, “Well, there were 30 hours of the committee stage, and so these things would have been scrutinised.” But those members, on that side of the House, closed down the debate. They closed it down on the part of this bill when we would have discussed the schedules, and what was in those schedules? Just these farm plans that the Minister was talking about. Were we able to discuss that? No, not in any real way. Did we discuss the wildlife approvals? No. Did we discuss in any detail the huge changes to fisheries that came in after the select committee process and by Amendment Paper of the Government? No, we did not. We had articles this week by Andrea Vance about the huge loss that people are feeling about theMotiti decision and how that’s all been upended by changes that this Government made under stealth, not in good faith. That is so typical. Nothing is ever in good faith by this Government.

Then we also have this removed resource cap. That comes in after the select committee process. Plus, we had a decision made by the Environment Court about the Waikato Regional Council’s plan, and this plan would have been implementing some policy statements, the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management. It would have been doing better for our rivers and for that environment. The Environment Court decision came back. A couple of people with some phone numbers in their phones didn’t like it. So what did they do? They lobbied this Government to change the law. And what did this Government do? What a surprise. What a surprise. Just like they’ve done time and time again, they changed the law. They did it by Amendment Paper in this House where they said, “Oh, the court wants to do something. You know what? We think we’ll just overturn it. Oh, we won’t say we’re going to overturn it. We’ll just say, ‘we’re just pausing it for a few years.’” There was something that was going to decrease pollution, there was a plan that was going to do better for our environment, and what did this Government do? Well, just like they had done with the two previous amendments to the RMA and their fast-track legislation that they had to amend and then they’ve just had to amend it again, what did they do? They said, “Yes, we want more pollution.” It’s so typical. They don’t want to do anything about improving the environment. They don’t want to do anything about reducing climate change pollution. We’ve seen in these bills, “You can think of it as a positive effect, but at no other time can you consider it.”

Now, what is the future that we want on this side of the House? I think everybody here agrees that we want rivers that are swimmable. We want to reduce the pollution and we want to think of those things that are our commons, about how the public can benefit from them, rather than the private few that have the phone numbers of those members over there. We want to increase biodiversity; that is, we like Freddy the frog, we like the bats, and we need to do better for them. But on that side of the House, no, that’s not what they want. They’re happy for species to say goodbye to different species and that is a disgrace. That is what these bills are doing, and in no way should they be passed in this form. We need to make strong amendments, as I tabled, before the committee of the whole House stage.

Debate interrupted.

Valedictory Statements

Hon Brooke van Velden

SPEAKER

Members, in accordance with the Business Committee, I’ll now call on a member to make a maiden speech. Can I indicate that at the conclusion of that speech, the House will suspend—

Grant McCallum

A valedictory—valedictory.

Hon Brooke van Velden

A valedictory, not a maiden.

SPEAKER

I haven’t got there yet. Are you in the Chair or not? I tell you what, you’ll be watching it on the TV outside if you keep that up! In accordance with the Business Committee, we now come to a valedictory statement. Can I tell the House that at the conclusion of that statement, the House will suspend for the dinner break. I now call on the Hon Brooke van Velden to make her valedictory statement to the House.

17:40

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I stand in this House for a final time to give my valedictory speech. If I start to get too emotional during this contribution, I swear it’s pregnancy hormones and not me letting my guard down in the last week of Parliament.

As I retire from Parliament, I’ve reflected on what an honour and a privilege it has been to serve my community, my party, and my country. I leave Parliament decades younger than most MPs when they enter, yet I feel I’ve experienced more of New Zealand than most would in a lifetime. I have always been clear that I never wished to be a career politician. I came here to do a job, not to hold a position. I am proud of my contribution to public service, and it is time now to take on a new challenge outside of it.

One of the true privileges of being a member of Parliament is the people we meet. We in this House shape the laws of this country, but it is those interactions out across the country that have shaped me. Whether it’s a shoulder to cry on for the woman who lost her home in the Auckland floods, sitting with a woman who lost her son to suicide, or helping an elderly man with no family understand his medication, these interactions stay with me.

I’ve been shown through Kiwi companies—from fibreglass factories, forestry plantations, steel fabricators, rocket and precision electromagnet assemblies, and ports—and listened as small business owners and farmers described the daily battle to keep the lights on for their employees and provide for their own families. I’ve visited drug rehabilitation centres, rest homes and dementia care facilities, and animal welfare refuges. Every day as a member of Parliament has been different.

I am grateful for the thousands of connections I’ve had with New Zealanders, each sharing their own personal stories, and I’m humbled I had the opportunity to listen, advocate, and bring their voices to Wellington. Those conversations confirmed something that I came to this place believing. Government decisions touch each of our lives a thousand times a day, through rules, regulations, limits on freedoms and choices. We should never treat the decisions before us lightly. People deserve honesty and justification.

My first thanks tonight must go to ACT Leader David Seymour. Thank you for nine years of working together over three Parliamentary terms—nine years of leadership, mentorship, and friendship. Thank you for showing me what can be achieved by one MP with conviction and the willingness to act on it.

I believe advocating for and passing the End of Life Choice Act was the morally and ethically right thing to do. Before I entered this House as an MP, I worked here with David Seymour to write and pass a law that has now provided compassion and choice for hundreds of people suffering at the end of their lives. That law rests on a simple principle: your life is your own. Who are we to tell a terminally ill person how much suffering they must endure before the end?

I wish to acknowledge those who assisted in passing that law: parliamentarians, legal drafters, advocates, but most importantly, the many New Zealanders who shared their stories and who passed away during the passage of the bill and after. Working on that law will remain one of the greatest privileges of my life. I told you I was going to cry! It convinced me to dedicate the past few years to public service, to advance more laws that benefit New Zealanders.

My second thanks go to the ACT Party board and ACT members who selected me as the party’s deputy leader in 2020, backing a young, liberal woman to help lead the party in Opposition and in Government. Thank you for your trust and for your support over my six years in the role. I have aimed to repay that trust in my words and actions in this House, and by supporting the wider ACT caucus and team.

As deputy leader, I sought to be a support, a trusted sounding board, and a voice of honesty to the leader. Thank you, David, for providing that for me also. As I step back to join ACT’s old guard, I’m comforted that my colleague Nicole McKee will be a steady pair of hands helping to lead ACT forward.

David, I will miss our Monday evening dinners and debriefs at the Thistle Inn. I won’t miss the early-morning phone calls or running to keep up with your walking pace in these corridors.

When I entered Parliament in 2020, I also took on the role of party whip. It was a role I took seriously. I was stringent. To my ACT colleagues from 2020, thank you for putting up with my monthly key performance indicator meetings. Every month, I sat down for half an hour with each MP one-on-one to go over what had been achieved, goals for the next month, and to hear any concerns. These were warmly welcomed by some, tolerated by others, and refused by only one caucus member—the leader. I didn’t tell anyone at the time, in case the others got a whiff that they could be optional.

I was, and remain, impressed by how good our caucus was to work with. Thank you Nicole, Chris, Simon, Karen, James, Mark, Toni, and Damien for being good natured, hard-working MPs who got on with the job and left personal politics at the door. That caucus is only rivalled by our current caucus. Thank you, also, to Andrew, Todd, Laura, Parmjeet, and Cam. You have all made my decision to step away much easier, knowing that I leave the party in such good hands.

During my time in Opposition, I advocated for a number of causes. I brought a motion, unanimously supported across this House, expressing grave concern at the human rights abuses against Uyghurs and other ethnic and religious minorities in Xinjiang. I hosted fundraisers for the Ukrainian effort and I advocated for pregnant New Zealand women unable to re-enter their own country under COVID restrictions. Those causes might look unrelated, but what they have in common is a belief in freedom, choice, and democratic rights. I believe in democracy. I believe it is the best system we have to protect the rights and freedoms of individuals, and to allow individuals with very different beliefs to live alongside one another with choice and dignity.

At the start of 2023, I asked two ACT Tāmaki-based volunteers out for a coffee, and I asked what they thought about me campaigning to win the seat. They didn’t know it at the time, but I wouldn’t have gone ahead if they’d told me they didn’t back the idea. The answer came back. I had my first two volunteers. Thanks to Don and Mike, I put the wheels in motion—writing a plan, getting sign-off from the board, hosting a campaign launch in Kohimarama, and setting about painting Tāmaki pink. I had pink bunting, a pink blazer, and a pink car. What followed were some of the most rewarding, tiring, and fun moments of my life.

I still recall the very first door I knocked on with Don, the day after the announcement. My pamphlets hadn’t arrived, so I printed 200 flyers at the Warehouse and met Don in the rain at the corner of Vale Road and Maskell Street. I knocked, and before I could finish my pitch, the lady who answered said, “Oh, I saw you on the news last night—you already have my vote!” That single interaction spurred me on for days.

What followed was true grassroots activism. I held 130 street corner meetings across the electorate with my pink coat and portable microphone. I remember the first one, driving to Stonefields, bracing for no one to show up. I was greeted by 40 people at the corner of the park, all curious to meet the new candidate. By the end of the campaign, over 120 locals were volunteering in some capacity, most of whom had never been involved in a political party. Thank you to my campaign manager, Jaden; to electorate committee chairs, Carolyn and Tony; and electorate committee members and volunteers.

The warmth and support I felt in Tāmaki from the start has never left. It has been a true pleasure to be your local MP. To the people of Tāmaki, thank you. Thank you for voting for me to represent you. Thank you for your warmth, your kindness, and your genuine care for my welfare.

I’ve lost count of how many times a conversation in a local shop has led to someone thanking me for my service, or even comments like “You’re too nice for that job. It must be horrible. How do you do it?” I joke back that I grew up the youngest of four kids and the only girl, I can handle anything. But the truth is it can be tough at times: the abuse, the personal attacks, and the concern for safety. While I can’t control other people’s actions, I can control how I respond.

We have a duty, as leaders in this House, to be role models for those who watch us and for those who come after us. Those attacks have been met by turning the other cheek and getting on with the job. The clear exception was the fateful day of the “c” word, when a clearly misogynistic article was brought into a debate in this House to belittle me and other senior members of this Government—don’t worry, Mr Speaker, I won’t repeat those quotes today. I’m proud to have stood up to that misogyny, for my colleagues and for every woman who stays silent out of fear of being labelled the wrong kind of woman.

As I leave, I ask my colleagues to reflect on their words and actions. We are all sent to this place to represent the people of New Zealand and to make the hard decisions that need to be made. The standard should be to hold the Government to account for the decisions it makes, without resorting to personal attacks.

