Tuesday, 25 August 2026

Tuesday, 25 August 2026

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Start of Sitting Day

Karakia/Prayers

BARBARA KURIGER (Deputy Speaker) (14:00): Almighty God, we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests, we acknowledge the King and pray for guidance in our deliberations that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom, justice, mercy, and humility for the welfare and the peace of New Zealand. Amen.

Presentation

Petitions

SPEAKER: A petition has been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.

CLERK (14:01): Petition of Sam Troth requesting that the House ban evidence of previous good character from consideration when sentencing sexual offenders.

SPEAKER: That petition stands referred to the Petitions Committee.

Papers

SPEAKER: Ministers have delivered three papers.

CLERK (14:01):

2026 annual report of Auckland Light Rail

2026 statement of intent for the Climate Change Chief Executives Board

2026 statement of performance expectations for National Infrastructure Funding and Financing.

SPEAKER: Those papers are published under the authority of the House.

Select Committee Reports

SPEAKER: Eleven select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.

CLERK (14:01):

Report of the Justice Committee on the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Improving Alcohol Regulation) Amendment Bill

reports of the Petitions Committee on the:

petition of Joshua Riley

petition of Russell Killgour

petition of Simon Kemp

petitions of Beatrice Salami and Viola Di Grado

petitions of Christopher Ingram, and the

ten petitions of Murray Richard Tingey

report of the Regulations Review Committee on the complaint about the Food (Fees, Charges, and Levies) Regulations 2015

reports of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee on the:

report of the Controller and Auditor-General, Reliability of public transport in Auckland

report of the Ombudsman, OIA timeliness obligations: Compliance and practice in Transpower New Zealand Limited

review briefing on the 2024/25 annual review of City Rail Link Limited.

SPEAKER: The bill is set down for second reading. The reports of the Regulations Review and Transport and Infrastructure Committees are set down for consideration.

Bills

Online Safety (Minimum Age and Child Safety Risk Assessment) Bill

Local Government (Rates Capping) Amendment Bill

Introduction

SPEAKER: The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of two bills.

CLERK (14:02):

Online Safety (Minimum Age and Child Safety Risk Assessment) Bill, introduction

Local Government (Rates Capping) Amendment Bill, introduction.

SPEAKER: Those bills are set down for first reading.

Oral Questions to Ministers

Prime Minister

Question No. 1

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition) (14:02) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government’s statements and actions?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister) (14:03): Yes, and let me reassure the member: better starts now with no new taxes. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just give the House a moment. Thank you.

Hon Nicola Willis: Better late than never.

SPEAKER: No one else needs to speak.

Hon Chris Bishop: Better start releasing some policy.

SPEAKER: No one else needs to speak.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why are there 49,000 more New Zealanders out of work today than when he promised to get the country back on track three years ago?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, because a previous Government increased spending by 70 percent; that drove up inflation to a 32-year high to 7.3 percent. What that led to was multiple interest rate rises—I think about 13—that slowed an economy down and people lost their jobs. That’s why this Government has been working so hard. I can just say very simply to the member that if he wants to help, imposing more taxes on hard-working New Zealanders is not the way forward.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why should the 20,000 construction workers who have lost their jobs under his leadership believe the economy has turned a corner when the first thing his Government did was cancel the projects many of them were working on, leaving many of those very same construction workers with no choice but to leave the country to search for work they should be able to find here?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yeah, I wouldn’t call Let’s Get Wellington Moving, Auckland Light Rail, and three waters projects that were happening under his previous administration—they were not happening. But the member will be pleased to know that actually construction jobs, according to SEEK, are up 35 percent—the fastest growing industry for job ads—and that’s a positive thing. We’re getting things built in this country; not just talking about it.

Hon Chris Bishop: Supplementary question.

SPEAKER: Point of order, the Hon Chris Bishop.

Hon Chris Bishop: No, supplementary question.

SPEAKER: Oh, a supplementary question? Well, you wait until we’ve had three from over here.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: When he said “the economy is on the rise”, was he referring to rising unemployment, rising inflation, rising company liquidations, or the rising price of household bills?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, let me help the member. We’ve had 2.1 percent growth in the last nine months. We’ve got strengthening growth forecasts from the Treasury, the Reserve Bank (RBNZ) economists, and Standard & Poor’s. We’ve got manufacturing growth at the highest it’s been since 2021, and it’s outperforming many other countries. Services are expanding, which is fantastic. We’ve had record exports, up 25 percent. We’ve got $12 billion in exports alone in the last two years. We’ve got tourism visitors up by 8 percent and a trade surplus for the first time in five years. Wholesale electricity prices are down by 35 percent. Building consents are up by 19 percent, the highest since 2023. Construction jobs I’ve talked about; consumer confidence, business confidence, farmer confidence, and retail and investor confidence. We’ve got the lowest rent increases in 25 years; stable house prices; and record first-home buyers. The official cash rate is remaining low at 2.5 percent, down from 5.5 percent; there is $7,500 for the average mortgage-holder, back in their back pocket; and the great news is that the number of Kiwis returning home from Australia is up 14 percent in the last 12 months.

SPEAKER: And can I just say that no one speaks while the question is being answered.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Has the New Zealand economy grown faster or slower over the last three years than was forecast before his Government took office?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I can tell the member, as I’ve said before, that the economy grew 2.1 percent in the last nine months, but I want to tell the member that instituting a capital gains tax—

SPEAKER: No, no.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: —a digital services tax—

SPEAKER: No, no, that’s enough.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: —a business tax—

SPEAKER: Prime Minister, that’s enough.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. It was a pretty straightforward question. The Prime Minister has been touting his Government’s successes.

SPEAKER: Yes, it was.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Has the economy grown faster or slower—

SPEAKER: Yeah, good—we got that out, so—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: —over the last three years than it was forecast to before he became Prime Minister?

SPEAKER: The Prime Minister can address the question.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What I can say to the member is the economy has grown 2.1 percent in the last nine months, and isn’t it fantastic to see Standard & Poor’s, the RBNZ, and Treasury all expecting the economy to grow faster than the current forecasts that are on the table.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is Government debt today higher or lower than it was forecast to be at this point before his Government took office?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, there’s a sad tale there, where we had a previous Government that cranked up spending from $60 billion to $180 billion. We spent $10 billion on the interest bill, which is four Dunedin Hospitals that we don’t get to build because we’re cleaning up your mess.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Again, it was a pretty straightforward question. The Prime Minister keeps going on about his Government’s track record. This question was very straightforward: is Government debt today higher or lower than it was forecast to be before the election?

SPEAKER: I’ll ask the Prime Minister to make a further comment, but you can’t expect there not to be any commentary about how a situation may arise.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: There’s been a range of forecasts in my 2½ years as Prime Minister. What I know is I’m focused on making sure we grow this economy faster; that’s what we’re doing. Frankly, cranking up spending another $4.5 billion a year and asking for Kiwis to pay for that in more tax and more debt isn’t the way forward.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: If the New Zealand economy is back on track and the Government books are back in order, why has the $2 billion surplus that was forecast for the next financial year, before he became Prime Minister, turned into a $14 billion deficit?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, on this side of the House, we are a Government that has financial responsibility. That’s why we have got Government spending under control, that’s why inflation has come down, that is why interest rates are coming down, and that’s why we have $7,500 in the back pockets of average mortgage-holders. Spend more, tax more, borrow more is what got us into this mess, and that’s what you did.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he think his credibility on “spend more, tax more, borrow more” would be a little more credible if his Government hadn’t done exactly that for the last three years?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We cut taxes for the first time in 14 years—that party didn’t support it—for working New Zealanders, and their union mates didn’t even support it, either. He wants to put in a capital gains tax in New Zealand. What do you think that will do to the economy? What do you think a digital services tax or a business tax will do, or a streaming tax or a ute tax? Where are you on interest deductibility?

SPEAKER: Question No. 2, Rawiri Waititi.

Hon Member: You need to get started.

Rawiri Waititi: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Hang on, no one else is going to be speaking while people are asking questions, regardless of how important they think what they’re offering the House is.

Prime Minister

Question No. 2

RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori) (14:09) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government’s statements and actions?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister) (14:09): Yes, and particularly our desire not to introduce an asset tax.

Rawiri Waititi: Thank you for that. Does he stand by his Government’s track record of legislating over court decisions to entrench the theft of the foreshore and seabed through the marine and coastal area amendment Act, and to choose corporate interest over the wellbeing of our taiao and our people through the Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Act?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I reject the characterisation of the second leg of that question.

Rawiri Waititi: Does he agree that tikanga is the first law of Aotearoa, as recognised by the courts, and, if so, will he ensure our people that so long as he’s Prime Minister he will not legislate over the application of tikanga in our judicial system?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, what Māori can be assured of across New Zealand is this is a Government that is interested in improving Māori outcomes, and when we see Māori youth offending down 28 percent, we see 4,000 fewer Māori victims of violent crime, when we see immunisation rates for under-24 young Māori up from 60 to 71.5 percent, this is a Government that’s delivering for Māori and it’s improving outcomes for Māori.

Rawiri Waititi: Can he rule out revisiting the Treaty principles bill or any legislation that aims to achieve the same goals as the Treaty principles bill, under any Government he leads?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, what I can rule out is a capital gains tax, a rentals tax, and a wealth and asset tax.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the Prime Minister aware that tikanga varies iwi by iwi by iwi by iwi, so which one did Te Pāti Māori recommend we follow?

SPEAKER: Well, the Prime Minister can’t answer for Te Pāti Māori. Is there—question No. 3—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. I said: “Which one did Te Pāti Māori recommend to him that they follow?”

SPEAKER: I thought—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, no, no you don’t.

SPEAKER: No wait on, I thought—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Follow the question very carefully.

SPEAKER: Don’t argue; it’s not a safe thing to do. I thought the question was “Which one did he recommend?”, so that would be something he can’t do. If the Prime Minister wants to make a comment on that; if the Prime Minister—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, no. Point of order. The question wasn’t that—I know what you thought. I know what you thought; I’m about to correct you.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: What is this? You wouldn’t stand for this from anyone else.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I said, “Which one did they recommend that the Prime Minister follow?”

SPEAKER: No, don’t—listen, hang on a minute.

Hon Member: Any tikanga.

SPEAKER: Drop that sort of comment—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Oh, any tikanga, how’s that, eh?

SPEAKER: —or it’s an early afternoon.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: So 45 different court decisions, now?

SPEAKER: You make the choice. Sit down.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Yes, certainly.

SPEAKER: Right, now that’s the end of that. We’re moving on to question No. 3.

Finance

Question No. 3

NANCY LU (National) (14:12) to the Minister of Finance: What is the Government’s fiscal strategy?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (14:12): The Government’s fiscal strategy aims to repair the books after a period of deficits and rapidly growing debt. The key elements of the strategy are to reduce core Crown expenses towards 30 percent of GDP; to return the Government’s headline operating balance measure, OBEGALx—Operating Balance Before Gains and Losses, excluding ACC revenue and expenses—to surplus by the 2028/2029 fiscal year; and to put net core Crown debt as a percentage of GDP on a downward path towards 40 percent. Budget forecasts show the strategy is on track. Core Crown expenses, for example, are forecast to decline from 32.6 percent of GDP this year to 30.3 percent of GDP at the end of the forecast period in 2029-30.

Nancy Lu: Should the Government increase spending to boost the economy?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, no. For starters, it’s worth pointing out that we are already in deficit. It is true that if the Government borrowed more to spend more, it would give the economy a short-term boost, but that is just a sugar hit. There is no impact on medium-term growth; the money borrowed gets added to debt, and the Reserve Bank would likely respond with slightly higher interest rates than would otherwise be the case. Sustainable growth comes from structural changes that raise potential GDP, such as increasing capital intensity, as the Investment Boost tax policy seeks to do. Sustainable growth does not come simply from spending more.

Nancy Lu: Has the Government considered raising core Crown expenses to 33 percent of GDP?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: No. Thirty-three percent of GDP would be very high for core Crown expenses. The Treasury’s core Crown expenses series goes back to 1993-94 and has only been at 33 percent or above on six occasions, including around the time of the global financial crisis and COVID-19 pandemic. The average for core Crown expenses over the past 25 years—through, of course, both blue Governments and red Governments—is only 30.7 percent. Thirty-three percent would therefore be a very significant increase in spending and it is definitely not something the Government is considering.

Nancy Lu: How is additional Government spending funded?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: If the Government wants to spend more, it either has to tax people more or borrow more. For example, to raise core Crown revenue to 33 percent, to match a similar increase in expenses, the Government would have to increase taxes by $10.4 billion in the 2030-31 fiscal year. To put that in perspective, colleagues, $10.4 billion is $5,400 of extra tax for every household in New Zealand; put another way, $103 more tax per household every week.

Finance

Question No. 4

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) (14:15) to the Minister of Finance: Fa’afetai tele lava, Mr Speaker. Does she stand by all her statements and actions?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (14:15): In context, yes.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Has she kept her promise that her Government would “reduce food prices for Kiwis”, when the price of white bread is up over 72 percent since she came to office?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, I can say that this Government has achieved lower rates of food price inflation than was the case under the last three years of the last Labour-led Government, in which food price inflation soared over 12 percent per year. Currently, food inflation is easing. Food prices rose just 0.1 percent in July, with annual food inflation now 1.9 percent, which is obviously a lot lower than the 12 percent food inflation that her mates managed to achieve.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Has she kept her promise that the Government would lower grocery prices, when the price of beef mince is up more than 33 percent since she came to office?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, as I said, food price inflation is lower on our watch than it was under the last Government. I think it is worth acknowledging that global beef prices are determined in a global market in which New Zealand participates. If that member’s policy is that she wishes to lower the returns farmers get for red meat, I would also indicate to her that that would have significant implications for jobs.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: So are butter prices higher or lower since she came into office?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, as I said, food price inflation has eased during the time of our Government, which is to say simply that food prices are not increasing as fast as they once were. When it comes to butter, I think it’s worth pointing out that New Zealand is one of the biggest exporters of butter in the world, and higher returns for dairy have injected billions of dollars into the economy in recent years, which has supported jobs on farms. I am always on the side of shoppers who wish to see affordable butter, but if the member’s solution is that she wants to see dairy farmers getting lower prices, she should spell that out to the public.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Supplementary—

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Is that like when you called Fonterra in?

SPEAKER: I’m sorry, have you got a question?

Hon Dr Megan Woods: No.

SPEAKER: Then please don’t interfere with someone asking from your own side.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Why does she continue to claim that she will “reduce food prices for Kiwis”, when the price of cheese is up 28 percent; lamb chops, 31 percent; mince, 33 percent; milk, 33 percent; white bread, 72 percent; and butter, 88 percent on her watch alone?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, because week in, week out, this Government is doing what it can to control the costs that lead to excessive food price inflation. For example, last week, we made an announcement intervening on the Horizons Plan Change 2. The result that was described to me in a text message I received from a vegetable grower was this: “It will see growers held to account to demonstrate good practice and reduce the environmental impact, but it’s practical, workable, and achievable. Congratulations on doing what no other regional or central government of the past has done: listen to growers on the ground and implement workable solutions. We couldn’t have done it without your help to open doors for us along the way with what you’ve done to help keep New Zealand growing healthy food, stay accessible, and reasonably priced for everyone.” Red tape matters and our Government has been reducing it, and that means that vegetable prices will be lower than they otherwise would be.