When we came out the other side of coalition negotiations, I had no idea what position I would be offered. I was happy to be placed wherever the party thought best. As it turned out, that was in Cabinet, working on some of the most extensive employment reforms in decades and overseeing the serious operations of government at the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA). On both fronts, I knuckled down, learnt a lot, and made the hard decisions leaders are expected to make.

A quote from economist Thomas Sowell I constantly come back to is that “There are no solutions. There are only trade-offs.” Nowhere is that clearer than in Government. With limited finances, limited time, and limited people, where is the effort best spent? If I’d listened to my officials, I fear I would have achieved half of what I’d set out to do. There is a constant call for more people, more time, and more money. With a few pushes here and there, I ticked off every Government work programme handed to me, and a few more.

One of the most meaningful actions I could take in my workplace relations portfolio was reform of the Holidays Act, which had caused decades of confusion about how to pay staff. This shouldn’t be complicated, but our laws had made it so. A law that an ordinary employer cannot follow without hiring a consultant is a bad law—however good the intentions behind it. Complexity is never neutral. It is a tax on the small operator who cannot afford the advice, and it quietly favours those who can.

Two former Ministers who’d tried and failed wished me good luck as I took on this immensely technical law. It required real work, balancing different interests, and a lot of attention to detail. I leave proud of the effort it took to repeal the Holidays Act and replace it with a simpler one. Thank you to every person who helped me champion that reform.

To my adviser, Jenesa, I’m proud to have worked alongside such a strong and precise rational thinker. My successes are also your successes. To know you can trust someone fully and rely on their honest opinion is rare in politics. You have a huge future ahead of you, and I’d be lucky to work with you again.

Within the Department of Internal Affairs, I focused on the efficiency of Government and better governance. It’s been pleasing to see processing times for citizenship applications drop from 180 days at the start of the term to a low of 32 days, to oversee reform of the lottery grants system, and—a personal favourite—to see the National Library and Archives New Zealand work together to produce Anzac Stories, an accessible online tool all Kiwi kids can use to learn about a pivotal time in New Zealand’s history. It provides future generations access to our war records in an interactive way. Lest we forget.

To my adviser Nick, you’re a shining light in Wellington’s dark bureaucracy I think of DIA as an engine constantly at risk of spontaneous combustion—you never know when the next fire will light—but, Nick, you’ve extinguished flames on the daily.

On the Public Service, I have met several very skilled public servants who are badly let down by the structure they work within, and I believe radical reform is needed. The Public Service Commission should be abolished. It does not work for the public and it does not work for elected Governments. It works for the Public Service to preserve the status quo, and enable public servants to shuffle between agencies while leaving the failures of their roles behind, with no accountability or meaningful consequences.

Ministers should hire chief executives directly and be responsible for their agency: one agency, one Minister. If that were the structure, I believe we’d see better accountability and transparency over decision making and where the money goes. It is what the people paying our taxes deserve, and it shouldn’t be hard in a country as small as ours. The Public Service should serve the public, not itself.

There are a few more people I wish to thank this evening. Thank you to all the staff who keep our democracy running: those in the Speaker’s Office, the Office of the Clerk, the messengers, and especially the security team, who have been a delight to greet every day. This House does not work without you, and you are rarely thanked for it.

Miranda, I remember interviewing you to be responsible for my office and asking how you’d look after it. You said you’d do one better and look after me. You’ve kept your word. You’ve provided warmth to my days and taken many weights off my mind. Thank you.

Cami and Florence, my press secretaries, thank you for making me look good in the news. You’re both stars.

Jaden, you’ve made the difficult balance of ministerial and electorate work much easier. Thank you for caring for Tāmaki on the days I’m down here, and for managing the office so well with Cynthia, Jan, Felix, and Charlotte.

Thank you to the VIP drivers. It felt like I’ve had a team of aunts and uncles on standby. There are too many to name, but I’ll give one example of going above and beyond. When one of the drivers heard that my partner was buying me apricot Danishes—because that’s what the baby wanted, and I couldn’t find anything like it in Wellington—one morning I arrived at work and found a delicious apricot Danish on my desk with a note, and they kept coming. Thank you.

Thank you to my parents for your support over these years. I said in my maiden speech that no status, wealth, or career I chose to pursue would ever earn my parents’ respect; only my character could do that. Respect is hard to gain and easily lost. I sincerely hope I have earned yours, and that I’ve kept it.

To my love, I know it’s not easy to have a partner in the public eye. Thank you for putting up with it quietly, for supporting me emotionally, and for challenging me intellectually. I’m excited to spend more than one or two days together in a row, in the same city. I’m excited for the future, for this baby, and for the new challenges ahead.

I’ll leave with the sign-off I’ve sent in my newsletter every month: “As always, it’s a pleasure being your MP. See you around the community.”

[Applause]

Sitting suspended from 6.01 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor)

Good evening, members. In accordance with the determination of the Business Committee, I call on Government order of the day No. 8.

Bills

Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri Claims Settlement Bill

Legislative Statement

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Acting Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations)

19:30

I present a legislative statement on the Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri Claims Settlement Bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor)

That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

First Reading

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Acting Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations)

I move, That the Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri Claims Settlement Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Māori Affairs Committee consider the bill.

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

I wish to thank and acknowledge Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri for making the journey here today to join us in Te Upoko o Te Ika Wellington for this significant milestone. I speak on behalf of the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, Paul Goldsmith, who has followed Andrew Little in chaperoning this mahi through on behalf of the Crown and alongside with, and ultimately for, Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri. I acknowledge and extend a warm welcome to iwi members in the public gallery and to whānau watching from throughout the motu on television this evening.

It is a significant milestone for the relationships between Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri and the Crown. This bill gives effect to the deed of settlement negotiated between Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri and the Crown and marks an important step towards resolving historical, and “herstorical”, Treaty grievances and building a renewed set of relationships for the future. The deed-signing ceremony was wet, wild, windy, with the warmth of Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri manaakitanga and promise of kōura and rāwaru distinctly Wharekauri. I was humbled by the manaakitanga of Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri and the abundance of outstanding aroha, generosity, and also kaimoana. The way that everyone adapted and persevered despite the elements reflected the resilience, strength, and wairua o Wharekauri, particularly the hearty rangatahi who sat for over an hour and a half on cold, probably damp grass, stoically awaiting the conclusion of the pōhiri and the signing ceremony. E mihi ana ki ngā rangatahi.

Before speaking to the settlement itself, I wish to acknowledge those whose commitment, determination, and leadership have brought us to this point. Firstly, the people—

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

—this settlement is your settlement alongside and shared with the Crown. It belongs to the whakatupuranga, or the generations, that have maintained identity, tikanga, and their connection to Wharekauri and kept the embers glowing on those islands through periods of profound challenge and change. It belongs to those that carried the historical, and “herstorical”, burden of these grievances, yet never gave up hope that, one day, these would be resolved in a manner that could lead to legislation—and, importantly, that those experiences and those stories are heard and accounted for in the appropriate record.

The current trustees of Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri Iwi Trust—Melodie, Monique, Deena, Di, Megan Lanauze-King, John Preece, and Paula Page, and others, including the mandated negotiators Tom McClurg and Hariroa Daymond, and all those who represented the iwi through the settlement processes. Of course, prior to the current Government, the mahi that you did alongside the Hon Andrew Little, “Ānaru Paku”, and now with Paul Goldsmith, “Pāora Metekōura”.

Treaty negotiations require a lot of patience, resilience, and an unwavering commitment to future generations. The work undertaken on behalf of the iwi has culminated in the legislation before the House today, honouring the efforts of those who have tirelessly advocated and pursued this kaupapa to realise the aspirations of the iwi, to resolve the claims settlement process, and, of course, to further create balance for the health, wealth, and wellbeing of the people, of the land, and of the sea.

I also acknowledge the kaumātua, tauheke, and kuia whose knowledge, leadership, and stewardship ensured stories of Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri were never lost. They persevered and passed through the generations, many of whom are depicted in the pictures out in the Grand Hall this evening, some whose memories remain etched in the hearts and the minds of those that have gathered here today, but the legacy that they bring, and that now you uphold, we reflect through this settlement legislation.

To the whānau who attended the hui and cast votes during the mandating and ratification processes, provided guidance, challenged decisions, and did the mahi—did the mahi—who remained engaged in negotiations: this sort of process can be quite challenging and quite fraught at times, but you’ve stayed the course, and the strength of any settlement lies in the support and the tautoko or the participation of the people it represents.

I also wanted to acknowledge the Te Tari Whakatau Crown negotiators, officials, advisers, and all those who worked in good faith throughout the negotiations that led to the deed of settlement, and on behalf of the Crown, Justine, and others, e mihi ana ki a koutou katoa.

The Treaty of Waitangi settlements/Te Tiriti o Waitangi settlements require us to confront difficult chapters in our nation’s experiences and stories. The settlement deed records a range of Crown actions and omissions that breached Te Tiriti o Waitangi/the Treaty of Waitangi and caused significant prejudice to the people from Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri here today and their predecessors. The Crown has acknowledged that these failures have had enduring economic, social, cultural, political, and, indeed, spiritual consequences for the iwi.

In March 2015, Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri entrusted the trustees of the Iwi Trust with the mandate to recognise a settlement with the Crown and to carry it through to negotiation. What followed was years of dedicated work, as both parties navigated complex engagement, cultural, and commercial matters. A significant milestone was reached in November 2022 with the signing of an AIP, an agreement in principle, and culminated in the initialling of the deed of settlement; and I understand some of those people who initialled that settlement are here with us this evening. Then there was a successful ratification process, demonstrating the iwi support for the proposed settlement and a pathway forward. With that endorsement, the Crown was able to sign the deed of settlement, on a fantastic day out at Wharekauri attended by members of all parties, I recall—all or most of the parties of this House—and a range of officials, bringing a long and significant journey to the point where it can now be considered formally in this the first reading of the settlement legislation.

While no settlement can ever fully compensate for the losses, settlements do provide the opportunity for the Crown to acknowledge wrongdoing, to accept responsibility for the breaches of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and to seek to restore and enable relationships that are damaged by those actions. The settlement package reflected in this bill seeks to support the aspirations of the iwi for a thriving, healthy, and economically sustainable community on Wharekauri, grounded in its people, its culture, and its enduring connection to place.