Prime Minister

Question No. 5

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green) (14:19) to the Prime Minister: E tautoko ana ia i ngā kōrero me ngā mahi katoa a tōna Kāwanatanga?

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

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister) (14:20): Yes, and I can assure the member that we won’t be implementing a death tax or a gift tax.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he agree that Treaty—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just a moment—just a moment. How many times do I warn people on the front bench of the National Party—don’t speak while a question is being asked? That applies to people on this side of the House, too—not to mention any particular names.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he agree that Treaty settlements create binding obligations on the Crown, or can those obligations be set aside when they become politically inconvenient?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: This Government believes in upholding its Treaty obligations.

Hon Marama Davidson: Was the decision to halt Plan Change 1 simply for the purpose of allowing continued pollution and degradation of the Waikato River for short-term private profit—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Oh, God, what a stupid question.

Hon Marama Davidson: —despite water quality being one of the region’s most significant—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Who the hell wrote this question?

Hon Marama Davidson: Mr Speaker, I’ve got chitter-chatter—

SPEAKER: You can start that question again, and I’ll keep an eye on where the noise is coming from, because mumbling under your breath doesn’t save you.

Hon Marama Davidson: Was the decision to halt Plan Change 1 simply for the purpose of allowing continued pollution and degradation of the Waikato River for short-term private profit, despite water quality being one of the region’s most significant environmental concerns?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No.

Hon Marama Davidson: Why is it acceptable to overrule a decision that has been supported by the Environment Court and been through a 14-year collaborative process between iwi, farmers and growers, councils, industry, and environmental and community groups?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Because we’re changing our planning laws. We’re moving from an old system to a new system, and it’s important that things are done in the context of the new rules.

Hon Marama Davidson: Is his decision to halt the planned improvements to the health of the Waikato River a sign of intent for the resource management reform his Government is pushing through this week, which places short-term private profits over the health of our environment every single time?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. Mr Speaker, did you hear the end of that question?

SPEAKER: I did, and I was about to interject on that.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Thank you very much.

SPEAKER: The member can ask the question without the supposition added on to the end of it.

Hon Marama Davidson: Is his decision to halt the planned improvements to the health of the Waikato River a sign of intent for the resource management reform his Government is pushing through this week?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No.

Hon Chris Bishop: Can the Prime Minister confirm that the draft Amendment Paper to the Natural Environment Bill currently before the House specifically says that existing Plan Change 1 will be the basis for the new plan once the environment system changes?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he believe that he knows better than the Environment Court and the Waikato River Authority about the state of the Waikato River, or does he simply not care and, as the chair of the river authority has said, is he willing to “pass the buck to the next generation”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No. One of the biggest things holding this country back has been our Resource Management Act (RMA) reforms—our RMA laws—that’s why we’re reforming it, and that’s exactly what we’re doing. We’re doing it because we’ve got to get planning and consenting things done and to build in this place—more roads, more wind farms, more farms, more supermarkets, more renovations, more houses, more hospitals. That’s a good thing. You cannot have an RMA reform—an RMA programme—costing us $1.3 billion. Costs are up 70 percent; actual time taken to get consents is up 150 percent. We’re changing it—we are changing it—because we’re going to get things done and built in this country, and we’re going to grow our economy.

Housing

Question No. 6

Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam) (14:24) to the Minister of Housing: Is the Government considering removing interest deductibility for residential property?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Housing) (14:24): No.

Dr Hamish Campbell: Why does the Government support interest deductibility?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: There are many reasons—two the House might be interested in. On this side of the House, we believe in the eminently reasonable and best-practice tax principle that tax is paid on profit, not revenue. The Government does not tax small trade business on gross sales while ignoring the cost of wages, materials, tools, and fuel. Removing interest deductibility for residential property breaks this principle, and it means that the mum and dad investor, or someone who rents their home out, could have to pay tax on their property even if it’s making a loss. Secondly, removing interest deductibility raises costs for people who provide rentals, which, according to the experts, are likely to be passed on to renters. One might even call it a tenant tax.

Dr Hamish Campbell: Who would pay if the Government removed interest deductibility on residential property?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: In general, people who provide rentals will pay. Some of those increased costs are likely to be passed on to renters—that is what IRD warned about back in 2021. Removing interest deductibility could also incentivise or force people who provide rental properties to sell, which, of course, affects renters as well. You cannot increase costs for landlords at no cost or consequence to renters. All these costs have an effect and a consequence.

Dr Hamish Campbell: What reports has he seen on interest deductibility for residential property?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I’ve seen many reports. One thing I have been reading at night is IRD’s 2021 and 2023 regulatory impact statements (RIS). From the 2021 RIS: “[IRD] has advised against any of these options to deny or limit interest deductions … additional taxes on rental housing are unlikely to be an effective way of boosting overall housing affordability. … [This would] put upward pressure on rents and may reduce the supply of new housing developments in the longer-term.” and could have “negative impacts on rents and housing supply, high compliance and administration costs for an estimated 250,000 taxpayers, and [would erode] the coherence of the tax system.”

Hon David Seymour: Has the Minister seen any other recent admissions that taxes on a particular activity can be passed on to consumers?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, there is no shortage of proposals in this House, mainly on the other side—

SPEAKER: No, that’s enough—that’s enough.

Hon Member: Aw!

SPEAKER: Yes, I’d be upset about that, but I suspect if you tabled the document you claim you’ve been reading every night, you’d have found the cure for insomnia.

Health

Question No. 7

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) (14:27) to the Minister of Health: Is it correct that the net change in nursing FTE is a more accurate measure of workforce growth than hiring statistics, and why is the net increase in Health New Zealand’s nursing FTE between the quarters ending March 2024 to March 2026 only 54 nurses?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (14:27): In response to the first part of the member’s question, yes, it is correct that the net change in nursing full-time equivalents (FTEs) is an accurate measure of workforce growth. That is why just last week in the House I referenced the 2,162 additional nurses on a net basis employed by Health New Zealand since 2023, which equates to a net increase of 1,640 full-time equivalents. In response to the second part of the member’s question, I’m advised that in a workforce the size of Health New Zealand, people are joining and leaving all of the time for a range of reasons. What’s important is that we have grown the number of nurses working at Health New Zealand by more than 1,600 FTEs, and that as at 14 August there were 2,378 fulltime-equivalent nursing roles actively being recruited across Health New Zealand, including 475 nurses who have accepted offers, with thousands more progressing through recruitment.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: When Middlemore Hospital has lost the equivalent of 78 full-time nurses in the past two years, are his cuts the reasons paramedics are forced to treat patients in hospital corridors?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: As I said in the answer to the primary question, there has been significant growth in full-time equivalents since we came to office. There is clearly more work to do, and that is why Health New Zealand is actively recruiting, as at 14 August, for 2,378 fulltime-equivalent nursing roles—by Health New Zealand—including 475 nurses who have already accepted offers.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: When Auckland hospital nurses have been cut by 74 full-time equivalents over the last two years, is it any surprise the emergency department breached its capacity on a third of all days last year?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: As I said in the answer to the primary question, since we came to Government, Health New Zealand has increased the number of nurses by more than 1,600 FTE roles. As at 14 August, there were 2,378 fulltime-equivalent nursing roles actively being recruited across Health New Zealand, including 475 nurses who have accepted offers. It’s also important to note that the number of vacancies has reduced, from 2,632 to 1,600 FTE, the turnover rate—

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Point of order. We’re all sitting here while the Minister has, despite answering on the question of net nursing growth, repeated points about recruitment numbers which are totally unrelated. He is now introducing another matter, and under Speakers’ ruling 206/4, this is totally unrelated to the issue, which is the total number of nurses.

SPEAKER: I think it’s very hard to argue that, given that the Minister is talking about vacancies and hiring, as I heard it. It’s hard to say that’s not related to the question. Please, take an extra supplementary.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: When Waikato Hospital nursing staff has been cut over the last two years, by 53 full-time equivalents, why is he continuing to claim he hasn’t cut services?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: As I said in the answer to the primary question, the number of fulltime-equivalent nurses working at Health New Zealand has increased by more than 1,600 full-time equivalents across New Zealand. We are hiring across the country, as at 14 August, currently recruiting for 2,378 fulltime-equivalent nursing roles, including 475 nurses who have accepted offers. There is clearly more work to do, but as I said, we have reduced the number of vacancies from 2,632 full-time equivalents to 1,601. The turnover rate has reduced from 11.7 percent to 8.4 percent, which means our retention rate is improving. The vacancy rate has reduced from 8.6 percent to 5.2 percent. There’s more work to do, but there is a lot of recruitment under way.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Why does he cite gross figures rather than net for the three months at the beginning of the Government’s term, when they hadn’t put in the hiring freeze, in order to disguise the fact that for the last two years, they have essentially not hired any additional nurses?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: I reject the premise of that question, and if I wish to choose two different dates—as the member seeks to do—I’ll refer to March 2023, when the number of doctors at Health New Zealand was 10,093; and September 2023, when it had fallen to 9,962. Under her watch, the number of doctors reduced by around a hundred.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: What is the net change in the number of fulltime-equivalent doctors employed by Health New Zealand between quarters ending March 2024 to March 2026?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: I’m advised that Health New Zealand employed an additional 502 fulltime-equivalent doctors on a net basis between March 2024 and March 2026. Between September 2023 and March 2026 that number was 942 fulltime-equivalent staff.

Local Government

Question No. 8

CATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki) (14:33) to the Minister of Local Government: What announcements has he made about capping council rates?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Housing) (14:34) on behalf of the Minister of Local Government: Today, the Government is introducing legislation to cap rates. Ratepayers have faced medium rate increases of 14.2 percent and 9.2 percent over the past two years. That is not sustainable for Kiwi households. Under the new system, councils will be required to keep annual rate increases within an initial target range of 2 percent to 4 percent. The rates cap will put a break on excessive increases, drive greater financial discipline, and sharpen the focus on delivering the basic services communities expect.

Catherine Wedd: How will the rates cap ease cost of living pressures for New Zealanders?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Rates are not optional. Councils also effectively operate as monopoly providers of core services. Electricity retail companies, phone service providers—unlike those, households don’t actually have a choice on who they buy those services from, unless they pack up and move away. In recent years, New Zealanders have been hit with increases worth hundreds of dollars a year, compounding to thousands of dollars a year over time, and they have no choice but to eat that cost. We are putting a brake on excessive rate increase, which will flow straight to New Zealanders.

Catherine Wedd: How has the Government ensured the rates cap balances affordability for ratepayers with councils’ need to deliver essential services?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: We’ve designed the cap to be firm but practical. The 2 to 4 percent range gives councils room to meet cost pressures and to continue investing in essential services and infrastructure, while putting a clear limit on excessive rate increases. There will be exemptions for genuinely exceptional circumstances—natural disasters, for example. It’s not about stopping councils from delivering essential services; it’s about forcing prioritisation. It’s a policy against 70,000 bucks on decorative artwork for a single bus stop. It’s a policy against $2.3 million for light-up public toilets in Wellington. Central government isn’t perfect either and we’re working hard to get our books back in order, but we think the rates cap will deliver real benefits for working New Zealanders.

Catherine Wedd: How does capping rates fit within the Government’s wider programme to improve the performance and accountability of local government?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: On behalf of the Minister, it’s another part of the Government’s programme to get local government back to basics and focused on value for ratepayers. For too long, when council costs and appetites have increased, the answer has just been to say yes, because ratepayers will be there to pick up the tab. We’re changing that. The rates cap will require tougher choices, prioritisation of spending, and focusing on services that communities expect to get right: roads, footpaths, rubbish, parks and recreation. Ratepayers deserve councils that respect the money they are entrusted with. This Government is putting in place the accountability around how that money is spent.

Education

Question No. 9

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. My question is to the Minister of Education and reads: does she stand by her claim that “2026 marks the first year of nationally consistent assessment and reporting in primary and intermediate schools”; if so, how is this consistent with reports that some schools are assessing differently to others?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. Members are required to repeat the question that’s written before them, and not change the words on the way through. She just did. She threw the word “how” in there.

SPEAKER: Read the question again.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) (14:37) to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by her claim that “2026 marks the first year of nationally consistent assessment and reporting in primary and intermediate schools”; if so, is this consistent with reports that some schools are assessing differently to others?

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education) (14:38): To the first part of the question, yes: from 2026, schools must use one of three assessment tools which report consistently against progress descriptors. To the second part of the question, yes: some schools are assessing differently to others because there are three different tools.

Hon Ginny Andersen: How can she claim that her new school reports deliver “national consistency” when principals say identical student achievement is being reported in two completely different ways?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Well, last year, the Ministry of Education worked very, very closely with the education sector—with unions, with principals, with the New Zealand Rural Schools Association—to put together parent reporting. We then put together a very comprehensive document called Reporting to Parents and Whānau, which was released in term 1, which gives the sector a breakdown of exactly how to implement. Now, I understand that there are some principals who are needing some additional help, and I will say to them, and I’ve also said to the ministry, that they should, firstly, read this document, and, then, secondly, please get in touch with the ministry, because they are on standby for additional help.

Hon Ginny Andersen: How can she claim that the guidance was clear, when schools received conflicting advice from the ministry; and will she identify which of the two different methods currently being used are supposed to be used?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: As I’ve already said, everything is laid out very clearly in this comprehensive document that was produced by the Ministry of Education, put out in term 1, and sent out to schools through, I believe, the method of communication that the ministry uses with schools. It all lays it out very clearly in here exactly how it’s to be done. If there is still some confusion amongst schools, I would say to them: please get in touch with the ministry, have a read of this document—it is all clearly laid out.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Will she accept responsibility for the inconsistent implementation of her new school reports, or does ministerial responsibility disappear whenever her policy goes wrong?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: It’s really important to understand the backdrop of where we came from before we implemented this, because when national standards were removed, nothing was put in its place. For six long years, we’ve had all schools using completely different ways of reporting to parents—stars, ticks, ABCs. We are now bringing consistency to the sector. It is a big change, because nothing was replaced after they removed national standards, but now we have a consistent document. It is a big change; we are here to help schools if they misunderstand anything in this document.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Will she apologise to the children who received lower grades, not because their achievement declined, but because she rushed out a reporting system before schools had clear and consistent instructions?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Well, if there’s anyone that should apologise to the children of this country, it is the previous Labour Government for ignoring all of the warning signs of the dashboard that results were plummeting while they sat back and did absolutely nothing—no consistent assessment, no consistent curriculum, no consistent reporting to parents. We’ve done it all, and we did it in three years.

SPEAKER: Question No. 10—Chlöe Swarbrick and nobody else.

Prime Minister

Question No. 10

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green) (14:41) to the Prime Minister: E tautoko ana ia i ngā kōrero me ngā mahi katoa a tōna Kāwanatanga?