The cultural redress recognises the unique cultural, historical, spiritual, and traditional associations of Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri with place and the surrounding areas. An important component of that, of course, are the relationship arrangements and the redress alongside Te Papa Atawhai, the Department of Conservation; and while the two parties already work closely together, the relationship with Te Papa Atawhai strengthens the mahitahi and provides an ongoing pivot for ongoing collaboration in matters of shared interest and responsibility. The financial and commercial redress, of course, is providing a platform or springboard upon which the members of the iwi of Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri can grow longer-term wellbeing, growth, and, ultimately, self-determination for the iwi.

This settlement marks neither the beginning of the end, or the end of the beginning, nor the end of the relationship between the Crown and Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri, but it actually just signifies further markers in the Te Takarangi, or the double helix spiral, of relationships that already exist and will exist into the future, particularly with the younger rangatahi and mokopuna here today.

Kia koutou katoa Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri. Today marks the first of three readings that this House will consider for this particular bill, but tomorrow morning, we will be back for the first reading of the shared redress bill, which we look forward to welcoming you back, particularly if we have oysters for breakfast! Kia ora.

I consider that the bill should proceed without delay to the Māori Affairs Committee, of course led by my colleague the honourable and very, very legendary David MacLeod, your whanaunga. I commend this bill to the House. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour)

19:40

Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare.

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

I rise on behalf of the Labour Party to stand in support for the Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri Claims Settlement Bill. It was a real honour to be there today for the mihi whakatau, and to sit with you and hear those speeches and to thank you for the oysters; they were delicious. It was really nice to sit and hear those stories and share time with you this afternoon and to meet some of you, as well. I appreciate that it’s been a long journey for many of you to come here today. I acknowledge those who are here and have made the journey, and I also acknowledge those tūpuna that you have brought with you today and who are with us here in the gallery. I acknowledge that as well.

Today is a really important day for Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri, for Wharekauri, and Rēkohu, and for New Zealand, as well. This bill gives effect to the deed of settlement signed between Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri on 17 August 2026, bringing us another step closer to being able to address those historical grievances and to be able to strengthen the relationship between Māori and the Crown.

As members of this House, I always believe that we have a responsibility to acknowledge our history honestly. Treaty settlements are not ever about rewriting history. They are about confronting it, about recognising where the Crown got it wrong and failed to uphold its obligations, and taking meaningful steps towards redress and reconciliation; also, for Wharekauri, for the infrastructure and the important things that you need for your motu, and having those things in place for the future. Labour has long believed that settlements are an essential part of honouring Te Tiriti o Waitangi. We believe that acknowledging historical injustice is not in any way a sign of division; it is in fact a sign of maturity as a nation, as we grow together. It allows us to move forward with a shared understanding of our past and also, hopefully, a shared commitment to our future together.

This settlement reflects many years of work. The Crown has recognised the mandate of Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri iwi trust back in 2016. Negotiators continued over several years, leading to an agreement in principle in 2022, and that led, ultimately, to the signing of the deed this year. That journey required perseverance and leadership. It required difficult conversations, patient negotiations, and determination to see that progress through. Today, I acknowledge the claimants, the negotiators, the trustees, kaumātua, and whānau whose commitment has brought us to this point in time. I also acknowledge those who began this work and were not able to be with us today. This achievement belongs to them, as much as it belongs to those who are gathered here now.

I was thinking back to the first time I ever got to visit Wharekauri. It was back in 2004, when I was a lot younger than I am now. I was lucky enough to attend the opening of the first Moriori marae, alongside Helen Clark, who was the Prime Minister then, and Margaret Wilson, who was the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi negotiations. I have never ever seen crayfish so big in my whole life, and I’ve never seen them that big again. I was told—[Bell rung]—they were called “packhorse”. Oh, I might have to get going with it! The settlement contains an agreed historical account, and it’s important that we acknowledge those things. I thought I had 10 minutes, Mr Speaker. That’s not fair—I had heaps more material. I hadn’t even got on to the weka.

On behalf of the Labour Party, I acknowledge those who have contributed to the settlement. I also want to congratulate Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri on this significant milestone. It’s important to note that we can’t change the past, unfortunately, but we can change how we move forward together. I genuinely hope that this is a good first step in reconciliation between iwi and the Crown, that this settlement provides you with redress and some hope for your rangatahi for the future. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa. Kia ora.

STEVE ABEL (Green)

19:45

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Kia ora koutou, Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri. It’s wonderful to have you in the Chamber today for this historic first reading of your settlement claim. I want to acknowledge my colleague in absence, Hūhana Lyndon, who would have liked to have been here but is out of the city, unfortunately, on other business. She hugely valued her trip out to the motu. I also knowledge my colleague the Hon Julie Anne Genter, who is the member for Rongotai, much more appropriately named than Wellington Bays. I don’t see how Wellington Bays captures the Chatham Islands, but it’s wonderful to have you in the gallery here today.

When I read this account, the historical account, of the injustices committed to your people by the Crown and the failures of the Crown to uphold its obligations under Te Tiriti o Waitangi, there are so many things over so many years and so many generations, and so we stand today in the House and acknowledge the injustices that the Crown has committed against you. It is the day in which the Parliament of Aotearoa New Zealand recognises it is the Crown that committed these wrongs; that is what the settlement is about. It is in your generosity that you accept this settlement, which is, as we well understood, but a fraction of what has been lost—but a fraction of the cost of the impacts of those failures of the Crown. Thank you for coming here today to accept this settlement.

In recounting your history with Taranaki and your journey from there in 1835, and then back, the relationship with Parihaka, and the peaceful resistance against colonisation, I couldn’t help but remember the words of Ruakere Hond from Parihaka, who said the winds of war still blow through our minds after all these generations. I think of all those decades of conflicts and harms and how it is such a profound and deep journey for a people to travel on, to make amends and to heal from those harms—those winds of war that still blow through the minds of people impacted by the injustices of the Crown. I salute you in your resilience and your determination, and in surviving and being here today as the descendants of your tūpuna who have been on this long journey.

The Crown recognises that it applied mentalities around land acquisition that divided up traditional collective ownership, and that is, sadly, an all too familiar story that we see across the country. It also acknowledges, in this historical account, the denial of the right of your people to speak te reo Māori; that your tūpuna were punished for speaking your language. That is such a deeply sad and profoundly wrong act. It recognises the repeated failure of the Crown to properly invest and support the infrastructure of Wharekauri, and to actually fulfil its obligations under Te Tiriti, to recognise your full rights as citizens of Aotearoa New Zealand, but here—by this settlement, by these acknowledgments, by this apology—the Crown acknowledges today that Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri are fully fledged citizens of Aotearoa New Zealand. Through this settlement, it pledges to build a relationship with Ngāti Mutunga that is based on respect for Te Tiriti o Waitangi, for its principles, and for you as a people. We as Te Pāti Kākāriki commend this bill to the House today. Thank you for being here. Kia ora.

CAMERON LUXTON (ACT)

19:50

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

Thank you very much for making the journey here, those of you who had to cross great distances of ocean that connect our sometimes far-flung brethren from the mainland of this country that we are proud to be citizens of. As this bill puts into place ngā uri o Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri, you will also be recognised properly and accounted for as citizens in this country. But citizenship comes with a story, and your story has been laid out in this historical account, for all to see. I always say, when I have the privilege of doing a speech in a reading of a Treaty settlement bill, that all New Zealanders should read the historical accounts of our Treaty settlement bills to understand the history of this country.

I won’t take long on this. There’s been a long journey here from 2016, 2020—the hurdles go a long way back, to the 1840s and before. The Islands that you are proud to be mana whenua of are an intrinsic part of New Zealand’s story in these South Pacific Islands, and are incredibly important and historic ones.

I will say that I hope very much to see the economic potential of your Islands realised through this settlement, the one we’re going to read tomorrow, and ones that have gone before. There is so much there. The connections through the mainland to Australia and beyond for kai moana are going to offer so much, and I hope the economic redress starts a proper journey of development and finances and connections that you, your people, and the Island that is so important, can really benefit from. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon MARK PATTERSON (Minister for Rural Communities)

19:52

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

It is very rare for me to speak on Treaty bills, and I do so on behalf of New Zealand First. There are usually far more appropriate speakers within our caucus. But this bill is different. As Minister for Rural Communities and Associate Minister for Regional Development, I had the privilege of travelling to Wharekauri four times—the Chatham and Pitt Islands—and it’s an enormous honour to have the opportunity to play a role in these acknowledgments today. I’ve been hosted by the warmest of hospitality. I’ve witnessed a deep sense of pride in your whenua—your place, your home—I’ve got to know many of you personally, and I’ve been invited into your homes. There are too many people to mention, but could I mention here Monique Croon, the former mayor, of course, and kuia of Ngāti Mutunga.

They are cherished memories from this term of Parliament. I think back, actually, to one of them: in true Shane Jones style, we turned up with the delegation in an Air Force Hercules, complete with the Rātana Brass Band. Shane brought a chilly bin full of kumara on the way in, and it left full of crayfish, oysters, pāua, and blue cod.

Steve Abel

That was a good trade.

Hon MARK PATTERSON

It was a great trade, but the isolation over there is a constant challenge. It is a beautiful place, it is a special place, and it is steeped in history. Today, we acknowledge some of that history, a confronting part of your history—specifically, the wrongs perpetrated on Ngāti Mutunga by the Crown.

You have been dispossessed of your lands not only in Wharekauri, actually, but also in Taranaki. Your tūpuna have been treated, at times, with contempt, and the justice system was weaponised against you. We cannot change those historical wrongs, but today we rightfully seek to acknowledge redress and apologise for those wrongdoings.

You’ve also provided, in my experience, lessons for us all. You do have a challenging history, particularly with the Hokotehi Moriori. But the way that you have worked together, the way you have put your collective shoulder to the wheel for the Chatham and Pitt Islands—and your young leaders have returned the collective sense of purpose to rejuvenate the Islands. You are an inspiration.

As you will well know, I do have a frustration with you as well: your propensity to call the mainland “New Zealand”—as in, “We’re off to New Zealand.” You are New Zealanders, and I will keep reminding you of that. You are very special New Zealanders. Today, we salute your resilience, your patience, and your dignity. I commend this bill to the House.

HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te Pāti Māori—Hauraki-Waikato)

19:57

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

I rise on behalf of Te Pāti Māori to support the Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri Claims Settlement Bill at its first reading. This bill brings before the House a history defined by the endurance of Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri, and by a Crown that treated Wharekauri as distant and marginal for far too long. But Wharekauri was never distant to the people whose whakapapa, identity, and future are bound to those islands. The Crown annexed Wharekauri in 1842, without consulting Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri. The deed acknowledges that this was a profound failure to recognise and respect their mana and tino rangatiratanga. That failure set the pattern for what followed: limited engagement, inadequate services, and decisions imposed upon Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri without their meaningful participation.

In 1870, the Native Land Court awarded most of the land on Wharekauri under the “10-owner rule”. Many customary rights holders were dispossessed, while the individualisation and fragmentation of title made the remaining whenua increasingly difficult to manage and develop. Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri were also taxed for decades while being denied representation in Parliament. They were excluded from voting in parliamentary elections until 1922.

In 1890, two iwi members were imprisoned after refusing to pay a dog tax strongly opposed by their people. The Crown was painfully slow to provide essential infrastructure and services; land was taken for roads in the early 1880s, but construction did not begin until 1945. There has never been a secondary school on Wharekauri, and Ngāti Mutunga children were punished for speaking te reo Māori at school. The consequences have been intergenerational: loss of language mātauranga; poor housing and health; restricted economic and educational opportunities; and the displacement of many uri from their island home. Despite all of this, Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri endured. They maintained their whakapapa, their connection to whenua and moana, and their visions for many generations to come.

After the recent second coronation of our Queen, Te Arikinui, [Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

We are a 31-year settled Treaty settlement iwi for us in Waikato-Tainui, and we know of the many olds who sacrificed blood, sweat, and tears to get a Treaty settlement over the line; to see, 31 years later, you, and also different iwi throughout the motu, come to your first Treaty settlement reading here today,

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

DAVID MacLEOD (National—New Plymouth)

20:02

Tēnā koe e te Pīka.

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

I proudly stand here as an uri of Ngāti Mutunga, myself. It was a blessing for me to be able to have the journey over there just recently for your signing—my first time to Wharekauri. Although the Hon Tama Potaka talks perhaps of the weather that day, of being rather cold, and I see some of the people up in the audience that experience that coldness, it was indeed a privilege to finally get to Wharekauri and enjoy the hospitality and have a very short look around. I managed to get myself to Waitangi and have a look there, as well. It’s pleasing to see that we’ve got the first reading this evening, and, of course, in the next stage, the Māori Affairs Committee—which I have the privilege of chairing, along with many of the members here on the Māori Affairs Committee—will be, indeed, opening this up for submissions as the first step of our process as a select committee and we’ll be doing that tomorrow, after we’ve had this meeting. We want to get this on the road and get it going.

Talking about on the road and hīkoi, some and my colleagues here, where we speak of Ngāti Mutunga and many understand Ngāti Mutunga of North Taranaki, and they’re trying to get the connection. I’ll probably do a poor job with this, and I know that possibly Jamie and Dion might pick up my history, here, but I wanted to talk a little bit about the hīkoi of getting across to the Chathams of Wharekauri. Of course, it started in North Taranaki and it was actually Hana’s ancestors that started the journey off; Waikato-Tainui, Maniapoto. It was actually—many people don’t realise, but Ngāti Toa had a famous rangatira who had the famous haka Ka Mate, Ka Mate—Te Rauparaha. He was of Ngāti Toa, and they were basically moved out of their home at that time of Kawhia, down to North Taranaki. They actually lived with Ngāti Mutunga for about a year, there, and obviously grew some strong ties but the conquest which was Waikato-Tainui and others didn’t stop there. It started to get a little bit risky, and they decided to journey on their way down, this way here; settled a little bit of time on the Kāpiti Coast. Ngāti Mutunga obviously settled down here on the shores of Pōneke Wellington, and the conquest didn’t stop. It was back in the days where there was lots of conquest, the Musket Wars. Once the Māori got the muskets, it was all on at that particular point in time.

Ngāti Mutunga jumped on a ship called the Rodney, I believe it was, and that was back in 1838—[Interjection from the gallery]—35, thank you; before the Treaty of Waitangi was signed, and they went out there. Another fact is a lot of people don’t realise that the Chatham Islands wasn’t actually officially part of New Zealand at the time of the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840. It wasn’t until 1842 that it got annexed, along with the Auckland Islands, as well, which is all part of the history with Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri. It’s got quite some history, there, with regards to how Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri got all the way out to the islands out there.

Of course, there is interesting history on Wharekauri itself, and tomorrow, as you will know, we’ve also got another bill that we’ll be talking to, which is the redress bill with Moriori and yourselves, also, so we look forward to having the first reading of that and bringing it to our select committee to open it up. So just a little bit of a history, all the way from North Taranaki and all the way out to the islands there. Just reading some of the history: one other little matter I’ll try and get in my time that I’ve got here: it was talking about the medical centre that wasn’t actually achieved after a request for it; it took 50 years for it to arrive. The first doctor was a person by the name of Dr George Redpath. The second doctor was Dr Edward Pōhau Ellison, and that was my grandfather, so I have a connection there as well. With that, I commend the bill to the House. Thank you.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour)

20:07

Kia ora, Mr Speaker.

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

Well, it’s a fascinating history, isn’t it? Fascinating history; I’m Ngāti Mutunga, too, Mr MacLeod, as you well know, and you all know the history, you heard it all. Everybody’s been reading it out, but I don’t think people can quite get their heads around it, eh? Really, if you ever think about it—you take a step back and you think, how does this work? Jamie Tuuta’s got it all down, you know, because he works it all out, but I mean—because people look at who’s the coloniser and how long were the Morioris there? Are we all related? Did you go down and knock off the Morioris? Yes, you did, and they were there 400 years, but then we’ve got take raupatu and all that, which I told you I totally support. We support all of that, but it’s a complex sort of thing, because we know that the Crown ripped us off but then we’ve got the whole coming together of the two groups on the island. And now you’re related anyway, aren’t you, Jamie? So everybody’s tied into everyone anyway.

I just think when you sit back and you look at this, this is a fascinating story and we’ve seen the challenges from the Moriori in the courts, quite rightly so. We’ve seen the defence from the relations and I think that’s quite right, too. I think we’re not far off coming together, I think; I really do. I’ve followed this for many, many years, so that redress kaupapa tomorrow is going to be good in terms of whakakotahi motukaupapa. From our side, and I should say Mutunga’s side, we have absolute rights because the Crown has breached the rights of our people without a doubt, in terms of the way they annexed stuff, the way they never provided support, and the way they just left our people down there.

Then the other side, if we’re being fair, is saying, well, the whole argument about who really has tino rangatiratanga—it’s a heck of a bloody question, isn’t it? It’s a heck of a blood good question. Who has the tino rangatiratanga in terms of the Chathams? It’s almost like a Palestine question, isn’t it, if you really want to analyse it. I like it in terms of as I’ve watched through the years, and I’ve only been over there once. I went over with Ronnie Mark, who took me over there, and we went to the last Māori Battalion’s hāngī down there. It was a beautiful time.

I’ve known the whānau, all the different whānau there, grew up with the Solomons in South Auckland, been a mate of Maui Solomon. I don’t know if he’s any of your—is he your mate, Maui, Jonah? Probably not. I’m sure he is—I’m sure he is.

This history is incredibly important, because it’s about our life, it’s about our history in terms of this country, it’s about take raupatu, it’s about tino rangatiratanga, it’s about the rights of Moriori, it’s about the rights of Māori, and then the Crown comes in and mucks things up. Then the Crown, on the other side, is trying, in its own way, to fix things up—mucking up along the way, but slowly, slowly getting there in terms of the type of redress that’s put in place for Moriori and for Ngāti Mutunga. I’m pleased that we’ve been able to go down that track and address and give compensation to both sides, but the biggest challenge, I think, with this kaupapa will be how the two groups come together, how we traverse that, how we manage that for all the mokopuna, and how the Crown operates in the years to come. Good luck to all of us. Kia ora anō tātou katoa.

RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini)

20:12

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise in support of the Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri Claims Settlement Bill in its first reading. It’s so interesting how we all know Māori until we’re in front of a lot of Māori, and then we just freeze up, but anyway.

It’s been an interesting read, and I say this often: I was born and raised in Australia, a Lebanese wahine from Australia, so I’m continuously learning about the nuggets of history of New Zealand. Reading about the history for the Chatham Islands—before I knew about the history, I just knew many years ago, before I met my husband, for some reason I was drawn to the Chatham Islands. I just always used to think I just wanted to go to the Chatham Islands, maybe when I’m 47 or 50—that’s a few years away. Now that I’m here in New Zealand, I feel it coming soon, that I’m going to go visit your beautiful rohe.

I must be honest, as I always am, that I was a little bit confronted when I was reading the history. I started thinking, as one does, and basically I came to the bottom line where two wrongs don’t make a right. There’s been wrongs in the history, and the beauty of settlement treaties is that, as my colleague said earlier to me today, settlement treaty bills just really put a spotlight on this for everyone to learn more and actually to go out into our communities and share what we’ve learnt and why settlement bills are very important. I’m looking forward, as well, to tomorrow’s reading of the redress bill.

When I come back to two wrongs don’t make a right, we all have our dark spots in our histories, but with you there’s some pretty deep dark spots. When we talk about, as we’ve been hearing, the annexation, and we talk about the fact that the Crown used your land to detain prisoners of war without trial, when we talk about decades of taking taxes from your hard-working ancestors but they didn’t even have the right to vote—it’s pretty sick thinking about it, actually. There’s not even a secondary school there—there wasn’t for so long, and there still isn’t, but that’s OK, we can work on that.

Also, as our colleague Steve Abel said, something that I really struggle with since moving to New Zealand and learning about this type of history from my beautiful friend whaea Anne Kendall is the Māori language being forced out of you at school, getting in trouble for speaking that beautiful native tongue. These are points of the history that cut deep, and so I’m glad that these wrongs are being addressed with this bill.

For those of you that are not parliamentary nerds like some of the people in front of me, we’re finishing Parliament tomorrow. We’re going into an election. Us on the Māori Affairs Committee, we don’t know (1) if we’ll be back to Parliament, but (2) if we are back, if we’ll have the honour and the privilege of being on the Māori Affairs Committee again. I’ve loved it so far, and even if I’m not, I will be following the public submissions, because I think it’s important to put those pieces of the puzzle together in my mind, so I look forward to that.