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

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister) (14:41): Yes, and I just do want to reassure the member that we will not be implementing a 45 percent top tax rate, a death and inheritance tax, a gift tax, a rentals tax, or a wealth asset tax.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does he stand—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Hang on, hang on—hang on.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does he stand by his Government’s commitment to sign a contract with a preferred provider for the proposed liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal before the election; and, if so, why is it appropriate for his Government to commit the country to a multi-billion-dollar investment in fossil fuels that lacks bipartisan support in the final months before an election?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I want to thank the member for her question, because wholesale electricity prices have dropped 35 percent from the 2024 peak, and the strategy of “and, and, and”—a strategic coal reserve, a strategic diesel reserve, an LNG import facility as a backstop, coupled with building more renewables in two years than the previous eight years—is working. That is good news, because people lose their jobs, and businesses close down in regional New Zealand, because of failed energy policy from the previous administration.

Chlöe Swarbrick: What is his response to the Smart Energy Alliance, who wrote to him in July of this year stating that “the Government should exercise restraint in recognition of rushing through such a major investment with potentially serious safety, economic and environmental implications during the pre-election period”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I would say to them, just look at wholesale electricity prices on the forward curves, because the good news is that Meridian are saying they will pass that on to their commercial customers next year, and we expect them to do so.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Will his Government underwrite the billion-dollar LNG import facility with taxpayer money?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: No.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, we’ll have more to say about that when we announce our policy, but what we have said very clearly is we are not going to fund that on power bills. We are not adding to the power bills of New Zealanders, but we are going to make sure that they actually get lower downward pressure on power bills, and the way that we do it is that we make commitments to thermal firming-energy as well as expanding and opening up more renewables as well.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Are we to take that answer as confirmation that his Government will use tax—

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Winston said, “no”.

SPEAKER: Sorry—sorry. Please.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Well, who’s in charge? Winston Peters is answering questions as well.

Chlöe Swarbrick: It’s kind of true.

SPEAKER: Answering might be fine, but we’re about to have a question asked.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Are we to take that answer from the Prime Minister as confirmation that he is comfortable with billions of dollars of taxpayer money being used to underwrite his LNG import facility?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What I’m very comfortable with is wholesale electricity prices dropping 35 percent, and gentailers saying they’re going to pass those on to commercial customers, which means businesses stay alive—the mills in regional New Zealand—and that means people stay in jobs.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the Prime Minister telling the House that he will use taxpayer money to underwrite his billion-dollar LNG import facility?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We’ve said previously that gentailers will pay for it.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Point of order. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Sorry, that’s absolutely got to stop.

Chlöe Swarbrick: As well traversed, Mr Speaker, I understand that the Prime Minister doesn’t actually have to answer the questions in question time, but he does have to address them. My question was specifically about the use of taxpayer money to underwrite the LNG import facility. I asked that question three times. He did not once specifically refer to the underwriting.

SPEAKER: Well, he’s most certainly indicated where the funding is going to come from. Now, beyond that, he also started the answer by saying that those announcements will be made when they finally announce the policy. I don’t think he can take it much further than that.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order. I wonder if you could clarify for us: when Winston Peters answers a question before the Prime Minister, saying, “The Government’s position is no.”, who do we accept the word of: is it the Prime Minister or the other one?

SPEAKER: Well, you see, you’re really asking me: if someone interjects at some point on an answer, do we assume that they’re right? There’d be numerous people on your side of the House who do also attempt to answer for the Prime Minister and other Ministers, but, by and large, we recognise it as an interjection only.

Tākuta Ferris: Does the Prime Minister stand by his Government’s decisions to cut thousands of Public Service jobs, particularly in Wellington, when those job losses remove income from whānau and spending from local communities at a time where Māori unemployment has risen to 10.8 percent, double that of non-Māori?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, we want to build a Public Service for the 2040s and beyond, not for the 1990s, and so we are going to transform the Public Service. We’ve talked about that before, and we’re very comfortable with the fact that we want to see better services and better delivery of customer service to the public of New Zealand, and we can do a much better job.

Tākuta Ferris: Does the Prime Minister stand by his Government’s cost of living actions when petrol has risen by 15 percent, and diesel by 35 percent, placing added pressure on whānau Māori in Te Tau Ihu in particular, who travel significant distances to access essential services like healthcare and schooling?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I stand by this Government’s efforts to lower inflation, to lower interest rates, and to get the economy growing so that we can get people into work. I also stand by the fact that we have done a number of things across New Zealand to actually help the Māori economy. Whether it’s been in Regional Infrastructure Fund investments, that’s all designed to create opportunity for Māori and non-Māori across New Zealand.

Tākuta Ferris: How can the Prime Minister justify removing Tai Poutini Polytechnic as a standalone institution at a critical time where we need more pathways into education and employment, and considering 22.3 percent of rangatahi Māori aged 15 to 24 are not in employment, education, or training?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’m actually very proud of the fact that we have improved regular attendance amongst Māori students from 51.3 percent to 54.6 percent just in the last year. I’m very proud of the $104 million Budget 2025 package for Māori learners, and the $334 million in Budget 2026 for Māori school property. These are all positive things designed to create opportunity for Māori and non-Māori.

Tākuta Ferris: What single action can the Prime Minister point to that has measurably improved the lives of whānau Māori in Te Tai Tonga through better cost of living, health, or education outcomes, considering the results of these measures have worsened under his Government’s watch?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I refer the member to the answer in the last question.

Agriculture

Question No. 11

MILES ANDERSON (National—Waitaki) (14:49) to the Minister of Agriculture: Is the Government considering a land tax on farms?

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture) (14:49): No, absolutely not. The Government is keeping taxes low so that New Zealanders can keep more of what they earn and have more choices about what they and their family can do with their own money.

Miles Anderson: What reports has he seen about a land tax on farms?

Hon TODD McCLAY: I’ve seen a report by Federated Farmers that said—and I quote—“A land tax would cost farmers as much as the previous Government’s methane tax and send financially marginal farmers to the wall.” In contrast, this Government is reducing costs and cutting red tape for farmers and growers so that they can get on with doing what they do best: producing the highest quality food in the world and creating more, and higher-paying, jobs for New Zealanders.

Miles Anderson: What other reports has he seen about a proposed land tax?

Hon TODD McCLAY: More taxes would make our farms less competitive internationally and push up costs on New Zealand consumers. Federated Farmers also said, “The best way that we can address the cost of living crisis is by having successful businesses that can pay higher wages, so let’s not provide another tax that takes away from that opportunity”—that was a quote. We won’t be introducing a land tax or any other new tax on rural New Zealand or other New Zealanders.

Miles Anderson: Has he seen any other reports about the impact of a land tax on farms?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Yes, a report that stated the cost for farmers could be as much as $47,000 every year. A land tax would be as harmful to rural New Zealand as a capital gains tax, a wealth tax, an inheritance tax, or a death tax. None of those taxes is proposed by the Government. Instead, we’re supporting farmers by implementing business-friendly initiatives like Investment Boost—as they hit record exports of $64 billion this year. We want productivity, not punishment.

Cameron Luxton: Does the Minister agree with ACT’s 10 August announcement committing to no new taxes, and if so, when did the Minister decide no new taxes was the right approach?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, I’ve been in this Parliament for 18 years. I’ve always believed that New Zealanders should keep more of what they earn. I absolutely agree with every Prime Minister of a National Government I can think of, including our current Prime Minister, Christopher Luxon, who has said that the way to grow an economy and create jobs is not new taxes, which is why the Prime Minister, on behalf of the National Party, ruled out any new taxes in our next term of Government.

Hon David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The question had two legs: one sought an opinion on a political party’s policy, and the other asked when the member changed his mind on the policy. I don’t think he actually addressed either of them; he just gave a general dissertation on his beliefs.

SPEAKER: No, no. What I heard is that he said he’s been here 18 years and he always agrees with the Prime Minister.

Commerce and Consumer Affairs

Question No. 12

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (14:52) to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: Does he stand by his statement, “We believe that New Zealanders pay too much for their groceries. That’s what we’re focused on fixing”; if so, when can New Zealanders expect lower household bills as a result of this Government’s work?

Hon CAMERON BREWER (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs) (14:52): Yes, that’s exactly why we’ve taken action to remove regulatory, enforcement, and structural barriers that limit competition in the grocery sector. We’ve opened the fast-track process to supermarkets, we’ve created a nationwide building consent pathway, and we’ve made it easier for new entrants to use proven supermarket designs. We’ve also strengthened protections for suppliers and we’re strengthening our competition and fair-trading laws. With regard to prices: food inflation is currently running at 1.9 percent—substantially lower than the 12.3 percent that it was in June 2023.

Arena Williams: Why does the Minister defend rising grocery prices on his watch, when this Government promised more than a year ago to increase grocery competition and reduce food prices for Kiwis?

Hon CAMERON BREWER: We, as a Government, are all about more sustainable food price increases and we have it, so far—[Interruption] It’s tracking at a much better rate than it was in 2023. In the month of July, grocery prices increased by 0.1 percent. In the year to July, grocery prices increased just 1.9 percent. It’s a big improvement from 12.3 percent in June 2023.

Arena Williams: What does the Minister say to people paying bills for junk insurance, when the Financial Markets Authority’s (FMA’s) report found that some insurances pay out just 3c for every dollar paid in premiums?

Hon CAMERON BREWER: I would repeat to the member, as I did in the Estimates debate last week, that the FMA have got a target on junk insurance—

Arena Williams: You called them loan sharks.

SPEAKER: Hey!

Hon CAMERON BREWER: —and that is what they are focused on and that is what they continue to look into and investigate.

Arena Williams: When will this Government stop defending high prices when those insurers are keeping 97c in the dollar every Kiwi pays?

Hon CAMERON BREWER: We look forward to our insurance affordability review, that the likes of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, that the likes of the Commerce Commission, that the likes of Treasury, and others on the Council of Financial Regulators are putting together. We await their analysis with great interest.

Arena Williams: What hard decisions has this Government actually taken to break the market power of the major supermarkets and insurers to bring prices down?

Hon CAMERON BREWER: We have done a number of things, as I said in my primary answer, but we’ve also introduced stronger enforcement and greater supplier protections when you look at the Grocery Supply Code, when you look at competition law, when you look at the increasing penalties that we’re putting around fair trading breaches, and when you look at the resourcing that we continue to give the Commerce Commission.

Debates

Bed Tax—Position of New Zealand National Party

Urgent Debate Declined

SPEAKER: Members, I have received a letter from Chlöe Swarbrick seeking to debate under Standing Order 399 Christopher Luxon ruling out the implementation of a bed tax and the implications for the regional deals with Auckland and other regions.

Urgent debates are a way to hold the Government to account for actions for which it is responsible. The announcement to which the member referred in her application was made by the leader of the National Party. The authentication—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Ah, ah—got that? Got that, Chlöe?

Withdrawal from Chamber

Rt Hon Winston Peters

SPEAKER: Hang on, hang on. Sorry, the member should just take himself out of the House. That’d be good. I’m going to start again. We’re not having this back and forth.

Rt Hon Winston Peters withdrew from the Chamber.

Debates

Bed Tax—Position of New Zealand National Party

Urgent Debate Declined

SPEAKER: Urgent debates are a way of holding the Government accountable for actions for which it is responsible. The announcement to which the member referred in her application was made by the leader of the National Party. The authentication provided with the application confirms that is the case. The application is declined.

We’ll take 30 seconds for those who have to go other business to leave the House. Members should make an effort to leave quickly, with no conversations on the way—and a bit of quiet as well.

Bills

Appropriation (2026/27 Estimates) Bill

Committee of the whole House—Estimates Debate

Debate resumed from 20 August.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor) (14:58): Members, the House is in committee for further consideration of the Appropriation (2026/27 Estimates) Bill.

The Government has indicated that the Minister for Social Development and Employment, the Minister of Health, the Minister for Energy, and the Minister for Resources will be available today to speak to their portfolios. Leading off the debate, the chairperson of the relevant select committee should take care not to be overly political and should ensure their call gives a fair reflection of the select committee’s report on the votes relevant to the portfolio.

This debate expires after 11 hours, at which point the questions will be put that the votes stand part of the schedules and on the provision of the Appropriation (2026/27 Estimates) Bill. There are 4 hours and two minutes remaining in this debate. New Zealand National has 48 minutes remaining. New Zealand Labour has one hour and 14 minutes remaining. The Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand has 36 minutes remaining. ACT New Zealand has 48 minutes remaining. New Zealand First has 37 minutes remaining. Te Pāti Māori has 16 minutes remaining, Tākuta Ferris has three minutes remaining, and Mariameno Kapa-Kingi has no time remaining.

The Estimates debate should be relevant to the Government’s current spending plans, as contained in the Estimates of Appropriations. The question again is that the votes contained in the Estimates of Appropriations for 2026-27 stand part of the schedules.

Members, we start with the Minister for Social Development and Employment. The Minister is available to speak to the portfolio from 3 p.m. to 4 p.m. I call Joseph Mooney, chairperson of the Social Services and Community Committee.

Committee of the whole House—Estimates Debate

Social Development and Employment

JOSEPH MOONEY (Chairperson of the Social Services and Community Committee) (15:00): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I begin this Estimates debate by speaking briefly to the report that my committee has delivered to the House.

Vote Social Development is the largest vote in Budget 2026; it makes up 24 percent of total funding allocated in the Budget. The vote funds many social services, including income support, student loans, emergency housing, and disability support. In 2026-27, the appropriation sought for Vote Social Development totalled $48.37 billion. The appropriations in this vote come under six ministerial portfolios—the Ministry of Social Development administers the vote.

The Minister for Social Development and Employment is responsible for 94 percent of the vote, with appropriations totalling $45.56 billion, including benefits or related expenses. Five other Ministers all have responsibilities for appropriations in the vote: the Minister of Revenue, $2.36 billion; the Minister of Housing, $297.4 million; the Minister for Veterans, $132.43 million; the Minister for Youth, $16.62 million; and the Minister for Seniors, $6.28 million.

Vote Social Development funds the provision of income support and the administration of associated systems and processes. The category benefits or related expenses include appropriations totalling $42.9 billion, or 88.7 percent of the vote. These appropriations are demand driven. The Minister for Social Development and Employment is responsible for all but two of these appropriations.

The select committee also discussed the proportion of the total benefits or related expenses in Vote Social Development as proposed for New Zealand superannuation payments. We note that forecast amounts are set to increase, and the committee considered that work needs to be done to ensure financial sustainability as demand continues to increase for superannuation. As a total of benefits or related expenses in the 2026-27 appropriations, 62 percent were for New Zealand superannuation.

There’s a lot more in our report, and I’d recommend people read it. I look forward to the forthcoming debate.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (15:02): Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to follow the hard-working chair of the Social Services and Community Committee with a few comments and a very clear, straightforward message to the committee of the whole House. Our Government’s approach to social support is simple at its heart: New Zealanders who genuinely need assistance from the Government should get it; New Zealanders who can work should work. Being in work is better for the country and better for the person than sitting on a benefit. We need to ensure that the social support system, including benefits and housing payments, are fair both for those receiving assistance and for taxpayers paying for it. The system should neither incentivise people to be supported by the State nor disincentivise people from seeking work or living independently. I’m happy to answer questions.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) (15:03): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. Thank you, Mr Chair.

I just want to start by asking the Minister for Social Development and Employment some questions around job seekers, and I want to ask if the Minister can confirm that the Budget Economic and Fiscal Update shows jobseeker numbers will be above 200,000 in 2030?