Thank you for coming all the way. I’ve heard about your hospitality; it seems like we’re in competition—the Chatham Island people and the Lebanese—but we’ll see about that when I go there. But I’m sure you’ll win, you’ll beat me. Thank you very much. I’m looking forward to smoothing of some waters as we progress on these bills. God bless you all and I commend this bill to the House.

GEORGIE DANSEY (Labour)

20:16

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

I rise on behalf of the Labour Party to speak in support of the Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri Claims Settlement Bill. At its heart, this bill is about acknowledging history, acknowledging wrongs, and creating a pathway for a better relationship between Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri and the Crown. I want to, firstly, acknowledge the iwi, hapū, and whānau who have come today and the relevance of this day and this reading to all of your whānau, to the rangatira and the rangatahi and the tamariki, and how much influence this has probably already had and will come, and will have in, hopefully, decades to come.

I sit on the Māori Affairs Committee, so it’s been a great privilege to be able to work through and learn more about a few iwi who we have had the privilege of working through their claims settlement bills. One of the things that always strikes me is the discussions and the kōrero that comes from the iwi about those that have passed and the reflection on the hard mahi that has already been done before this point, and many people who have contributed to get to this point who not be here with us today, so I want to acknowledge those who are no longer with us from your iwi, your whānau, who have made a contribution to this. I know there will be many, many people who have worked very, very hard over many generations to get to the point we are now.

We know that the journey to a settlement is a long journey. The Crown recognised the mandate of Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri Iwi Trust in 2016, and the terms of negotiation were signed in 2016. An agreement in principle was reached in November 2022. The deed of settlement was initialled in December 2025 and ratified on 17 August this year. So, already, it has been a long process getting this bill through, and I am very pleased that we are able to hear the first reading on this side of the parliamentary term. As colleagues have mentioned, Parliament rises tomorrow. Does Parliament rise tomorrow or do we just finish the parliamentary term tomorrow? I can’t remember the exact term, but we finish in Parliament tomorrow, so this will be heard for the second reading when the new Parliament comes together, but I’m very, very pleased that we’re able to get to this point, and I know that you’ve travelled a long way here today.

I was regretful to not be able to come to the Chatham Islands on the recent visit, but I saw all of the amazing photos, I saw everyone rugged up in their warm clothes, and I hope that I can make it in the future.

I think one of the important parts of any settlement bill—and I’m going to give credit to my colleague from the Greens, Steve Abel, because he gave me this little bundle of information that has formed quite an important part of my understanding of the Treaty settlements—is that these Treaty settlements give that opportunity to write the wrongs of the past and the wrongs of the Crown into law, into our legislation, and it becomes part of New Zealand legislation. I think that’s a really important part of this. Although we know that the wrongs of the past can never be rectified, can never be resolved, that the impacts that they have had for generations are long-lasting and no settlement bill can address that, I think that having it written into legislation is a really important step for us to acknowledge what has gone on and to look towards the future for your iwi. All the very best as you carry on this journey for your people and your whenua. I commend this bill to the House.

GREG FLEMING (National—Maungakiekie)

20:21

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

Referral to Select Committee

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor)

20:23

The question is, That the Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri Claims Settlement Bill be considered by the Māori Affairs Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Māori Affairs Committee.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor)

I now turn to the guests in the gallery. I understand you have a waiata.

Waiata

Natural Environment Bill

Third Reading

Debate resumed.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor)

Members, before we paused for the Hon Brooke van Velden’s valedictory statement, the House was debating the third reading of the Natural Environment Bill. That debate is resumed.

LAN PHAM (Green)

20:26

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor)

Just hold on one second. I’d just hold the camera; we’ll just wait until the—

LAN PHAM

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want to start by acknowledging Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri as they leave. I also want to acknowledge the great words that were shared across the House tonight, but I really struggle to marry those words, particularly from Government members across the aisle, with the bills that they are pushing through today, because we saw the same thing happen with the last-minute amendments that came in at the last minute under these bills where, on one hand, they are claiming to uphold the rights and Treaty obligations of Te Ture Whaimana, and then, on the other hand, they’re putting through other last-minute amendments that completely kibosh years and years of community planning, of iwi and hapū desires, to actually set rules and limits that may protect our environment and, particularly when it comes to water quality in the Waikato, offer solutions for Te Ture Whaimana to actually be upheld.

When you put this together with the Planning Bill and the Natural Environment Bill, which we’re speaking to today, it does not add up. It doesn’t add up because iwi Māori made it so clear across these submissions that they opposed these bills, that they would, and I quote, “eviscerate Crown Māori relations”. And yet, the bills are going through even worse than they were when they were first tabled by the Government; even worse after the select committee process where we know that all the solutions were put on the table.

This is a historic moment in time. It’s historic because we’ve had this Resource Management Act in place for 35 years, and these bills are not the learnings and the understanding and the mātauranga and the experience that we’ve taken from those 35 years. They’re an absolute assault on the environment, and that is hugely concerning, because all the decline that we’ve seen across biodiversity, across our oceans, our forests, our rivers, our lakes, has primarily happened over that time, and it’s happened with environmental limits and protections that have actually been in place. Now, under these bills, we’re moving into this new era where environmental protections are, essentially, meaningless.

This Government has been absolutely relentless this entire term with their attacks on nature, and we’ve heard the Minister describe those bills and the Government’s work in the environmental space just tonight as “progress”. We’ve seen the disestablishment of the Ministry for the Environment, a dedicated voice that has been at the heart of government for 40 years—not only disestablished but merged into this mega-ministry where the primary purpose is growth and development. We’ve had crippling cuts across the environmental sector with agencies like the Department of Conservation, we’ve had the Climate Change Commission, we’ve had the Environmental Protection Authority, and job losses and cuts across the science sector.

In the build-up to these new bills, we’ve had resource management changes and amendment after amendment that have done things like make it easier to mine around significant natural areas and wetlands; to kill wildlife where they stand in the way of development; and fast-tracking coal, gold, and sea-bed mining through the resurrection of zombie projects under fast track that communities had already consigned to the waste bin because they were so significantly harmful for both the health of people and the health of environment. Just taking one of those examples of the projects that are contemplated under fast track, we have the most potentially damaging one on the Denniston Plateau, with a new open coal mine contemplated there. The emissions from that one mine would be equal to the net emissions of New Zealand’s annual fossil fuel emissions. This is the scale we’re talking about.

Of all of those things that the Government has done, these bills are actually the worst. They’re the worst because this isn’t just talking about places like our conservation land. This is about our everyday environment where people live and work and need and rely on the environment for clean drinking water; for rivers, lakes, or beaches that they can actually swim in without fear of getting sick; for oceans that actually support healthy ocean life and allow communities and future generations to actually head down to their local spot and grab a feed for their whānau. These are the things that are going to be increasingly far away for everyday New Zealanders and, certainly, for younger and future generations. These bills are embedding a dysfunctional system where climate denialism and environmental destruction is at the core of what they allow.

Now, that’s all hugely depressing, but the reason why I’m not hugely depressed about that is because we had this immense weight of submissions, of experience, of understanding, of mātauranga, from people across sectors. It was iwi and hapū, it was developers, it was farmers, it was public health experts. They have the solutions for what a functional system could actually be. That is all entirely possible if we have a Government who actually prioritises these things—if we had a Government that actually decided to stand with the tens of thousands of New Zealanders that showed up in Tāmaki-makau-rau just over the weekend to march to say they want to see conservation land protected, and the hundreds of thousands of people who used their voices to actually submit and help others understand how damaging this Government has been across all of these bills that I’ve been mentioning tonight.

They understand that this Government is failing in their duty of care. They want to see a Government of any political stripe protect the environment and set us on a course of certainty and direction, where environmental destruction and exploitation is not the way we’re going. This is simply common-sense stuff. This Government is going to understand that come 7 November, it may be the case that nature itself does not have a voice, but who certainly does is voters, and voters are seeing what is happening to this country and the vested-interest lobbying from industry that are getting their polluting and exploitation wish-lists put directly into legislation and then it’s claimed that this is some kind of balance—that this is some kind of balance of the environment and the economy. That is absolute bollocks. The environment is being taken for granted in every twist and turn of this dysfunctional legislation.

We absolutely oppose both the Natural Environment Bill and the Planning Bill, and we absolutely stand with New Zealanders to say not only is there a better way but in the next few weeks, it’s coming. It’s one where we prioritise the health of our people and the health of our environment. It’s what every New Zealander wants to see, and to vote for the Greens with a green heart at the centre of this next Government is a clear pathway towards that. That’s what we want to see. We absolutely oppose these bills.

SIMON COURT (ACT)

20:36

ACT supports the Natural Environment Bill through its third reading. This bill represents a fundamental change in how New Zealand manages the natural environment. For 35 years, the Resource Management Act (RMA) forced land use, infrastructure, environmental protection, climate policy, and fisheries questions through one sprawling statute. The result was duplication, delay, and the same arguments being relitigated through plans and consents.

This bill, alongside the Planning Bill, separates different jobs into dedicated statutes, which both follow a clear funnel architecture. It also stops environmental law duplicating the Climate Change Response Act, which already regulates the adverse climate effects of greenhouse gas emissions, and the Fisheries Act, which already controls the effects of fishing within the coastal marine area. The old approach of effects management for its own sake is out.

The new system is outcomes based. The focus is on achieving its goals—subject to the funnel, of course—not driving effects to zero or near zero, as per RMA practice. These goals enable resource use while requiring environmental imperatives, including safeguarding life, supporting capacity, enhancing the natural environment, and protecting significant indigenous biodiversity. This bill provides the tools to deliver those imperatives. It puts clear limits around the use of shared natural resources, while requiring decisions to be practical and proportionate.

Environmental limits are at the heart of this bill. They will establish clear expectations for ecosystem and human health so that people know what they are working to. But a sensible limit cannot be an abstract aspiration divorced from the place, the science, or the people that have to live with it. The National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2020 demonstrates why. To reach those targets, modelling predicts the need for complete removal of pastoral dry-stock farming from Tukituki and its conversion to exotic forestry—around 170,000 hectares of land-use change. That is not a credible or durable pathway for a farming community. Science must inform choices, but science does not itself decide the limit or the level at which a limit should be set. That inevitably involves judgments and trade-offs.

The bill therefore requires consideration of natural processes and levels, the current state of the environment, and costs and benefits of establishing a limit, including environmental, economic, and social impacts. That is reinforced by the removal of the term “within limits” from the use and development goal, which avoids an unintended hierarchy, and by the removal of the precautionary principle in favour of proportionality. Once the new system comes in, limits will bite immediately. Councils must act to avoid breaches and otherwise prepare action plans to manage resource use back within limits. But the bill does not pretend every catchment is pristine or can be restored overnight. Where time is needed, credible pathways can include target dates and interim limits.