Further to that, has there been a single Budget Economic and Fiscal Update or Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update, since she came into office, that has revised numbers down for 2030?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (15:04): I can confirm that the jobseeker forecasts were always anticipated to get higher when we came into office with the dire economic position that we inherited.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) (15:04): Further to that, then, have her officials verbally or in writing told her that her target of 50,000 fewer job seekers is unachievable?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (15:04): No, Mr Chair; I’ve always said it’s ambitious.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (15:04): Picking up on the line from the Minister, who said New Zealanders who can work should work, does the Minister have any evidence to substantiate that there is a job available for every single beneficiary in this country?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (15:04): That’s never been the assertion. Our Government is very clear that it is important for New Zealanders who can work to be available to work, to be preparing for work, and taking work when it is available.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (15:04): What is the Government’s goal, then, of stripping benefits from 18- and 19-year-olds when she has just basically conceded that there’s not a single job available for every beneficiary out there?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (15:05): Well, don’t put words in my mouth. What I would like to say is that from Budget 2026, Treasury’s forecasts say 220,000 jobs will be created. That is the Government’s hard work in terms of growing the economy. We want to ensure that 18- and 19-year-olds, instead of being stuck on welfare for another 20 years of their life, are connected with the opportunities that this great country provides.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Ricardo Menéndez March, and if you wouldn’t mind just giving me, each time you stand up—the technicians need time to catch up with you, which is why we call your name.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (15:05): I’m saving as much as time as possible! Thank you. Can the Minister confirm that every single person on jobseeker health condition and disability—who may be facing cancer, skin conditions, congenital disorders, or psychiatric and psychological conditions—is fit to go into study or training?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (15:06): We are very clear that we want 18- and 19-year-olds in employment, training, or in work and, if they’re not able to do so, then their families should be the first line of support.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (15:06): Thank you. To the previous comment from the Minister, who said that I was putting words in her mouth: can she confirm, then, that there is a single job available for every 18- and 19-year-old who she’s about to cut the benefits for?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (15:06): I reject that assertion.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) (15:06): Can she confirm that there are now 9,000 more 18- to 24-year-olds on jobseeker support compared to when she came into office?

ORIINI KAIPARA (Te Pāti Māori—Tāmaki Makaurau) (15:06): Does the Minister accept that taking jobseeker support away from 18- and 19-year-olds who can’t safely rely on their parents may reduce the benefit count, but it doesn’t put those rangatahi into work, education, training, or even a home? Off the back of that, what specific appropriation in Vote Social Development will guarantee that every rangatahi refused jobseeker support under the new parental assistance test has safe accommodation and enough income to meet their basic needs?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (15:07): We have a parental assistance test for that very reason: to protect those who either don’t have a family connection or whose family’s income is low.

ORIINI KAIPARA (Te Pāti Māori—Tāmaki Makaurau) (15:07): How does the Minister’s parental income test distinguish between income recorded on paper and a home that is safe, available, and willing to support that rangatahi?

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) (15:07): Thank you, Mr Chair. Given that the Minister couldn’t or wouldn’t answer my previous question about confirming whether there are 9,000 more 18- to 24-year-olds on jobseeker benefit since she came into office, can she confirm that there are now 10,000 more Māori on jobseeker compared to when she took office?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (15:08): I should just put on record that one of the challenges with these debates and why I’m not going to be able to answer every question is that we are time limited in the National Party. From here on, I will wait for a significant number of questions that I will try and group together so I can provide answers, otherwise I won’t have sufficient time available.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) (15:08): Therefore, I would like to know: are there 10,000 more Māori on jobseeker compared to when she took office, 9,000 more 18- to 24-year-olds since she took office, and 10,000 more women?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (15:08): No.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (15:08): On the parental income test, does she deem a family earning a total combined income of $68,000—say, a family of four—actually able to afford their basic essentials? Why did she set the parental income test so low, to the point that it makes it impossible for a family to survive on, say, a total combined income of $68,000 a year? Will she commit to ensuring that no family experiences hardship as a result of the settings that she has set for the parental income test and the fact that she will be cutting benefits from 18- to 19-year-olds with health conditions?

ORIINI KAIPARA (Te Pāti Māori—Tāmaki Makaurau) (15:09): Will the Minister guarantee that no rangatahi or young person will become homeless, remain in an unsafe home, or be forced to return to an abusive household because the Ministry of Social Development has determined that the parents should support them? Further to that, will the Minister support a statutory duty requiring agencies to prevent rangatahi homelessness before it occurs, including coordinated assessment, referral, and housing support—the very approach proposed in my youth homelessness prevention bill?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (15:09): Many members have referred to our policy for Budget 2026, which is tightening jobseeker support for 18- and 19-year-olds. I think it is important for us to put on record the policy intent behind this. What we do know is that in terms of the forecasts, 18- and 19-year-olds—actually, anyone who goes on to jobseeker benefit under the age of 25 is forecast, on average, to spend another 20 years of their life on welfare. Our side of the House doesn’t think that that should be as good as it gets for 18- and 19-year-olds, which is why we have put this policy in place.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (15:10): Does she think it’s better to answer questions than instead just give a speech that does not address any of our questions?

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) (15:10): Oh, thank you. After excluding 18- and 19-year-olds, are there any other groups that she can arbitrarily exclude to reach her target of 50,000 less jobseekers?

ORIINI KAIPARA (Te Pāti Māori—Tāmaki Makaurau) (15:11): I’d like to now ask the Minister for Social Development and Employment questions around sanctions and hardship. In June 2025, Māori comprised 39 percent of working-age benefit recipients but received 55 percent of sanctions. What Māori equity assessment has the Minister required before funding a strong sanctions regime?

I’ll ask another question. How many Māori adults and tamariki are forecast to lose income through sanctions in 2026-2027, and what amount has been appropriated to meet the resulting demand for food grants, housing assistance, and community support?

One more: does the Minister consider a policy equitable when Māori receive a majority of sanctions, and, if so, what evidence supports that conclusion?

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert) (15:11): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ve got several questions. The first one takes up the point that the Minister for Social Development and Employment has made about people who are on benefits at an early age ending up with a lifetime on benefits. I wondered whether the Minister would like to tell us whether, in fact, what we’re looking at there is correlation or causation, because there must be many other factors that need to be looked at in terms of what support or non-support we put around people at that age. What we have, from what I could see—and I was on the Social Services and Community Committee—is a situation where there isn’t a great connection under the new policy with support for this very group. They’re not in a situation where there are going to be those kinds of support. So I’d like to know about that.

I’d also like the Minister to answer the question about the issue around domestic and sexual abuse, because this age group, when they are suddenly unable to be put on benefits, etc., they often end up on the street, and I’d like to know what kind of wraparound support she’s putting in place to make sure that that is not an outcome of what she is doing today.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (15:13): I want to address the question around Māori on the jobseeker benefit and other benefits. Yes, they are disproportionately affected. That is also why, in terms of the percentage of programmes that we have Māori participating in, they are also significantly higher: case management, 42.5 percent; Flexi-wage 33, Mana in Mahi 31; He Poutama Rangatahi 75. That is also why I would say our $93 million investment in sole parents—a large proportion are Māori. We want to support sole parents into work; that’s why we’re investing in it.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (15:13): I have just a few questions on different topics. How much money has she saved up to date on her cuts to accommodation supplements for people who have boarders?

I’m also interested to know, with the savings that she’s producing through the use of automated decision-making and the use of mandatory reviews: would she be able to confirm that no supported living payment or other main benefits have been wrongfully cut because of mandatory review policies?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (15:14): Budget 2026 actually increases the accommodation supplement. The maximum rates of accommodation supplement for all areas get an increase of between $10 and $30 per week.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Musterer—Green) (15:14): Point of order, Mr Chairperson. Sorry, but if I ask about one specific policy and she talks about a completely different one, how are we supposed to have an actual exchange or debate, where she’s literally speaking of a completely different policy? She knows which policy I’m talking about, but she’s choosing to instead just mention something completely unrelated. We will not have a—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Well, the good thing about this question/answer: you’re always in a position to answer the question again, and continue to ask it.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (15:14): Is the Minister aware that she just quoted an entirely different policy, and I was simply asking: how much money has she saved through the cuts to the accommodation supplement for people who have boarders? That is completely unrelated to the increase in accommodation supplement for a completely different group.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (15:15): I understood that this Estimates was about Budget 2026. In Budget 2026, we have increased the accommodation supplement by $10 to $30 per week.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (15:15): All right. Does she think it is fair to cut the accommodation supplement for low-income homeowners while she herself is claiming $50,000-plus in subsidies that she is receiving directly from taxpayers?

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) (15:15): Were the winter energy payment cuts budgeted for in this Budget, and, if so, how much? Further to that, how long did the average pensioner or veteran who lost their winter energy payment have to go without money to pay for their energy bill?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (15:15): There were no cuts to winter energy payments in Budget 2026. The member is traversing an issue that has come into play because of modernisation legislation. I have apologised to those superannuitants who had their winter energy payment reduced when they should not. Within less than three days of me being aware of it, all of those payments had been returned.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (15:16): Will she answer my question and confirm whether any main benefits were wrongfully cut through the use of mandatory reviews?

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert) (15:16): Mr Chair, thank you. Following the debacle with winter energy payments, does the Minister accept that one of my colleagues—Ingrid Leary—raised this very issue during the committee stage and that she failed to take it into account; it was a mistake to put this particular piece of legislation through under urgency; and, in fact, this Parliament has let the public down by using a process where she did not answer, address, or take seriously those issues which were raised in an urgent situation and could have well not been raised at all?

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (15:17): Why is she not answering my question as to whether main benefits were wrongfully cut through the use of mandatory reviews, and why will she not answer my question as to whether it is fair to cut the accommodation supplement to produce savings from low-income homeowners while Ministers are able to take tens of thousands of dollars of taxpayer subsidies each year for accommodation that they already own?

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) (15:17): When were staff at the Ministry of Social Development first alerted to winter energy payments being wrongfully cut—and then being rectified in this financial year and, therefore, out of this Budget? I have some questions which are now overdue, and I want to know what was the total number of people receiving superannuation and any other forms of support that were cut. Have any winter energy payments been mistakenly cancelled for people who were entitled to them and were receiving them, and, if so, how many of those occurred?

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert) (15:18): Thank you, Mr Chair. I just want to return to the issue of automated decision-making because there was a regulatory impact statement that went on the Table during the committee of the whole House stage which had large parts of it blocked out. One of those parts that was blocked out was about what the problem was that the Minister fixed in that piece of legislation, and what I’d like to know is whether the Minister is prepared to tell us what the problem was.

It was actually blocked out because it was seen as legally privileged. My concern was that automated decision-making may well have been going on without that kind of legal licence and I wondered whether that was the risk, but that was only guessing. I could only guess, because the problem that we were apparently fixing in urgency was blocked out. Can the Minister tell me—and she’s perfectly entitled to do so—what the problem was that we were fixing when we brought in an automated system when, in fact, there are risks associated with that, and recorded overseas, which are quite significant?

After that process, I had people contact me who were experts in this area who were particularly concerned with that sort of use of automation in our social welfare system, and I’d like that answer for them. Thank you.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (15:19): I accept that there is significant interest in the issues that occurred with the winter energy payment.

In terms of the detailed questions that the member asked about time frames and quantity, a review is under way with the Ministry of Social Development, and so I will provide answers to all of that when I have it. I think that that is a better option than me putting some information on the table that with greater investigation might be deemed to not be accurate. I do want to reassure the House that automated decision making was not the problem with the winter energy payment. As I’ve explained in the House—

Helen White: It has nothing to do with the winter energy payment.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Uh, yes, it was.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: No, it wasn’t. As I’ve said in the House—

Ricardo Menéndez March: The reviews are triggered through ADM.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Well, if—[sits down]

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) (15:20): I appreciate that the Minister is undertaking a review. However, she says that all of the payments have been made, so surely they have that information, and therefore, my questions, that are now overdue, could be answered. Further to that, I also ask the Minister: have any disability allowance recipients had their winter energy payment stopped without a request to do so, and how many did that occur for?

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (15:20): Can the Minister confirm that the winter energy payments were cut through the process of confirming your circumstances, which in and of itself is triggered by the mandatory review policy, which is also triggered through the use of automated decision making?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (15:21): I’m happy to answer the question if members would like it; if they interrupt, then I’ll just sit down again. In terms of the winter energy payment, there is no eligibility requirement for superannuitants around the winter energy payment, unlike others. The issue only relates to superannuitants, where there is no requirement—no means or asset testing, no other requirements around eligibility for the winter energy payment. The issue was a policy oversight. The oversight was then reflected in the legislation; the legislation was then put forward into the automated decision making, the IT solution, which was where the mistake occurred right at the start, as a policy error. It was not an automated decision making error; it was a policy error.

ORIINI KAIPARA (Te Pāti Māori—Tāmaki Makaurau) (15:22): I also have questions around the previous member from Labour—automated decision making. Budget 2026 provides $9.28 million operating, and $2.64 million capital for automated decision making. How much of the $11.92 million allocated to automated decision making will be spent independently testing for bias against Māori? Were Māori data sovereignty experts, iwi, or Māori benefit advocates involved in designing the Ministry for Social Development automated decision making standard? If so, who were they? Will the Minister guarantee that an automated system will never impose a sanction, suspend income, decline hardship assistance, or create a debt without meaningful human review? Why does the Vote fund the expansion of automated decision making, but contain no specific published performance measure for Māori equity? This is the last one to the Minister: who is accountable when an automated decision is technically consistent with a rule, but fails to understand the reality of a whānau Māori?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (15:23): The automated decision making standard was introduced in 2022, and the Social Security (Modernisation) Amendment Act strengthened it, to take into consideration issues like the member has just raised. so that the statutory requirement now is that it must consider bias and discrimination, legal and policy considerations, fraud considerations, transparency, human oversight, and compliance and assurance.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (15:23): If the Minister is refusing to outline the policy problem that this bill was trying to address, why did she need to push it through urgency?

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert) (15:23): I have asked the question a number of times, including in committee stage, about what was going on with the automated decision making legislation, in terms of its urgency and its policy problem. It’s a seriously Orwellian issue, when I look at a piece of legislation, and I look at the regulatory impact statement (RIS), and it says, “What is the problem that we are trying to fix?” And then it is all blanked out. I do not think that that is democracy. I would like to know what the problem was that the Minister was fixing under urgency. It is a perfectly plain thing for me to try and understand. There have obviously been issues with that piece of legislation, and it’s a serious issue of policy, and I would like the Minister to tell me what it was that was the problem we were trying to fix. It’s not brain surgery. I’d like an answer.

ORIINI KAIPARA (Te Pāti Māori—Tāmaki Makaurau) (15:24): I have questions to the Minister about kaupapa Māori delivery, and Te Tiriti, especially around the $48.38 million sought through Vote Social Development. How much is contracted directly to Māori providers, and what percentage is that of the Vote? What binding Māori equity targets apply to this Vote? How does the Minister define success for Māori: fewer benefit recipients, or greater mana motuhake, secure housing, adequate income, and sustained employment? Why does the Vote not require the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) to report systematically on whether each major appropriation is reducing inequities between Māori and non-Māori? And the last one on this section: will the Minister commit to co-designing MSD services and employment programmes with Māori, including devolving resources and decision making to Māori organisations with established relationships of trust?

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (15:25): Is it correct that her cuts to the accommodation supplement for low-income homeowners will be primarily borne by families with children? Why is she choosing to cut the accommodation supplement for thousands of low-income families?

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) (15:26): I wonder if I could ask the Minister about the winter energy payment situation, and I know that she has said that it has been remediated. I understand the issue arose through policy perhaps not finding its way into the legislation that was passed under Budget urgency. Could she explain how it is that the payments were made without the legislative fix, seeing as it was a legislative error that led to the failure of the payments. How is it that the Government can make those payments, which weren’t authorised by the Budget, without amending the legislation?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (15:27): I have been advised by the whips that my time allocation is nearly at its end, but I know that there is a lot of interest in that. In terms of the issue, it is the review that was required. It was a review of circumstances. It was not authorisation—authorising or not the winter energy payment. There is no legal requirement in terms of reimbursing people that had payments taken away that they shouldn’t have.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (15:27): I acknowledge that the Minister has very little time, so hopefully this will only require a yes or no answer. Where there any main benefits wrongfully cut through the use of the “Confirming your Circumstances” policies triggered by mandatory reviews?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (15:27): No.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) (15:27): Further to the question from my colleague: it’s not required to make reimbursement, but was reimbursement made, for the winter energy payments?

Hon Louise Upston: I’ve already said that.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: They were?

Hon Louise Upston: Yeah.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: They weren’t required by a law change to be able to make those reimbursements. I did ask the question about whether anybody with the disability allowance had their winter energy payments removed. In addition to that, is superannuitants who might also be receiving further disability allowances being impacted in that way.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (15:28): They’re two completely separate issues. Where the issue has occurred is with superannuitants where there was no requirement around winter energy payment and their eligibility. As I’ve said, there will be a review; there will be more information available. I’m limited in my time now, so I’m not going to answer any further questions on that.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert) (15:28): Would the review be able to include the process that we went through in this House with regard to that matter, where we raised that issue and through the net that is supposed to work—the safety net that is that committee process—we were supposed to be able to get answers, and yet those answers didn’t come. Would we be able to go that far to look at what we got wrong? Because after all, we have New Zealanders who really needed to stay warm this winter who were put at risk, and who knows what the consequences were for some of them because we didn’t pick up the alarm bell when it went off in this House. Is that possible? That really would require a yes or no answer. The Minister, I think, does have time to do that.

If she’s not going to, I would like to return to the issue of the change in the safety net that we provide to our younger people who are unemployed. I do understand that the Minister hasn’t got much time left, so I’m going to say what I need to say about that, given that the Labour Party still has quite a lot of time.

What I want to say is that we have a situation where, in the Social Services and Community Committee—which I lead for Labour—we have seen an absolute increase in unemployment in that particular group; but we also have a group which are now, as I understand it, put in a position where, if they are to receive any kind of support, it is because they are going to be in training, and that training is not without cost. In fact, that’s the nature of what we’re doing to training beyond school now. Everything has a charge attached, and so this group are in a situation where, if they’re going to receive any kind of financial support, it’s going to be going into training.

Now, there’s training and there’s training. Some of that training is great. I’d love to see people in it, but they have to be in the mindset and in the physical capacity to do that training. What, in fact, they’re being encouraged to do, from what I can see, is pick up a loan and do training when they’re actually not necessarily ready for it. What they’re ready for is a job. They want a job, and, actually, the best training in the world, I think, is that early work where you get in and you get a job and you get started.

My understanding of this policy is that it actually hurts that group—that group that just needs to get working. Because this Government has tanked this economy, there just isn’t the work for that group. Our stats tell us that people in that age group are the ones who always fall into that situation of being the least likely to get work. We know that because the stats are through the roof. We talk and celebrate these rates of unemployment, which might hover around 5 or 6 percent, but the rates for that group are through the roof. We are talking 20 to 25 percent, and they get worse if you’re Māori.

Those particular groups are the ones who are not able to find work, and their only pathway now into it is, actually, through going and getting into some sort of training, which they might not be ready for, and all it’s doing is racking up debt. I always think it’s kind of weird that we encourage young people to get a whole lot of debt when they’ve never paid back a penny. They have no idea how hard it is to pay that debt back, and that’s what they end up doing. We encourage, as a society, that group to go into some sort of training that they’re not ready for just so they can receive support. We do it, and we basically say that it’s their problem if they can’t get a job, when, in fact, there are no jobs for that group.

Now, I meet other groups impacted like this. When unemployment hits our economy, I meet other groups. It’s not just youth; it’s also often migrant groups who can’t get the work because they don’t have the contacts, and I see some things that work. One of the things I saw that worked this time in the Social Services and Community Committee was the Mayors Taskforce for Jobs, a fantastic organisation getting people employment. But when I asked them, “How do people approach you and get jobs?”, guess what! You have to be in the know. You have to actually know it exists to get into that situation. Again, the same kids, the ones that are disconnected, the ones that haven’t got the family contacts, the ones that are poor, they’re the ones who are being impacted here, and the Minister for Social Development and Employment’s answer to this is, “We’ll put it all back on the parents.” Well, guess what! The parents don’t have any money, either. Actually, the rates that we’re cutting off are too low for that group. They are low rates. I would challenge the Minister to try and live off that kind of money. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): I’d just say that, obviously, the Minister for Social Development and Employment is at something of a disadvantage where her colleagues before her have, let’s say, misappropriated her time. It doesn’t really represent an opportunity for free shots. What it does represent is to make sure there is some context to any long or shorter statements you may make that do relate to the current spending plans. A wise speaker would reasonably often refer back to that.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (15:34): Mindful that the Minister for Social Development and Employment has little time remaining, and so do we, so these are yes or no questions if she would like to give succinct answers. Was there a policy problem that the modernisation bill was trying to address—yes or no? And will she commit to 18- to 19-year-olds with health conditions, injuries, or disabilities that their health conditions, injuries, and disabilities will not get worse once their benefit gets cut?

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) (15:35): Mr Chair, I do just have a few questions around seniors in hardship given we’ve been talking about the cuts to superannuitants’ winter energy payments. What in this Budget is there to address hardship that seniors are increasingly enduring? What advice did she get about increasing poverty among seniors and how this Budget could respond to it?

Last week, we had the release of the first ever Older Person’s Poverty Monitor 2026 report, which showed that 25,000 older people are living without the essentials. Almost 12 percent, or 102,000 older people, are living in income poverty after housing costs; 25,000 people are experiencing material hardship, living without the essentials needed for a decent living standard; over 50,000 older people rely on support for housing costs through the accommodation supplement; and 76,000 special needs grants were provided to those aged over 65 years in the 2025 calendar year so that they could meet their basic needs.

My question to the Minister for Social Development and Employment is: what, in this Budget, is there to address the hardship that seniors are increasingly enduring?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (15:36): In Budget 2026, for the first time ever, Food Secure Communities has baseline funding of $8 million, and as I said before, the accommodation supplement has increased between $10 and $30 a week.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) (15:36): Does she think that there is adequate funding in this year’s Budget for food security when we have findings from 35 food rescues across the country that are worried about closing in the next six months due to the rising costs and lack of funding? Also, the Salvation Army says that demand is up 50 percent and that this hasn’t improved since COVID, so why did she not secure funding for food banks beyond that of June next year? Also, the sector has been calling for a strategic approach to food security; is there any funding in Budget 2026 for this, and, if not, why not?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (15:37): As I said, first time ever baseline funding of $8 million for Food Secure Communities—first time ever.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (15:37): Thank you. Just going back to an earlier question: can the Minister for Social Development and Employment confirm that there were no incidents where the mandatory review policy meant that someone on a supported living payment or another main benefit sent information but case managers were not able to get to it in time and it resulted in someone’s benefit being suspended? Can she confirm that there were no incidents in which a main benefit was cancelled due to case managers not being able to get to the paperwork that the beneficiary sent as part of the mandatory review policy, resulting in the suspension of main benefits?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (15:38): I can confirm that there were delays in processing. The reason for this is that the expectation was that more of the change in circumstances would have been completed online rather than paper based.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (15:38): Did any of those delays result in the suspension of main benefits?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (15:38): They were delays. They’re not policy changes.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) (15:38): But did it result in any of them being cut?

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Again, members, and including the Minister for Social Development and Employment, just so your initial statements are caught, just give me the opportunity to introduce you to the committee.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (15:38): Did those delays in processing result in any benefits being cut?

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) (15:38): Oh, look at the Minister for Social Development and Employment pretending like she has no time left to be able to answer that really important question. Did those delays result in any benefits being cut?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (15:39): Possibly, and, for the last time, I have no more time. I’m not speaking, all right? I don’t want to upset anyone. We’ve tried to improve this process, and the Labour Party didn’t agree.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Musterer—Green) (15:39): Point of order. Just seeking your guidance: is there any way in which we can seek leave to give the Minister for Social Development and Employment a bit more time? I seek leave to grant the Minister for Social Development and Employment a minute.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Just hold on. I’ll just take some advice on this from my very learned Clerk.

This is not going off anyone’s time, you’ll be pleased to know. All right, the situation is that, actually, the Minister is not allocated time; the National Party are allocated time. I understand there are 37 minutes left for the National Party at this stage. It’s up to the National Party whips how that time is allocated, however, members can continue to make statements or ask questions. At this stage, the Minister is in the chair until 4 o’clock.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (15:40): When the Minister says “possibly” to main benefits being cut as a result of managerial policy, can she confirm she has made any attempt at actually checking whether that was the case or not, considering this issue has been in the news quite a bit over the past few weeks?

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: There’s time, the whips just aren’t giving it.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (15:41): We have an allocation; I’m not going to take time off following Ministers where there are Energy, Resources, Health, and Housing.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (15:41): Point of order. I seek leave to grant 15 seconds of my time to the Minister so she can answer with yes or no answers, in case she needs to give brief answers.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): If you were going to do that, you would actually need to have a time number on that.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: Fifteen seconds to give yes or no answers to simple questions.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Leave is sought for the Green Party to allocate 15 seconds of their time in this debate to the National Party Minister. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

Hon Louise Upston: Doesn’t mean I’m going to use it.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: When she said “possibly” to my question in relation to main benefits being suspended as a result of processing delays, has she made any efforts or sought advice from officials to clarify this?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (15:42): I said there’s a review under way. I appreciate there is lots of interest in this. There is a review under way—I have said that. If members have questions, please put them into written parliamentary questions; I can give you full answers. I can’t do that here.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (15:42): Does the review include the cancellation of main benefits?

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) (15:42): Further to that, does the review include the cancellation of main benefits, or is it only of superannuitants when she said earlier that this only applies to those receiving superannuation?

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): It appears that this allocation has come to an end. The Minister is not answering. There appear to be no further questions or comments. The Minister of Health is the next Minister.

Committee of the whole House—Estimates Debate

Health

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Members, the Minister’s time in the chair has come to an end, as you see. We now have the Minister of Health. The Minister is available to speak on that portfolio from 4 p.m. until 5 p.m. I do note that the chairperson of the Health Committee is not here, however, one would expect that he will be here very shortly, in which case, he can speak to his portfolio—unless another member here was going to speak to that? There appears not to be. We’ll now go to questions in relation to that.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) (15:44): Sorry, Mr Chair, this Minister is responsible for which part of Health?

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Feel free to answer that question.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Which portfolio are we examining? All of it? [Minister Simmonds nods]

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: OK, well, in that case, Minister, I’m very interested in understanding, in terms of the Budget allocation, how much of that allocation went into recruitment, and in particular the costs of wages. As recent media has demonstrated, it appears that there has been, if not an actual freeze, clear directives on going slow on recruitment in the health space. We’ve heard about the 54 fulltime-equivalent nurses, and we’ve also recently seen media reports about the under-resourcing at below safe levels in a number of areas. I’d be very interested in understanding whether part of the financial approach of the Government is, in essence, to have a go-slow on recruitment so that that can meet some of the shortfalls in budgeting.

SAM UFFINDELL (Chairperson of the Health Committee) (15:45): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’d like to briefly acknowledge the Health Committee, and I see my colleague Dr Ayesha Verrall over there, and other members, for all of the work that they have done on this Estimates process.

We had a number of hearings with the Minister of Health, the Minister for Mental Health, the Associate Minister of Health with responsibilities for Pharmac, and the Minister for Seniors and Associate Minister of Health. We covered a number of topics over our hearings, including around the three-day postnatal stay—I see Catherine Wedd in front of me; well done, Catherine, for your work in that space; on primary care; on the workforce; on Māori healthcare; and around the health infrastructure, including some new and upgraded hospitals, including in my electorate of Tauranga. That was very exciting. We discussed mental health, the funding for mental health and addiction services, the funding for youth-specific mental health services and Gumboot Friday, the introduction of the psychology assistant role, and the introduction of crisis recovery cafes.

In our hearings with the Associate Minister of Health with responsibilities for Pharmac, we discussed a $1.8 billion Vote to purchase medicines for patients in the health system, funding for new medicines, and improved access for around 50,000 people. In the hearing with the Minister for Seniors with Associate Minister of Health responsibilities, we discussed smoking cessation and vaping and aged residential care. I’d just like to thank all of the Ministers for participating in those hearings and all of the members of the committee for their hard work and questions and their input into this report.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) (15:47): Thank you, Mr Chair, and I do acknowledge the very good work done by my colleague as chair of the Health Committee. It’s good to have the opportunity to return to the material in the Estimates hearing, because we have some additional information to consider now that it’s been reported that the deficit for Health New Zealand for the financial year 2025-2026 was $350 million against an original budget of $200 million, and the budgeted deficit for the coming financial year is $475 million.

Clearly, my question to the Minister of Health is why is the deficit at Health New Zealand getting worse? Why do we see reported today Health New Zealand quoted in media saying that Health New Zealand has been allowed to run a deficit for longer to enable hospital delivery to be maintained, and then comments that “Health New Zealand and the Ministry of Health”—and this is reported in The Post today—“are coordinating on an agreed future deficit reduction plan to return Health New Zealand to return Health New Zealand to break even. The timeframe and actions for this have not been finalised.”? So a worsening deficit picture from what was expected for the last financial year, escalating in the current financial year, and then, it appears, no plan agreed between the Ministry of Health and Health New Zealand.

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (15:49): Mr Chair, thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to that question, and I appreciate the member’s questions in relation to the Health New Zealand deficit path. Clearly, there’s been some significant improvement over the term of this Government in relation to the deficit path for Health New Zealand. There has been an agreement to allow that deficit to continue for slightly longer in order for the focus to remain on the delivery of key health services, which are needed to meet the health targets.

We are seeing year-on-year improvement against our health targets, which is positive and which is after years of decline. We are now seeing year-on-year improvement, which is a positive thing to be seeing for patients, particularly those on wait-lists for elective surgeries. That is making a big difference, however, there’s still more work to do. We’ve agreed with Health New Zealand for a slightly longer period of time to return to a break-even perspective, but the focus very much is on delivery of services.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) (15:50): Thank you. Further to that, the reporting today on the deficit set out that, essentially, increases in general practice funding were paid for out of subsidies or transfers from the hospital and health services appropriation. There’s this worrying situation in our hospitals at the moment where nursing recruitment is held at a fixed level, a hiring freeze, and then there’s pressure to cut more money because the hospitals are being run at a deficit.