The bill also doesn’t pretend nationally imported resources can simply be moved. We do not choose where the aggregate is; we do not choose where the wind blows or where our best soils lie. Limits may not always accommodate access to such resources where they are, but the likes of roads, electricity, and food production depend on them. That is why the bill provides a tightly bounded national standard pathway through a limit where there is a net public benefit.

Sensible environmental management also means having the right tools for the right jobs. Intervention should be graduated. We shouldn’t try to crack nuts with sledgehammers, like the Resource Management Act (RMA) does. That is why resource caps remain available to councils but are no longer treated as the default tool. Natural systems are often complex, but resource caps are useful only where there is a clear relationship between the measurable resource use and the environmental limit. That is why this bill also rejects a rigid effects hierarchy. The response should fit the actual risk. National standards will codify common practices such as drain maintenance and gravel extraction, instead of reinventing them permit by permit.

Simplified freshwater farm plans will be another central tool. Minister Hoggard has made vast improvements to the farm planning system, including a recent change through this bill focusing certification on the higher-risk parts of the farm. More restrictive tools including land-use controls should be reserved for where more proportionate approaches cannot deliver.

Permits will remain where genuinely needed. A water take might be a good case, but compared with the RMA, the bill narrows the effects that will be considered, raises the notification thresholds, and concentrates participation of people who are materially affected, making remaining permits easier and faster to obtain. That does not mean shutting people out; it means making the major choices once, upfront, and not reopening the same arguments permit by permit—that is the system’s funnel architecture at play.

Rules alone will not change the culture affecting the current system. Regulators must also be held accountable. The Planning Tribunal gives people a practical way to challenge regulatory overreach. Regulatory relief requires councils to recognise when rules, including indigenous biodiversity controls, impose significant restrictions on the use of private land for a public benefit. It disciplines councils by making the cost of regulation real to the decision maker, and restores fairness by ensuring that genuinely valuable public benefits are not secured at an individual’s expense. This is supported by another practical change: replacing the goal of “no net loss of” with protecting significant indigenous biodiversity. This addresses submitter concerns around workability between no net loss, biodiversity limits, and regulatory relief.

There is far more in this bill than 10 minutes can cover. The parliamentary process has delivered great improvements. As one example, there is now a new goal of supporting and enabling environmental enhancement. Implementation is now critical: Budget 2026 invests $294 million over four years to support implementation, including critical data and digital modernisation. The period to make new instruments as part of the transition has been extended from 30 to 39 months, giving councils more time to do the job properly. But New Zealanders will see the benefits much sooner. One month after Royal assent, several transitional changes will apply, including a narrowing of effects that councils may consider, and a requirement for more proportionate and pragmatic decisions. Illustrative national policy direction is already out for feedback, initial national standards will follow, and the Planning Tribunal will begin operating in 2027, giving people a faster route to challenge poor regulatory decisions.

I’d like to thank some of the people involved in delivering this legislation and the Planning Bill, which I spoke on earlier: Minister Bishop and the staff in his office, and in my office, who have been relentless in interrogating the provisions of the legislation to make sure it delivers on the coalition commitment; officials from the Ministry for the Environment, now the Ministry for Cities, Environment, Regions, and Transport, and the private secretaries who have worked in my office and supported my work; the Parliamentary Counsel Office, who worked tirelessly to produce legislation from the introduction, and helped improve it along the way; the expert advisory group, who contributed their specialist knowledge to a problem that required more than one or two people on our ideas about improving what the resource management system could possibly deliver. I thank the urban economists from the urban land management group, and everyone who contributed to improving the bills through submissions, and, yes, advocacy.

New Zealand needs environmental protection that is clear and proportionate, a system that respect landowners, recognises who carries the cost, and a system that gives investors confidence. This bill provides for limits that matter, proportionate rules and conditions, and holds regulators to account. It protects what is significant while allowing New Zealanders to farm, build, generate energy, and produce the exports that pay our way. It will help unlock New Zealand’s potential like nothing else that this Government has done this term. ACT supports it, and I commend it to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor)

For my final time calling a member from the floor, the Hon Mark Patterson.

Hon MARK PATTERSON (Minister for Rural Communities)

20:46

Thank you. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support this Natural Environment Bill. This is a great day for our primary sector and rural communities. [Applause for Greg O’Connor as he exits the Chamber] Thank you; appreciate it! It is a great day for our primary sector and rural communities, and it’s great to see the Green Party acknowledging that.

Today is a day when the noose of red and green tape has been removed from the throats of our farmers and growers. It is a day to celebrate for our miners, our quarriers, those seeking to establish aquaculture projects, our forestry people—the doers that drive this economy. It is a day when pragmatic, proportionate, and, most importantly, effective and risk-based environmental planning rules are passed into law.

This is part of New Zealand First’s coalition agreement with National, and also part of an agreement between the ACT Party and New Zealand First to reform our resource management planning system. This has been our collective mission. We haven’t always agreed on everything, but we absolutely agreed on this, and I commend Minister Bishop and Under-Secretary Court for their Herculean effort in shepherding this bill through this place. I’d like to commend Catherine Wedd and the Environment Committee. This has been a substantive deliberation, and I say well done to the team.

But make no mistake: New Zealand First has provided backbone to ensure that these changes delivered on our collective mandate. We are unapologetically a pro-industry party. Our planning laws are constipated. Well-meaning reforms, 35 years ago, have metastasised into a bureaucratic behemoth. Frustrations have boiled over. There were tractors in the streets up and down this country. That is the system we inherited. I recall being summonsed to a meeting of farmers in Ashburton. There were about 20 farmers that turned up. Each of them read out a written account of their experience. There was mind-numbing detail of information required, going back, sometimes, well over a decade. There was an opaque process, with the timeline stretching into years, and eye-watering expenses into the tens and sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars. With the need for consultants, they could see no way through. I had grown men and women in tears of exasperation, just to roll over a status quo water consent. They aren’t environmental vandals. They were well aware of their environmental stewardship responsibilities. They belong to catchment groups; they employed precision agriculture; but they were asked to comply with impossible standards of water quality at a lower rate than the natural state of the water coming out of the hills.

These are stories that were replicated up and down this country. What we are bringing in today is a clearer set of rules. This will mean nearly 50 percent less need for resource consenting. There will be more reliance on environmental farm plans, pragmatic tools to manage farming practices, and nutrient management. We are explicitly enabling the primary production and economic benefit within the purpose of this bill, adding much-needed balance, and we will be restoring property rights. No more can council officials come on to your farm and, essentially, confiscate the right for use.

New Zealand First, through this process, has been pleased that we have removed the market allocation mechanism for nutrients and water. I did signal in our first reading speech that we had real concerns over that. Where that’s been used overseas, that is sometimes with disastrous results, so it’s good, through that process, that we have removed those mechanisms. Water management should be less about allocating a scarce resource and more about storing water and harvesting at times of plenty. That is how we deal with water management, and this bill will assist with that too.

There is, of course, a lot more to do—the national directions, the limit-setting, the detail that sits below this huge bill. This is merely the framework, actually, for what the on-the-ground effects will be. We were sent here to fix the Resource Management Act. Today, we have delivered on that promise. I commend this bill to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER

This call is a split call—Oriini Kaipara.

ORIINI KAIPARA (Te Pāti Māori—Tāmaki Makaurau)

20:52

Tonight, I carry with me into this House the story of my tipuna Wairaka, daughter of Toroa, chieftainess of Ngāti Awa, and the woman who saved the Mataatua waka. When the waka began drifting out to sea, custom—tikanga—forbade her from reaching out to the hoe, but Wairaka saw the danger. She understood what was at stake and what would be lost, and she acted.

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

From that act of courage came the name for Whakatāne. Now, I don’t claim her feat as my own, but I carry the same responsibility she carried as her uri. When the waka is drifting towards danger, we cannot sit back in silence and just watch.

Today, the waka is our taiao, and this Government is taking a toki to it. A toki has immense power.

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

In the hands of a kaiwhakairo, it can reveal whakapapa. A toki can shape a waka and can build something that will carry generations; but in careless hands, that same toki can destroy in minutes what took centuries to grow. This Government has chosen destruction. It’s taken the toki to Te Tiriti. It’s taken the toki to local decision-making and the authority of mana whenua. It’s taken the toki to mātauranga, to te reo rangatira, and to tikanga, and, now, it’s taking the toki to the laws that protect our ngahere, our wai, our moana, our wāhi tapu, and indigenous biodiversity.

The bill says it doesn’t extinguish customary rights in freshwater or geothermal resources, but it doesn’t also recognise ownership, settle allocation, or answer the findings of the Waitangi Tribunal. The greatest travesty of this once-in-a-generation reform is the Government’s taking of the toki to axe Mana Whakahono ā Rohe arrangements. They cherry-picked select partnerships from yesterday while denying partnership to all Māori tomorrow. That’s a toki straight to the neck of every kaitiaki ever born yesterday in our past, present, and future.

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

Who are we becoming? Kaitiakitanga isn’t a decorative Māori word to place in a strategy; it’s an inherited responsibility, a duty carried first and foremost by hapū. Hapū shouldn’t need permission from another structure to exercise their mana over their whenua, over their awa, and their wāhi tapu. Kaitiakitanga doesn’t disappear just because this Government refuses to write it into the law. It lives in every hapū restoring an awa, every whānau planting a rākau to grow a ngahere, every community fighting pollution, and every rangatahi demanding a future that they can breathe, swim, and thrive in.

Te Pāti Māori warns that there is a new form of raupatu in the 21st century, not only the taking of whenua but the transfer of authority over whenua from hapū and communities to Ministers and private interests. As the election approaches, let this message bring us all back to the waka that was constructed for every person who belongs to Aotearoa. Candidates and political parties come and go, and if you cannot bring yourself, Māori mā o Aotearoa, to vote for either a candidate or a political party, then vote for what you love. Vote for your awa. Vote for your maunga. You vote for your moana. You vote for the stream where your tamariki play. You vote for the ngahere that holds our history, that shelters our living world, and that carries the promise of our future. Vote as if their survival depends on it, because it does. Wairaka did not wait for permission to save our waka. Neither should we. Let your votes become

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

the instruments of restoration. Change the hands that hold power. Change this Government.