I do not consider it to be, as the Health New Zealand spokesperson said to the press, a positive thing to be allowing the hospitals to run at a deficit in order to maintain services because, fundamentally, it points to either a Government intention to undertake more cuts or an inadequate funding level. I would like the Minister, returning to an item that he didn’t address in my initial question, to outline what is intended to be cut in order to have the hospitals balance their books or Health New Zealand balance their books. If he won’t give an outline there, does he have any intention to bail out the hospitals so that they can recommence hiring nurses?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (15:52): In response to the question, I mean, the number of issues that she’s raised, I would point out that in accordance with the statement of performance expectations, the budget for hospital specialist services in 2026-27 has increased by $1.24 billion compared to 2025-26. We are putting significant additional funding into our hospitals and specialist services because we know how critically important that it is in order to deliver those services. The focus that we very much have and the expectation of Health New Zealand is that more is delivered for patients to focus on the key health targets that this Government has put in place.

In relation to the question in relation to front-line staff, as I mentioned on numerous occasions during question time, Health New Zealand is currently recruiting for 2,378 fulltime-equivalent nursing roles. Those are actively being recruited across Health New Zealand, including 475 nurses who have already accepted offers. Improving workforce on the front line is a key part of what this Government is focused on.

In relation to the question around the transfer of funding between hospital specialist services and primary care, as outlined in that article, this is about ensuring that we can focus investment on areas which will actually reduce pressure on hospitals, such as in aged care. The deal which was done with aged care this year was around making sure that they can do weekend discharges from hospitals. I think that’s a really positive step because, actually, our hospitals get incredibly busy, obviously, through the week, and then if patients aren’t able to be discharged over the weekend—Monday’s typically the busiest day in a hospital—there are not beds available. That’s a really important step forward.

Likewise, the funding for palliative care. A significant uplift in funding for palliative care is really important so that palliative care can provide those services in the community and likewise take pressure off our hospitals. All of those investments are really important. At the same time, allowing Health New Zealand to run a deficit for longer means that they can continue to deliver more services and, ultimately, over time, they will work towards a balanced approach. But I would note the funding path that was agreed by this Government was set by the previous one when she was the Minister.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) (15:55): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Well, that is not a wholly satisfactory answer. The Health New Zealand deficit, I mean, essentially, amounts to running the hospitals on Afterpay. That explains why hiring is so constrained in hospitals to the point where the last couple of weeks have seemed very difficult for hospitals to manage.

Can the Minister shed any light on what advice he’s received about addressing the deficit and what options there are for addressing this $475 million deficit? Is he planning further cuts in the data and digital space? Will there be further restrictions on hiring? What is the future of the maintenance budget? You know, $475 million having to be made up is not easy, even in a big organisation. In fact, as we started out this debate, we heard that the hospital deficit has got worse.

There’s been a lot of pain in the health system. A lot of people have lost their jobs. A lot of cuts; maintenance deferred. Yet the issue of the deficit is not under control. I think it is fair, with an election coming soon, to ask the health Minister what he is doing about this. Are we just letting the hospitals run more and more into deficit or is there a plan to either bail them out or to find a way of making them actually being able to provide the services they need and stop this hiring freeze?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (15:57): I appreciate the member’s questions. In terms of the budget for hospitals and specialist services, I mentioned, according to the statement of performance expectations, it’s increased by $1.24 billion compared to 2025-26. That is a significant increase—

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Yeah, and a third of that’s gone on the deficit.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: —increase in funding—no, that is around how much of the funding is that’s available to spend. That is funding to spend for hospitals and specialist services. That is outlined in the statement of performance expectations. Our expectations are that that’s very much—as the member will be aware, when we came to Government the budget deficit was significantly larger. There’s been a lot of work done to ensure that it gets into a better shape. However, the focus is on delivery of services.

I’m not going to stand here as the Minister of Health and say, “Actually, the focus has to be on balancing the books.”, when we have waiting lists of people who need to be seen, following the years of those waiting lists growing under the previous Government. We need to get on top of those waiting lists and the focus is on service delivery, which is exactly what we’re doing.

In terms of data and digital, I’m pleased that in the Budget, there were two elements of investment in data and digital. One was around cyber security, which is correctly important for both our hospitals and the wider health system; secondly, also investment, in terms of a capital operating swap, which will allow Health New Zealand to progress a number of elements of the Health Digital Investment Plan. That’s going to make a big difference for the front line, who work incredibly hard.

Finally, just around recruitment, as I said earlier, Health New Zealand is currently recruiting. As at 14 August, 2,378 fulltime-equivalent nursing roles are actively being recruited to, and that includes 475 nurses who have accepted offers.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) (15:59): The Minister tries to make a virtue of allowing Health New Zealand to run a deficit, but it is, essentially, pushing tough decisions for Health New Zealand into the future and not answering the question of if the Minister is so committed to continued service delivery, why hasn’t he obtained, from the finance Minister, a bail out for the health system? That means that they’d be able to return to normal hiring practices, the hiring freeze could end, and the cost pressure investments could mean that the health system services could grow in order to address the wait-list issue, which we’re all concerned about, but also to make sure that services just grow in line with population growth and with the needs of our ageing population. So why is it that he’s accepted that health services need to go into hock rather than have additional funds appropriated for the health system? Of course, you know, we do hope to be able to see the health system get out of this period of cuts that it’s been going through and be able to actually get on with the business, but with this deficit hanging over them, the prospect of hiring freezes just stretches on into the future.

So can the Minister please answer: why hasn’t the Government bailed out the health system so that it can actually get on and address need? Secondly, if he thinks that cuts can be made internally and there doesn’t need to be a contribution from the centre in order to address Health New Zealand’s deficit, well, can he say what those are? Why is he so confident he doesn’t need that money? What other savings that he’s yet to make—him and his colleague Dr Reti, who preceded him, that are yet to happen—could return Health New Zealand to surplus?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (16:01): Well, our focus is on cutting the wait-lists and reducing wait times for patients, which ballooned under the previous Government. That’s exactly what she left behind, including a much bigger deficit, which we’ve had to address. The reality of what happened in terms of recruitment when she was the Minister: the number of fulltime-equivalent doctors fell from 10,093 in March 2023 to 9,962 in September 2023. Since then, it’s improved to 10,905 fulltime-equivalent doctors working on the front line in our health system. That is significant progress that has happened under this Government, under our watch, due to the investments that we’ve made to improve health outcomes for New Zealanders.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) (16:02): Thank you. Well, that’s a remarkable diversion, isn’t it? I think what we’ve just had is a Government who likes to give out lectures on fiscal responsibility basically admit that they’re running the health system into deficit to make sure that the things the Minister of Health cares about happen, like providing hospital services. They’re just putting it all on the credit card, putting healthcare on Afterpay. The Minister had no serious answer for that.

So Health New Zealand’s running up a deficit. He won’t tell this committee why he’s so confident that there doesn’t need to be any additional funding put in—he won’t tell this committee. Apparently, he’s got this magical thinking about how he’s going to magically get rid of this deficit without any further compromise for services, and yet on this side of the House, we heard his comments last week in question time: only 54 nurses hired over two years—54 nurses.

You know what? I was doorknocking in Wellington North on the weekend, and I opened the door to a gentleman who says, “Oh, I know you: you got the Minister of Health to admit there were only 54 nurses hired in the last two years.” It does seem to be something that’s reaching out to everyday in New Zealanders and causing considerable concern, so I’m not sure why the Minister won’t answer on this important issue of the deficit. Instead, he’s got some glib confidence that he doesn’t need any additional money for the centre and yet is unable to say how he’s actually going to address it. I mean, it does seem like the Minister really does not care for what credibility he might have as the manager of the health system.

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (16:04): Well, there is significant work under way to focus on the health targets across the health system. They went backwards under the previous Government; they’re making year-on-year improvement under this Government. There is a significant focus on hospital and specialist services, as I’ve outlined. In terms of decisions around future funding, there will be, obviously, decisions made as part of the Budget 2027 process, and a pathway will be agreed around the funding going forward. But, ultimately, the focus very much this year, which is what the Estimates is about, is about continued service delivery, continued improvement in performance—that’s what we’re focused on.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri) (16:05): Now that the Minister of Health has repeatedly talked about targets, can he answer why he has agreed, and the Minister for Mental Health has agreed, to count the wait times for specialist services in mental health for youth but is not going to count the declined referrals? In fact, why are declined referrals not counted across the whole of Health New Zealand services, except, apparently, in the South Island? How is that a complete picture of wait times and targets if we don’t know how many people are not being able to be referred?

Can he also answer as to where and what other services people are being referred to, particularly in the mental health space, where I have a document that shows that between 1 July 2024 and 31 March 2025, there was a total of 3,681 declined referrals. This has come from Health New Zealand, but it fails to say where they have been referred to when it comes to mental health.

Hon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health) (16:06): Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, there’s nothing more comfortable than consistency, as that member reaches for her top drawer and gets her question out at every Estimates we’ve done for two years now, and every annual review, actually. I’m happy to confirm for the committee: when you look at youth referrals, the decline rate is 11 percent. I’ll make it very clear to the committee: that doesn’t mean that when a young person is declined, nothing happens. It is actually the expectation that the most appropriate service is found for that young person. What I would say on top of that: only 3 percent of those referrals are declined because a service is unavailable; 97 percent of times a service is available. If the referral is declined, it’s because a clinical judgment is made that there is another service best appropriate for that young person, and we connect them with that appropriate service.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri) (16:07): Can the Minister for Mental Health please tell the committee how the declined referrals that are going to other services—where that information is being collected and stored, so that we can scrutinise that. Secondly, where there are declined referrals being made for clinical reasons, he talked about the expectation. Are they always being made by clinicians, or are there others in Health New Zealand making those decisions at any point?

Hon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health) (16:07): Clearly, ChatGPT wasn’t working today. Look, in a health system there is no shortage of health information. I’d actually put it to you that in a health system, the opposite is true; we have too much information. I can assure the member that not only do we record declines—because, in fact, that’s why I can come to the committee and say declines are 11 percent and only 3 percent are due to service unavailability. Yes, of course they are a clinical decision, because I would encourage the member to go and visit services where they have a published criteria of the type of referral criteria they would accept for a young person.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (16:08): Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to check with the Minister on, I guess, in some ways, aged residential care and also in-home care. Now, it is heartening to see an increase—though, one would say, not sufficient—of a 4 percent uplift in aged residential care. However, other than the mileage increase, we have not seen any other significant increase for in-home support and for home and community care providers. Now, we have seen, both in terms of the latest ministerial advisory group report but also in terms of the reports from the Helen Clark Foundation, etc. on the desperate need for us to invest more in home and community care. So could the Minister please elucidate this committee on why home and community care has not received any significant upgrade in this year’s Budget, other than mileage?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Health) (16:09): The contract negotiations for each year go through a quite a thorough, robust process, and I think just recently the in-home community care budget contract has been finalised and those uplifts will be communicated. The budget uplifts, I think, for in-home community care—funding for the support services has been a 3 percent increase in 2025. The total funding increase for 2025 was a $140 million top-up to the annual increase, so there have been funding uplifts each year for the in-home and community care services.

I would highlight that that is the importance of the ministerial advisory group: to ensure that we have a thorough and robust process around how those services are applied. I’ve been very clear in my position that it is a critical component of the aged-care system to ensure that there are as many options available for older New Zealanders to be able to live where they want to, for as long as they choose to. That illuminates the point that it is “right care, right place, right time”. There has been another component, which was the in-between travel allowance that was applied in April 2026 to offset the fuel cost, which has been retained. That was about a 30 percent increase applied to workers that rely on the in-between travel component. So there have been funding uplifts; there will continue to be funding uplifts.

The contract process is really important in this, but beyond the actual contracting process, it is really important that we recognise that the system is a critical component of our aged-care system. Therefore, we are very focused on ensuring that we have a comprehensive answer to this situation that is a long-term, sustainable component. That is about the other areas that we have been applying, which is important in this space, which is the case-mix model contracting, which was rolled out in the South Island. The case-mix model allows for greater flexibility; effectively, it’s a bulk-funding system which ensures that the services are delivered. That was first rolled out in the South Island. It is being rolled out through the North Island. This is really that opportunity to ensure that those care workers are able to put the person at the heart of the care. It is shifting from that very fee-for-service model to an outcome-based contracting model, which has helped significantly. Those that are working in this space have found it greatly beneficial. Not just for the workforce themselves but for the clients that use the service, it has proven very beneficial. It has been, as I said, rolled out initially in the South Island. It will continue to be rolled out in the North Island, and that was the process under the contract reviews that have been completed.

In short, there have been contracting uplifts, there have been funding uplifts, but, more importantly and most significantly, this Government has invested in a comprehensive solution focus, which is what the ministerial advisory group report has given 40 recommendations around—what the system needs to look like into the future to be sustainable; but, more importantly, as the Minister alluded to earlier, to take some pressure off the system. Those practical components around allowing the system to be funded to receive discharges from hospital over the weekend to actually improve the outcomes and take pressure off the hospital system are, I think, an important component of this solution that we’re putting in place. Really, I recommend that we continue to work in a very bipartisan approach to how we deliver these changes to the aged-care system into the future. We have engaged very closely with the in-home and community support care workers and the aged residential care providers to ensure that we are meeting solutions that are effective into the future.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) (16:14): Thank you. I thank the Associate Minister of Health the Hon Casey Costello for that contribution and, being as it is an Estimates hearing on the Estimates and noting in the Minister’s recent press release that advice has been sought on implementation of the ministerial advisory group’s recommendations, I wonder if the Minister can expand on the immediate term—as in, forecast period—fiscal impacts of those recommendations, and what type of implementation advice is being sought. Is advice relevant to health commitments in the next two Budgets being sought?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Health) (16:15): As we’ve been very clear about, the 40 recommendations are very robust, and they are quite detailed. There is no commitment at this point. The advice that we are seeking is “How would implementation work? What are those future states looking like?”—you know, the timelines under which they could be applied. We will, of course, always look at opportunities to improve the system through future Budgets, but we aren’t making any commitment to the recommendations made. There is a lot of work, and the ministry is looking at advice around what those recommendations mean and how they would be applied into the future. That is a very comprehensive piece of work, and the ministry has started already on looking at that advice, but we’re not making any commitments into future Budgets at this point.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) (16:16): Thanks, Mr Chair, and I wholeheartedly agree with the Associate Minister of Health the Hon Casey Costello’s comment that it is a comprehensive piece of work, with many detailed recommendations there. Could the Minister clarify, then—and I appreciate there has been work on a bipartisan basis, with the Opposition being kept informed of the advisory group’s direction—is the implementation advice likely to come back to Government before the election, or after the election? I note the Minister’s comment that Government hasn’t taken a position on that; is that because the Government is waiting for that implementation advice before taking a position on the advisory group’s recommendations?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Health) (16:17): Yes, fundamentally, we have put a relatively high-pressure timeline on the ministry to report back in early 2027, which is what we said in the media announcement. How much time that gives the ministry to answer all the questions that need to be answered, even to the extent they will be able to provide the level of advice needed to make those decisions—we wouldn’t be expecting to see anything in this term of Government regarding that advice, but we will continue to consider all of those recommendations moving forward.

I think it’s clear in the report that they have suggested virtually a 10-year implementation timeline around all the recommendations they put in place. We know this is not a quick fix; therefore, we’re prioritising those recommendations, looking at how that would look, what those impacts are, and what advice they can put back within the time frame that we’ve given. We’re in the ministry’s hands, and I’m confident that they will give us a detailed consideration. This is something that we have said: categorically, we need bipartisan agreement and support. We’ll continue to ensure that we engage to ensure we deliver the very best outcomes into the future.

JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First) (16:19): Thank you, Mr Chair. Following on from those questions, my question to the Associate Minister of Health the Hon Casey Costello is: has she heard any reports that the time frame that was given to the ministerial advisory group to put their report together was a fairly truncated period of time, considering the complexity of looking across the sector and working out what those recommendations might be? And did she feel that was too short for the work that they needed to do?

Then, also, looking forward in terms of the time frame that she feels is necessary for the ministry to come back now and provide advice on those recommendations, is it important that she takes the time necessary to get this right?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Health) (16:20): The ministerial advisory group was put under a lot of time pressure to deliver a report in the six months. They worked incredibly hard. I have said quite sincerely that I’m incredibly grateful for the professionalism and expertise that they offered into this report. The advantage that we had is that the ministerial advisory group wasn’t starting from ground zero; there was the Health Committee inquiry, which had produced an incredible piece of work with clear recommendations as well. We had the funding model review that had already been reported. There was a lot of information that the advisory group was able to call on to progress this.

I think that this is one of those instances where there is a lot of work. There are 40 recommendations to consider. I think that the time line that we’ve given to report back is sufficient to continue providing us a good direction of travel and a way forward into the future. So I think that the time allocated, although tight, was useful, and I think the time for reporting back is relevant to what we’re trying to achieve at this stage.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri) (16:21): You might recall, Mr Chair, around this time last year, there were a number of providers of mental health and addiction services who were really worried about their existence because they didn’t have contracts and were therefore not able to access funding. So particularly for small ones that had been going for a number of years, it was a bit of a dog’s breakfast. I recall the Minister at the time being unhappy with his officials and saying that this wasn’t going to happen again and he’d like to see longer-term contracts.

Looking at this year, I saw in the media recently and we’ve got information that a number of the providers have not received contracts or hadn’t by 1 July. This is to do with moving to longer-term contracts. In fact, I believe the Minister’s office told one of the reporters that some of them could expect their contracts in November. I’m just wondering if the Minister could please clarify how many of those providers are waiting on contracts to be completed, how many didn’t have completed contracts and signed contracts on 1 July, whether that caused any funding problems, and what his attitude is towards officials this year? Is it their fault again or is it something that perhaps should have been sorted out earlier?

Hon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health) (16:22): Well, I agree with that last member—it should have been sorted out earlier. It was probably six years under a last Government that sat on their hands and did nothing. That’s why, under this Government, we know we’ve increased the mental health and addiction ring-fence. It’ll close to top $3 billion this year—a third of that, $1 billion, is what we call the funded sector: NGO, community, and iwi. So 80 percent of them were on single-year contracts—that’s tough, if you work in those services and you’ve got a mortgage and you need more certainty. We’ve actually reversed that now to give 80 percent of community and NGO services multi-year contracts—80 percent. We did that. It shows you don’t actually need to spend more money sometimes to make a real difference. Not only that, but in another area, we didn’t actually spend any more money; we just changed the settings, and we’ve seen an 82 percent increase in providers offering ADHD assessment and a 44 percent increase in providers offering ADHD prescriptions.

HŪHANA LYNDON (Green) (16:24): Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. I’m wanting to ask the Minister of Health, in relation to Māori health and the hauora Māori appropriation, and knowing that we saw a loss or a reduction in funding for the last period, but we had heard from Health New Zealand officials that, actually, the risk around the reduction in funding would be mitigated by underspend from the previous year, which is heartening—it’s lovely to hear. What I am keen to understand from the Minister—because, oftentimes when talking about hauora Māori and the gains being made for hauora Māori, we often end up talking about immunisation and Tamariki Ora and the way that hauora Māori have done really well in the immunisation of our pēpē, which is a great win. But beyond the Māori immunisation targets and the mahi being done there, can the Minister please give us an overview of some of the tangible delivery that the hauora Māori appropriation has been delivering within communities across Aotearoa to reduce inequalities for iwi Māori?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) (16:25): Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, I’d like to ask questions about the maintenance spend and infrastructure spend in our hospitals. The Health New Zealand infrastructure plan has been now quite some time ago, but it remains unclear what the funding commitment for that 10-year piece of work would be or how much of it is currently funded. Just to pre-empt where the Minister may choose to go with this answer, I’m not looking for a repeat of every press release he’s ever issued about a segment of a capital works project—that would be extremely tedious. But really, we’ve had the Infrastructure Commission set a trajectory for health infrastructure that appeared to be very well considered. We’ve seen commitments that have not come close—it’s approximately half of that trajectory suggested by the Infrastructure Commission. The infrastructure plan, while being helpful, is a set of PowerPoint slides and has one page on the hospital building programme.

We all in this House repeatedly talk about how we want infrastructure to be bipartisan, but it would be great if we could hear a little more than this about the future trajectory for infrastructure funding and how that matches up against the needs that are identified in the infrastructure plan. I am aware of advice that the Minister has received that states the infrastructure plan is currently not fully funded and that what can be delivered on the level of funding is markedly reduced. If we are to have sensible bipartisan conversations about infrastructure, it should be that the Minister is able to share information on elements of what is a 10-year piece of work being undertaken by the health system.

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (16:28): I’m advised by my whips I’ve got no time left to be able to answer questions, but I would briefly articulate—

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Oh, why are you looking so sad?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: No, I’m not. I’m answering the questions to say that in terms of the infrastructure plan, the answer to your question is that the plan has been published. There are obviously business cases under way which would look at the different funding that is required. Each Budget obviously allocates capital—this Budget did, the previous Budget did.

In terms of hauora Māori appropriation of investment, the answer is there is, of course, additional investment. There are sometimes underspends which get transferred forward. The focus, though, is on delivering results.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Now, we may have reached a situation we met with the last Minister, where the Minister in the chair has run out of time. This debate is set to go through to 15.42. It does represent an opportunity for any party in the House to speak, so it’s up to members how they use their time. Byzantine use of timings may be required through whips and others here, but the call now goes to Ingrid Leary.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri) (16:29): Yeah, Mr Chair, it’s interesting that the Minister for Mental Health talked about the ring-fence and seemed so confident in his numbers about the increase in the ring-fenced funding; because, actually, Official Information Act requested documents show his own officials questioning whether the mental health ring-fenced funding is actually reaching front-line services. If I look at what the correspondence shows, it says that officials can’t fully reconcile financial summaries with the underlying spreadsheets. It says they question how much confidence they should have in the underlying district data used to report mental health spending. They talk about anomalies, including a $50 million difference between budgeted and actual provider payments for hauora Māori services; significant variation in alcohol and drug service spending compared with the plan; and a $61 million shift between mental health appropriations during the year. The officials also confirmed that the mental health “ring-fence” is not a protected budget but the minimum amount Health New Zealand is expected to spend.

The reason this is significant is because it means that the Government can’t actually demonstrate what services were delivered, where the money actually went, and whether ring-fenced mental health service funding was reaching payments. That’s really important, and if we look at one particular example, there’s an official document that has the ministry officials saying that a case in point is with the Gumboot Friday funding wherefore, for some of the accounting, it’s included in the ring-fence and for other parts of the Health New Zealand accounting it is not. My question—and it’s such a shame the Minister won’t be able to respond, but he’s speaking so confidently about additional money into mental health when we know that front-line services are struggling, we know many of them are cut, and we know that there’s been a hiring freeze, and now we’ve got documents that show they cannot track the ring-fence to the spend and where those services are being delivered.

I’d just like to put that question here in the committee for people to consider, because I don’t think that this committee should have the confidence that the Minister does that there’s additional funding for mental health.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) (16:31): Fifty-four—54. Only 54 nurses hired across two years in our public health system. That is the number that this debate keeps dancing around. We’ve had discussions on the number of nurses in the hiring pipeline, the number of nurses hired by Labour—but that spilled over into the period of the first three months National were in Government—we’ve had discussions of other occupational classes, but the number that the Minister of Health does not want to repeat, because he was made to last week, is 54. In a big country like ours, where 29,000 nurses work in the health system, only 54 more for two whole years, as our population grows, as people get sicker, as wait-lists grow, as emergency departments bulge—just 54.

Why? Because this Government has got the health system running on the credit card. It’s in debt. They have cut funding to the health system; they have made debt pile up against it so that the health system is forced to cut and cut and cut. What have they done? Well, they’ve frozen the hiring of nurses, and there’s some complicated shell game going on at Health New Zealand where they only let people be recruited into so-called funded vacancies once people have been delayed in their hiring for so long, so these gaps in the health system move from one ward to the next but the theme is the same: it’s understaffing. If you’re waiting in a queue in an emergency department, if you’re waiting for an operation, the reason for that is because this Government has not funded the health system properly.

Yep, they’ll tell you stories about how they’ve hired X number of people, but they don’t count the ones who have left. They’ll tell you stories about how much extra money they got, but they won’t tell you about the cuts they’re also making Health New Zealand make. Well, let me tell you this: New Zealand cannot afford three more years of cuts like this to the health system, of repeated dissembling and misinformation about what’s happening with the important issue of nursing hiring. Just remember what we were told before the last election: no cuts to front-line services. Since then, repeated denials; repeated denials that there’s a hiring freeze in place. Well, the facts don’t lie: there are only 54.

At this question time earlier today, we went around the country, didn’t we, because in parts of New Zealand, actually, the number of nurses in your hospital has shrunk. If you’re waiting for care in Middlemore Hospital, if you’re waiting for care in Auckland hospital, in Waikato Hospital, well, the number of total nurses employed in those hospitals has actually gone down. This Government has no reason to have the trust of the New Zealand people when it comes to an issue like how they are resourcing the health system, because the fact is that they’ve been talking about everything else other than the actual number of nurses that they’ve employed.

You know what really upsets me about this? What really upsets me is the fact that this whole thing—this whole shell game—is being used to lock out young people, many young women, who have trained in nursing. It might have been during the pandemic that they saw our country struggling and needing more nurses and they thought, “What could I do about that? Well, I’ll train in my community to become a nurse.”, and now those young people cannot get jobs in New Zealand, cannot—

Andy Foster: What you could do is mandate half of them out of activity.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: I won’t take it from the anti-immigrant party when they won’t—

Andy Foster: Well, why have you mandated some of your own nurses out of being able to do their job? That’s what you did.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: —stand up for New Zealanders not being able to get jobs here. Absolutely ridiculous. Those young people trained to help their country, and they are locked out of jobs in the New Zealand health system because of the hiring freeze that is in place under this Government. They should be able to get a job helping their community here—the job they trained to do, that they’re qualified to do, that they can do better than anyone else. We know that when we hire our own graduates, they’re far more likely to stay, but what does this Government do? Well, they’ll talk about anything else. They’ll talk about how they’ve hired half of them, and then they make the other ones wait in order to get a job later on in the year. You know, they’re never just straight-up about what they’re doing. It’s always some other thing. They’ll just talk about some other point, because they don’t want you to know the truth. The truth is that there’s a hiring freeze on at Health New Zealand, that our young people are blocked from getting jobs in there, and that we cannot afford three more years of this Government.

HŪHANA LYNDON (Green) (16:36): I really want to reflect back on hauora Māori services again, because as I spoke to previously, we have had funding cuts in hauora Māori, and with the loss of Te Aka Whai Ora, we have now heard and we have seen in the recent report from the Public Service Association the fact that our hauora Māori services required the sign-off of the CEO for any new roles into positions. I just want to share the fact that I’m, like, aghast. We’ve heard this in the northern region; there were panels set up for our region and then the roles were going to go up to the panel and then they’ve got to ask the panel for these roles to be appointed.

I want to reflect on the kaumātua role in the Regional Rangatahi Adolescent Inpatient Service: it took 25 weeks to appoint that. Māori peer specialist support services in mental health and addictions in Waitematā: that took seven weeks. Smokefree facilitator: for me up in Tai Tokerau just recently, in mid-2025, it took 12 weeks to finally get approved.

So with these types of gaps that are happening in the system, we get stress. We can hear the stress; we can see the stress. When the kaimahi are talking to us out in community about the stresses, it took the report to finally lift the lid, when we know that there had been budget cuts across the board, particularly with the hauora Māori focus, and then these cost-saving issues have come up whereby we’ve been told, “No, there’s kaimahi, there’s nothing wrong, there’s no freezes.” Well, actually, we’ve heard, for example, in the northern region, for us in Tai Tokerau, that we have limits in the way that we can appoint full-time equivalents.

These are some of the concerns that are coming through constantly but now have been validated. So I thank the Public Service Association for bringing this to light, because in talking with kaimahi as of last week—as of last week—in the hospital, they said they are short-staffed, they are stressed, and they need support.

But what can we do? What can we do if regional funding panels or these appointment panels are being established and they are the ones who tick off what positions get filled? There are limits; we’re hearing there are limits, and now we’re seeing the limits. This is my pātai to us as a House as to what we can do to genuinely work together to establish a health system that is stable, that is well resourced, that puts people and wellbeing first across the board, whether you’re rural or urban, so that we all have the ability to access timely, quality healthcare.

So that’s what the Green Party is asking. Unfortunately, the Minister can’t reply, but we’ll take our time to be able to articulate these concerns, because it happened yesterday; it’s still happening today. What are the assurances that we will see the necessary staff filled in these positions that are much needed across the regions?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Health) (16:39): I mean, 54, I think, is the number of times you say something over and over again and maybe that will convince everybody that you’re right. The question has been answered repeatedly, that there are 1,600 full-time equivalents additional in the nursing staff.

As of 14 August, there were 2,378 nursing roles actively being recruited, including 475 nurses that have accepted offers—this is the reality. Then we have, again—recounted repeatedly—the number of additional doctors. This idea that we can say things in this House and suddenly they become true is just inappropriate. It is wrong to suggest that we have this crisis, that we have funding cuts, all of these things, when we know that this is the Government that actually delivered targets, and accountability, and measures, and performance tracking to ensure that we are doing exactly what my colleague in the Green Party said, which is delivering services for the people—putting the people at the heart of the solution and saying, “What can we do better?” This is exactly what this system is doing. We are delivering outcomes. We are continuing to deliver outcomes. What is important is what the impact of this is. Throwing money around is not a solution; delivering outcomes is a solution.

Across the health system, we have invested. We have invested in mental health, we have invested in aged care, we have invested in ambulance services, we have invested in helicopters—we have delivered things that the previous Government did not deliver, because we see the entire system in its entirety, and this is what we are delivering. We are actually delivering outcomes. We are improving. This is not a quick fix—of course it’s not; there are a lot of things to be done—but to say that we can walk around a hospital and tell people that 54 nurses are all that have been appointed is not the facts. The facts are that we have increased the nursing staff, we have increasing doctor numbers, and we have actually resolved the issues at the heart of our system because we have put in practical measures. We have put in accountability. We have put in targets—that were removed—to ensure that what we spend money on is delivering the outcomes that New Zealanders need for a good health service. This is what is occurring in our health system. This is what needs to be done: to actually have some sensible investment to deliver a sensible outcome that actually puts the person at the heart.