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

STEVE ABEL (Green)

20:57

Kia ora, Madam Speaker. There are so many things wrong with this bill. It is the overarching law to manage the environment that you would expect from a Government that is the most anti-environmental Government in a generation. This is the Government that declared war on nature. On the penultimate day of this parliamentary term, it passes its Natural Environment Bill. The philosophy of this bill does not countenance protection of nature for its intrinsic values. It does not build on the generations of those who have fought to protect our biodiversity and who have tirelessly struggled to bring back numerous taonga species from the brink of extinction and, to this day, continuing that struggle. For that is our duty.

My colleague Oriini Kaipara talks about the responsibility of Māori as kaitiaki. We all are responsible in our duty as guardians of the species with which we share this planet in our generation. It is our generation of every human in this country and on this planet that is responsible for ensuring that we pass on the species with which we share this planet to future generations. Just as in the ancient myths of the Bible, when Noah included every species—not just the humans but every species that crawled and slithered—all of them belonged to be kept and protected. That was the duty imparted by God in that tradition.

I want to touch on but one momentous exclusion, which is consideration of the negative climate impacts. It seems amazing that in one of these clauses—clause 15A—it says that, in considering climate change effects, “A person exercising or performing a function, power, or duty under this Act … (a) must not … consider any adverse effect on climate change of any greenhouse gas emission that will or may result from or be increased by the activity, whether directly or indirectly;”. So climate change can’t be considered. Sit with that for a minute. Climate change is not just the existential challenge of our generation. It is not merely the biggest threat to the global economy this century, threatening to demolish GDP in the coming 50 years. It is not merely the greatest threat to human health this century, bar none. It is not merely the greatest threat to food production, and the ability of us to feed ourselves globally. It is not only the greatest threat to infrastructure from extreme weather events. It is the greatest threat to the natural environment and biodiversity.

This clause alone damns this bill, for it is by this clause alone that this Government is complicit in allowing, facilitating, and intensifying the biggest threat to the natural environment that the bill purports to protect—the very cradle of our existence. This is the most radically anti-environmental legislation that has been passed in this country, because of its extreme right-wing ideology, where the environment can only be saved if private property owners are paid to not destroy it. The commons is lost. Biodiversity and nature—the basis of our existence on this earth—are now in the realm of private property, owned by those who have the wealth and the means to own it, only saveable if the rest of society is prepared to pay the landowner to not destroy the biodiversity. It is such an inversion of the principle that we are in a collective project of life on this earth, and a collective project of humanity and society, for the good of all.

It is a victory for the far-right ideology, an inversion of that principle of life as a collective project. That is why I urge my fellow New Zealanders to damn this bill to the rubbish bin, along with this Government, on 7 November, when we will vote in a Government that will care for te taio, that will care for the climate, and will care for the people of this country. Kia ora koutou.

CATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki)

21:02

We will talk some common sense, and some facts, on this side of the House. I do rise with great excitement to support the Natural Environment Bill in this third reading. This Resource Management Act (RMA) reform protects the environment, while enabling economic development, and the two can actually go hand in hand together—the environment and our economy; we can achieve both. For over 30 years, our farmers, our food producers, our builders, and many of our industries have wrestled with a broken RMA system. At our Environment Committee, we heard submission after submission which acknowledged it was a broken RMA system that needed reform. This is good reform. We heard during that process about the compliance costs, consenting delays, and so much red tape for our primary sector.

The Natural Environment Bill will draw a clear common-sense line between managing land use and infrastructure and protecting and enhancing our natural environments. As the MP for Tukituki, I see, every day, the broken RMA system every day holding our growers and our farmers back. Hawke’s Bay is the fruit bowl of New Zealand, and we need a sensible resource management system that achieves a thriving agricultural economy and a healthy natural environment. Our orchards, our vineyards, our sheep and beef farms are the lifeblood of our regional economy. For decades, the RMA has treated food production like an activity to be restricted, rather than an essential national industry to be enabled and celebrated.

This bill finds that balance. It explicitly recognises that economic prosperity and environmental integrity must go hand in hand. The Natural Environment Bill establishes environmental limits. Environmental limits are at the heart of this bill. Under the old RMA regime, environmental management was bogged down by uncertainty and litigation. Applicants spent millions of dollars on lawyers and planning consultants, arguing over discretionary consent conditions, while actual environmental outcomes remained uncertain. The Natural Environment Bill changes this by establishing a robust framework for environmental limits and human health safeguards across air, fresh water, coastal waters, and soil. Environmental limits will be tailored to regional realities through clear management. Where environmental thresholds are met, compliance activities can proceed without requiring complex, expensive consent applications. Where limits are at risk, councils and catchments will have the tools to address it.

During our select committee hearings, we heard extensive feedback from farmers, growers, regional councils, and catchment groups regarding freshwater farm plans. Through the select committee, we have improved the farm-planning system to be more practical. Farm plans under this framework recognise that a hill-country sheep farm in the Ruahine Range operates under vastly different environmental conditions than an intensive dairy farm down in Canterbury, or an orchard on the Heretaunga Plains in Hastings. This empowers local farming communities to work together with catchment groups. Under the Natural Environment Bill, there is also a powerful shift towards expanding and allowing more permitted activities. This new resource management system is expected to save ratepayers and taxpayers over $13 billion, through reduced administrative and compliance costs. It will remove the need for up to 22,000 consents a year.

Food and fibre exports are the backbone of our economy. Farmers and growers need certainty. They need common sense. They need a planning system that allows investment, allows them to innovate and grow, while continuing to be excellent stewards of the environment. This legislation strikes that balance. We are fixing the planning system that everyone knew was broken. We’re cutting the red tape; we’re reducing the delays; we’re creating the conditions for more homes, more infrastructure, more renewable energy, and stronger economic growth. We also added a food and fibre goal, in clause 11(1)(a), to the goals in the new bill, which I think shows a real respect for our food production in New Zealand. We’re a trading nation at the bottom of the world; we rely on our food production. The new RMA system will respect that.

We heard from a lot of sectors during the RMA process—from the electricity sector, agriculture, building, and construction—and there was a clear message that we need certainty and we need to have more efficiency in our system, where we can see faster consenting. We can give some certainty to our agricultural sector and also respect our farmers and our growers to do what they do best, and that is grow the best produce in the world. I want to thank our wonderful Environment Committee for all their hard work. It’s been a landmark piece of legislation that we’ve navigated through, and we’re really proud of this. I commend it to the House.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour)

21:09

We obviously oppose everything that’s been said on the other side.

Hon Tama Potaka

Sad. Just sad.

Do you agree with me, Tama Potaka? I’m sure Tama Potaka does agree with me, because the way—

Hon David Seymour

This guy knows nothing about this topic, or any other!

Oh, it’s good to see Mr Seymour here, because he’s been one of the main problems with this, because—

Hon David Seymour

Tell us how.

Well, because of your refusal, Mr Seymour, to acknowledge Māori rights, to acknowledge Treaty rights.

Hon David Seymour

I acknowledge everybody’s rights.

Because of your refusal, Mr Seymour, to acknowledge that there’s a partnership in this country. You believe in you, thinking you know more than Lord Cooke.

DEPUTY SPEAKER

Don’t bring the Speaker into the debate.

My apologies, Madam Speaker

Hon David Seymour

He should have learnt the rules by now.

Mr Seymour thinks he knows more than Judge Cooke, more than Sian Elias, more than Jim Bolger—who else is there?—more than John Key, more than Jacinda Ardern, more than Andrew Little—

DEPUTY SPEAKER

Well, that’s the member’s opinion; now we’ll come back to the bill.

Oh no, but he’s been asking me some questions. He’s been behind this Resource Management Act reform, basically looking to reduce Māori rights and Treaty rights.

Hon David Seymour

Māori have the same rights as everybody.

No, no, you want to get rid of Māori and Treaty rights, and you don’t want to acknowledge things. You’re like—Mr Seymour, Madam Speaker, is like those people who deny anyone landed on the moon; you know, those guys that go to the moon? David Seymour would deny that anyone landed on the moon. It doesn’t matter what anyone says. It doesn’t matter what judge, it doesn’t matter what politician, whatever they say, only David Seymour and the ACT Party know! They are a disgrace to this Parliament, and I want to get that out on the last night.

DEPUTY SPEAKER

And now, with eight minutes to go, we’ll talk about the bill.

But I am!

DEPUTY SPEAKER

No, you’ve just spent two minutes talking about Mr Seymour; now you can talk about the bill.

He asked me a few questions. And I know that the ACT—

Hon Member

Serjeant-at-Arms!

Ha, ha! The reality is that this is David Seymour and the National Party bowing to their big polluter mates. We already know that. That’s been said a number of times—

Hon David Seymour

Point of order, Madam Speaker. [Interruption]

DEPUTY SPEAKER

I’ve got a point of order, Mr Jackson. [Interruption] Quiet during points of order, everybody—except for the Hon David Seymour.

Hon David Seymour

Every member of this House, no matter how experienced, no matter how adept, knows that you cannot reflect on a member’s motivations as that member just has. He should withdraw and apologise, to uphold the standards of the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER

I will ask Mr Jackson to withdraw and apologise, because I did ask the member to focus on the bill; he continued to focus on the Hon David Seymour, and this is not what the topic of the bill is. If the member wishes to continue, he can withdraw and apologise to the Hon David Seymour, and then he can carry on with the bill.

Jeez, that’s a big ask, Madam Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER

Well, it’s up to the member. I can stop the speech now if he doesn’t wish to do any more.

That’s big ask, but, for the sake of the kaupapa, and it’s the second to last night here, I have no problems withdrawing and—what am I withdrawing and apologising for? Could you just clarify that again?

DEPUTY SPEAKER

The comments that you made about the Hon David Seymour’s beliefs and intentions—some words like that. OK, back to the bill, Mr Jackson, otherwise I’ll have to terminate your call, and I don’t want to, because I know you’ve got a good six minutes and 48 seconds about the bill left.

I’d like to talk about Mr Seymour. I’d be very happy to—

DEPUTY SPEAKER

No, I’m not going to let you talk about Mr Seymour.

I respect that, Madam Speaker—I respect that. The original goal allowing the development of natural resources within environmental limits is all gone.

Hon David Seymour

The bill introduces the concept of environmental limits. The member can’t read.

You don’t know. We object to interim environmental limits being stretched from around five to 10 years. That point has been made a number of times from this side, hasn’t it?

New Zealand, this summer, faces the worst El Niño in a thousand years, and we don’t have the luxury of pushing environmental limits to 10 years. The biodiversity test is too weak; that has been said a number of times. The proposed “no net loss” goal lacks a clear baseline and workable definition and, therefore, may provide little practical protection.

Grant McCallum

Got the talking points?

I’d rather have a crack at David Seymour.

DEPUTY SPEAKER

But you don’t have that choice.

Madam Speaker, I do have a choice in terms of talking about how this weakens Māori rights and interests in terms of natural resources.

DEPUTY SPEAKER

Yes, you do.

I do have a right there, and David Seymour—

DEPUTY SPEAKER

It’s a Government bill; it’s not a David Seymour bill.

No, but he’s behind it all!

DEPUTY SPEAKER

Honestly, I’ve asked. I know you love talking about the Hon David Seymour, but I’ll ask you to carry on talking about the bill. You were doing well for a minute.

This bill weakens the rights and interests of Māori. That was conveyed to the Government by Tukoroirangi Morgan. Minister Potaka was there, at the koroneihana. They were attacked for their attack on Māori rights. Minister Potaka was there, and Minister Goldsmith was there, so it’s important that I say that. It’s important that I also say the future of iwi relationships with regional councils now is very uncertain, with their decision to get rid of the Mana Whakahono ā Rohe relationship.

The bill doesn’t sufficiently reflect the Waitangi Tribunal’s freshwater findings, specifically Wai 2358, when discussing Māori freshwater rights and interests, which is something that we as a Government tried to address.

Hon David Seymour

You’re not in Government.

We will be shortly, and you’ll be out. At least, as a Government, this particular area, in terms of te mana o te wai, was something we navigated. We worked very much on that with Kiritapu Allan and David Parker, and we were brave in terms of addressing the property rights of water, unlike this Government, who just ditched it and put it to the side.

These are rights that must be addressed by Governments, no matter whether it’s a National Government or a Labour Government, whatever. Former National Governments would look at those types of rights. John Key—John Key, Madam Speaker, who you’ve got a bit of time for—addressed the whole question of these freshwater rights back in 2013-14, but this Government has walked away from that obligation. That’s why it’s incredibly important to mention that tonight. Environmental limits are too weak to protect taonga. If environmental limits can be delayed, qualified, or balanced against economic considerations, waterways and ecosystems of cultural significance remain vulnerable.

This bill—and this is where the Tuku Morgans and the iwi leaders are getting very upset—threatens Treaty settlement arrangements. That is the point we’ve been making on this side. Existing settlements frequently contain bespoke arrangements involving rivers, lakes, conservation land, and resource management. These shouldn’t be destabilised by a new, generic system. This legislation prioritises extraction over kaitiakitanga—Mr Seymour wouldn’t understand that word. He needs to go and get some training from his iwi. The truth is that climate and environmental planning aren’t integrated, not just for Māori; they’re not integrated for Pākehā either. Nobody knows what’s happening. A resource management system intended to last decades needs to deal coherently with emissions, adaption, and environmental resilience.

You can’t put in a system like this—this is the point. You can’t put in a system like this by ignoring Māori interests. This is what our people are saying. We are part and parcel of the environment: “Ko au te awa, ko te awa ahau.” That is the type of kōrero that comes from people like Tariana Turia, who say we are a part of the environment; we are part and parcel. We must be worked with, we must be consulted with, we can’t just be the karakia and mihi people for the ACT Party or for the National Party. We must play a meaningful role in this country.

That’s what we attempted to do when we were in Government. That’s what we tried to address. That’s what we owe Jacinda Ardern for. When we came through this process, it was one of the most difficult processes we had to deal with, but we made progress. This lot, driven by some of the right-wingers and money interests and donors, have decided to get rid of and water down and shut down Māori interests. We’re going to change that—

Hon David Seymour

Hey, how did it go when Brooke called you out in Copperfields?

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour)

We’re going to change that, especially for that bloke over there, on 7 November, when we will come back to our communities, when we will come back to our people. This has been the most anti-worker, anti-women, anti-Māori Government of my lifetime. They are a total disgrace, and people like David Seymour should hang their heads in shame. I am glad he’s here tonight, so I can make it clear to him that he is an embarrassment to te ao Māori. Kia ora, Madam Speaker.

GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland)

21:20

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to take a call in support of the Natural Environment Bill. New Zealand needs an environment management system that protects and enhances nature without holding communities and businesses back. For too long, the Resource Management Act has created uncertainty, delay, and cost while failing to deliver the environmental outcomes New Zealanders expect. The—

Hon David Seymour

Did a Grammar boy write this for you?

GRANT McCALLUM

The Natural Environment Bill is an important part—

Hon Willie Jackson

You can’t trust him!

GRANT McCALLUM

He’s just jealous he didn’t go to a good school, but that’s his problem. Working alongside the Planning Bill—

DEPUTY SPEAKER

He’s picking on you now.

GRANT McCALLUM

It establishes a framework for the use, protection, and the enhancement of our natural environment. The Planning Bill deals with land use and development; this bill deals with natural resources, environmental limits, and the standards needed to protect what matters.

The backbone of the New Zealand economy is our primary sector. Our future prosperity will always rely on our farming families and all the workers who help produce the products for export. Because of this, the Environment Committee added—and I’m very proud of this—clearer recognition of food and fibre production, including aquaculture, within the goals for the use and development of natural resources. This is a welcome and practical improvement for Northland and the rest of the country. It recognises that primary production is not an afterthought; it is essential to our regional and national prosperity.

The committee also listened to the farmers and growers and raised concerns about the lack of certainty, compliance costs, and day-to-day workability. Controlled activity classes have been restored, giving primary production greater certainty. The importance of having a simpler and fairer process was emphasised to me last October, when I was privileged to be meeting mid-Canterbury farmers, organised by Federated Farmers in the Lagmhor Westerfield War Memorial Hall. This expressed their concerns, and they expressed their concerns in deep frustration about their lack and uncertainty of their futures, and I really worry about that. That was the message we took back, and we addressed those issues in the bill. I have a son who’s looking to start that farming career, who will be a fifth-generation farmer in our family.

For those reasons, I am very proud of this bill and I’m looking forward to the outcomes to be better for the environment and for the farming families of New Zealand. I commend it to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER

This is a split call.

21:23

I wish to take some words that have been spoken by various members of the Government this evening, and I want to start with something that was said by the Hon Mark Patterson. He said, “We were sent here to fix the RMA.” The only problem with that was the Resource Management Act (RMA) wasn’t enforced when he arrived back in the House; the RMA had been repealed and replaced with some substantial bills aimed at reforming the planning system in this country. This Government decided to just toss that out and do the work all over again. Instead of perhaps picking up and amending what was there, they decided to do it all over again. If the RMA has remained in force for even longer, it is because of that Government, which decided to faff around because of its own ego.

There was another phrase that another member of the Government used over there, and that was the phrase: “It’s just common sense”. You know, frankly, if you have to resort to saying that something is “common sense”, it means you don’t have an argument to stand on. It appeals to some vague, out-there sentence instead of actually what is written in the bill. Find some new words; find some actual arguments that support this bill in particular. Find some words to deal with the very serious objections that were raised on this side of the House. Find some words to deal with the fact that on this side of the House, members of our party and others worked hard through the select committee process to try to make this work, including one of our members who is an absolute expert in resource management law, and yet that was overlooked.

One of the difficulties with this bill is just that, straightforwardly, the purpose of this bill—let me read the purpose of this bill. It’s sitting in clause 4: “The purpose of this Act is to establish a framework for the use,”. That’s the first thing that we have for the environment—the “use” of the environment. Then it goes on to add the protection and the enhancement of the natural environment. But there’s an attitude right there, right from the start, that the environment is there to be used and exploited. Let’s be clear: we do need to find ways to live with this in this environment, but I beg the other side of the House to remember that the environment is not there to serve the economy; it is the other way around. The economy is a subset of the environment. If we do not protect and look after our environment, there will be no economy.

That is why, on this side of the House, we wanted to amend that purpose statement to say that we wanted to maintain and improve the natural environment to safeguard that human health, to provide for adaptation to climate change, to manage the risk of natural hazards, because if we do none of those things, then there is no economy.

Then, there’s a whole set of goals in this bill—goals which are to guide what is to be done when it comes to the natural environment. The first goal—the very first one listed—says, in clause 11: “(a) to enable the use and development of natural resources, including for the production of food and fibre (including aquaculture):”. It says there’s a whole list of goals for what we should be doing in terms of working through this legislation, and it does say that the order in which the goals appear does not assign the order of importance. We can guarantee that when the courts have to come to interpret these goals and the way that they conflict with each other, then they have no guidance to resort to other than the order in which they are listed in this document. No matter what they say, that is what will happen.

When we look at what has been done in this bill, when we look at the way that the environment has been subsumed and put under the economy, we say that is a mistake. It is a mistake. Of course we need to find ways for the environment and the economy to work together, but let’s remember that New Zealanders value their environment, that New Zealanders value the clean water, they value the clean air, they value our bush, and this bill makes those things secondary.

DAVID MacLEOD (National—New Plymouth)

21:28

Thank you, Madam Speaker. New Zealand is a country with huge opportunities. We’ve got a huge amount of entrepreneurialism, we’ve got people that want to utilise it, but we’re so frustrated. We are disappointed by the fact that we don’t have a regime that allows us to be able to do what Kiwis can do, and that is contribute to the world, contribute to our country. It doesn’t make sense that we have consents, renewal of consents taking years when there’s not even changes in conditions in that. It doesn’t make sense that it takes eight, 10 years to get a consent, when it takes less than two years to build the project itself. We need to unleash our country, realise the potential we have, and increase the opportunities with the economy. We have a great economy. It will help us out with our Public Service. It is all good news. I commend the bill to the House.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North)

21:29

Kia orana, Madam Speaker.

Hon David Seymour

Oh no, not Tangi!

What’s that?

Hon David Seymour

Oh no!

I haven’t even said anything yet. The Deputy Prime Minister seems to be in fine form tonight.

DEPUTY SPEAKER

I will comment that the previous speaker on the Labour side was a class act at ignoring the interjections and carrying on, so let’s see how this member goes.

I’m very happy to entertain them, Madam Speaker. I’m very happy to entertain them, because this is the penultimate sitting day. It’s the dying days of this Government.

DEPUTY SPEAKER

I know, it feels like the last day of school, sitting up here.