When we do things that are practical, when we do things that are common-sense, when we do things that are right, that is driving the accountability that puts the patient at the heart of the system. That is what health is for: to ensure that people get better, that people get well, and, most importantly, that we actually try and get people out of hospital, back home, and recovering as quickly as possible. That is the investment in medicines, that is the early diagnosis, that is the access to treatments, and that is the investment in rural health. Those are all of the practical things that this Government has delivered to ensure we get a system that works, that is comprehensive, and that is about the people we are trying to serve. I think that this continuing narrative about how dire the situation is—yes, we are in the middle of winter; yes, we have had a huge workload put on our people. But the fact is that we have invested. This concept of budget cuts—this concept of “We’ve cut back”—is just not played out. We have seen significant investment in aged care. We have seen nearly $490 million invested into the aged-care system since we’ve been in Government. That’s nearly $2.5 billion now being spent on aged care.

We have developed good investment systems. We will continue to do that—the work is not yet finished—but ensuring that we continue to drive accountability to our health system is critically important. We will continue to do that, because we have the practical, common-sense solutions to deliver a better system overall.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) (16:44): The practical improvements that many New Zealanders would love to see would be a reduction in the household bills they have to pay, and that includes healthcare services. When I knock on doors around this area, it is the same thing I hear from door to door to door: people pay too much for their everyday items. In fact, in this area, they pay the highest GP costs in the country. Costs for GPs have gone up 15 percent under this Government. Ambulance costs have gone up to over $125 per ambulance callout. Of course, the Government willingly put up prescription charges on everyday people. I couldn’t think of anything that’s more of a tax on being sick than the amount you have to pay for your prescriptions. New Zealanders cannot afford three more years of these escalating healthcare costs.

That’s what’s happening under this Government. They refuse to fund the system, and therefore the community providers—whether they’re general practice, whether they’re aged care—have to put up their bills, on to people. That’s what we’ve seen under this Government. That’s why there’s more pain in your back pocket: because of the underfunding of the everyday services that New Zealanders need and depend on. There is nothing in these health Estimates that’s going to ease the burden on New Zealanders in terms of cost, either this year or in coming years. The Associate Minister of Health in this debate has refused to give any indication that she’s going to take up some recommendations for a report that might help low-income people access aged care in the future.

If you’re struggling, if you’re doing it tough, you’re not going to get funding for access to services; that is all being cut back. New Zealanders cannot afford three more years of National.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, the time for the Minister in the chair has come to an end. We now have the Minister for Energy and the Minister for Resources, and the Ministers are available to speak to that portfolio.

Committee of the whole House—Estimates Debate

Energy

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) (16:47): Thank you, Madam Chair. There were a number of areas that were covered off with the Minister for Energy when he came to the select committee to talk about Vote Energy. One of the first areas that I’d just like to ask the Minister around is around liquefied natural gas (LNG) and the LNG procurement that is going ahead. We heard the Prime Minister and Winston Peters saying quite different things in the House today in terms of the future of the LNG terminal, but the first thing to ascertain from the Minister is to see if there’s any change in his position around whether or not it is the intention that the Government will sign a commercial contract with a provider before the election.

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister for Energy) (16:47): The procurement is going through a procurement process at the moment. Of course, that is well under way. The Government’s intention is to sign a contract as soon as possible in order to ensure that we provide the energy security that New Zealand needs. We’re not going to leave this country high and dry like the previous Government did, which let New Zealand have the energy crisis 2024 with wholesale prices going through the roof, businesses shutting down—we’re not going to let that happen.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) (16:48): Sorry, will the Minister for Energy be taking the finalised procurement details back to Cabinet before the contract is signed?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister for Energy) (16:48): Significant decisions such as this will of course go through Cabinet.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) (16:48): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I was interested that the Minister for Energy seemed to be indicating that this decision around liquefied natural gas (LNG) was in the best interests of New Zealanders and our energy system. Of course, that is not what anybody else, really, except this Government or the oil and gas sector have claimed is the case. We saw only recently that the Ombudsman forced the Government to release modelling and advice that it had received that it had withheld, but they were forced to release it. What that showed was that the LNG terminal could increase gas and electricity prices and may not even maintain security of supply. This was the advice that the Government had received. What we’re clearly seeing when it comes to energy really is that New Zealanders cannot afford another three years of this Government’s inability to do anything in the interests of New Zealand’s energy system.

What advice has the Minister received that counters the arguments that were put up in the advice that was commissioned for him and advisers from Concept Consulting that said that LNG wasn’t going to lower prices for New Zealanders in terms of electricity or gas, necessarily? The Minister told us that these were only some of the components they looked at, but what we haven’t heard either in the Estimates hearing or subsequently is what other advice is the Minister relying on and who did it, when did he receive it, and will he release it?

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (Chairperson of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee) (16:50): Thank you, Madam Chair. As the chair of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, I was going to provide a very quick summary of the hearing that we had with two Ministers in the select committee. In my calendar, the debate was going to start at 5 o’clock, but it started earlier, which is not a bad thing.

The energy appropriations are worth $457.78 million in 2026-2027. These appropriations fund the work of the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority and the Electricity Authority. We were very pleased to have the Minister, the Hon Simeon Brown, and his officials from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, the Electricity Authority, and the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority to discuss the appropriations.

We discussed managing dry-year energy risks and the liquefied natural gas (LNG) import terminal to support energy security options that were analysed to decide to build an LNG import terminal. We also talked about the electricity generators and retailers to fund the LNG import terminal. There were other topics discussed, which included warm, dry homes, solar power for schools, and the powers of the Electricity Authority within this appropriation.

Then moving on to the resources appropriation, the Minister for Resources is responsible for appropriations within the Vote, totalling $26.9 billion in 2026-2027. The single significant appropriation is $22.6 million for management of the Crown mineral estate. This funds the allocation, management, and compliance of the Crown on petroleum and mineral resources under the Crown Minerals Act 1991.

The resources portfolio is also supported by just over $163 million from mineral royalties and $10 million from levies. We were pleased to have Minister Shane Jones and his officials to discuss the appropriations. We discussed potential mining of critical minerals, possible mining of the conservation estate, the gas security fund, and risks linked to gas extraction projects. I say this: anybody interested in more information should read the select committee report, and I look forward to this debate. Thank you.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) (16:53): Thank you, Madam Chair. One of the questions that we talked about with the Minister when he came to the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee is what mechanisms he was receiving advice on for putting in place to ensure that gentailers wouldn’t simply pass on the cost of liquefied natural gas (LNG) to their consumers. Of course, the Government has backed down on the gas tax and are now saying that they are going to ask the gentailers to pay it, which really is code for passing it on to consumers and consumers picking that up.

When he came to the select committee, the Minister couldn’t point to any work that he was doing that was going to be put in place to ensure that gentailers simply didn’t pass on the costs of the LNG terminal. Given that he’s had advice that this doesn’t necessarily lower gas or electricity bills for New Zealanders and, indeed, could raise them if they’re passed on and isn’t going to increase our security of supply, I just wonder if the Minister has asked for some advice so that New Zealanders aren’t going to end up paying the price of an LNG terminal that only himself and the oil and gas industry seem to want.

SCOTT WILLIS (Green) (16:54): Thank you, Madam Chair. My question is to the Minister. Because we’re in an energy crisis that’s deeper and wider than the 1970s, why has the Minister rejected work on a bipartisan national energy strategy when we know that the sector and Kiwis are calling out for a national energy strategy and for some certainty and clarity on where we’re going? In addition to that, why has the Minister rejected the expertise, as we’ve heard from Concept Consulting, but also the Sapere report, the Frontier report, and the OECD? Why has the Minister rejected that expertise while seeking to invest our country in an expensive folly that is a liquefied natural gas terminal? Why has the Minister rejected all that expertise? Thank you.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (16:55): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to ask the Minister about the competition regulation within his appropriations. For context, on 12 August, the Electricity Authority reported that household and small business electricity prices rose an average of 6.8 percent in just the first half of the year. Previous to that in 2025, prices rose an average of 8 percent. The Minister proposes to spend $120 million in this appropriation on governing and operating a market whose statutory regulator exists for the benefit of consumers and to produce a competitive and reliable market, one that is forward-looking and deals with these challenges.

The question for the Minister is what consumer outcomes is that regulator being charged with delivering? I’m not just asking about those rising prices, although that is of critical concern not only to the Government but to all New Zealanders. I’m asking him about whether he has expectations of his regulator within that appropriation to deliver on things like lower margins and greater switching and more retail entry into the market.

Particularly on the question of greater switching, I want to ask him about the role of the tools within the market which are meant to provide greater transparency for consumers which enable that switching of providers. It seems to be that switching is going backwards in some respects in the New Zealand market and that that transparency of information that enables consumers to switch is not enough to incentivise that switching. Why is it that the Government has been talking about open electricity as the next cab off the rank for open data rights in New Zealand, but that seems to be coming at the expense of open banking, when both of those things should be able to be advanced at once.

I also want to ask him about retail entry into the market. Why is it that some of the smaller providers are going out of business and are part of the thousands of liquidations that have happened under this Government’s watch when in fact we need more of those small retailers to be able to compete in that market? They will never be bigger than the gentailers but they make up about 4 percent of the market now. That has gone down from about 5.5 percent on his watch. What is the regulator doing to ensure that there are more market entries and that those small market participants are growing?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) (16:57): Thank you, Madam Chair. When the Minister came to the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, he told us that he had asked his Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment officials along with the National Infrastructure Funding and Financing Agency (NIFFCo) to currently negotiate a funding model with gentailers to enable them to pay for the terminal.

One of the things that I’d like an update from the Minister on and for him to expand on what he talked about when he came to the select committee is exactly what he has instructed or asked NIFFCo to do or what the group of Ministers that are working on this have asked NIFFCo to do. Are they are assessing financing? For example, are they giving advice to the Government on whether or not the taxpayer will provide an underwrite? There seemed to be an indication from the co - Prime Minister—sorry, Winston Peters—in the House earlier today that the Government would provide an underwrite on that. The Prime Minister didn’t seem to think that was the case, but there seemed to be some confusion there in whether that was the case and whether that’s something that he’s asked either his officials or NIFFCo for some advice on.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Scott Willis.

Hon Simeon Brown: Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Sorry, I had already called.

SCOTT WILLIS (Green) (16:58): Thank you, Madam Chair. There are approximately 700 hard-working people directly involved in the Warmer Kiwi Homes delivery through member organisations delivering all around the motu. There are 34 member organisations that make up the Community Energy Network, and they are responsible for over 325,000 Healthy Homes assessments and have delivered insulation and heating to over 150,000 homes. I’ve had the privilege of working with many of these member organisations and I’ve seen the impact they make for people, whether it’s removing black mould and putting in ventilation, putting in ceiling or under-floor insulation, or just helping people move out of energy poverty. They have attracted over $150 million of philanthropic funding since 2009 to lift people out of energy poverty.

My questions to the Minister are what certainty can the Minister give to households, providers, and the sector about the continuation of the Warmer Kiwi Homes scheme, given the incredible return on investment and benefit to society that that programme delivers? How will the Minister ensure funding procurement and contracting will support that continuous delivery, and, with an estimated 140,000 homes still needing insulation, efficient heating, and practical support, will the Minister finish the job to make our homes warmer and safer? Finally, will the Minister make a commitment to ensure that the Warmer Kiwi Homes scheme funding continues beyond 30 June 2027 in order to avoid damaging delivery capability?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister for Energy) (17:00): I thank the members for their questions. As I’ve said in relation to the liquefied natural gas terminal, that is critical for our national security. The work’s under way, there is currently a procurement process under way, and there are negotiations actively taking place with the gentailers. The Government is committed to continuing that process. We’ve been very clear in my speech to the business chamber earlier this year around the approach that we’re taking. Everything that I said in that speech stands in relation to the process, and once we have more to say, we will have more to say in relation to that.

In relation to the question about a bipartisan energy strategy, well, the reality is that we could have a bipartisan energy policy in this country if Labour and the Greens didn’t come to this House and constantly talk down our oil and gas sector, which is critical to the future of this country. It is critical to ensuring that we can keep the lights on and that we have back-up energy when the wind is not blowing, the sun is not shining, and we have a dry year. Those members are responsible wholly for destroying energy security in this country. We are trying to fix it, and until we actually have a sensible Labour Party, like Helen Clark’s Government—they would never have done that. They backed oil and gas. Helen Clark’s Government backed oil and gas, but Jacinda Ardern’s Government didn’t, and that’s the difference. With Helen Clark’s Government, that Government knew what was needed for the future of our energy needs in this country.

Hon Cameron Brewer: Oh, bring back “Auntie”!

Hon SIMEON BROWN: I say “No thanks.” to that, Mr Brewer.

But in relation to the Electricity Authority, there is a number of workstreams under way, including the competition task force with the Commerce Commission, which is looking at the level playing field. There are the non-discrimination obligations which have been included, which are critically important to levelling the playing field between the big four and the small generators and retailers, and that’s a critical step towards having a level playing field. There’s the new power comparison and switching website Billy, which is making a big difference for consumers, and we encourage people to use it. Electricity retailers now must also offer time-of-use pricing to their customers—that’s really important—and also the Electricity Authority is now requiring the electricity companies to tell their customers every year whether they’re on the most affordable plan and it is also stopping them from being able to bill for backdating more than six months. Those are all important reforms.

Of course, the work is also under way around the open electricity consumer data right, and that is critically important to the next step so that we give power back to the people so that they can make choices, using the information from their bill, so that they can be on the most affordable plan. There is a range of things under way to improve affordability, and of course there’s more work to do.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) (17:03): Thank you, Madam Chair. I would just remind the Minister of Energy that he didn’t address funding for Warmer Kiwi Homes. Of course, we have not seen any new and additional funding go into that scheme since Budget 2023. Budgets since then have only cut the funding for Warmer Kiwi Homes. We’re currently due for that scheme to run out of funding in June of next year, and so we talked at the select committee about what assurances the Minister could give that there is a plan for a continuation of Warmer Kiwi Homes post this funding that was put in place by the Labour Government in 2023, given that we have only seen cuts. Indeed, we saw an additional cut to Warmer Kiwi Homes. Part of the reprioritisation package that was in this year’s Budget for energy saw further money going out of Warmer Kiwi Homes, and so I ask whether the Minister will give an assurance on that.

I’d also like the Minister to clarify to the committee whether or not the Crown will be providing an underwrite to the liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal, or to say what he sees is the Crown’s role in the procurement process of the LNG terminal.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (17:04): Thank you, Madam Chair. Given the Minister of Energy’s comments about the non-discrimination clauses, we’ll return there. I want to ask him, given that he seems to accept the structural advantage that exists with the gentailers, why does he believe that the behavioural non-discrimination rule is sufficient, what evidence does he have at the moment that that non-discrimination obligation is working, and when might he make an assessment of whether he needs to take further action if it is not, in fact, working?

REUBEN DAVIDSON (Labour—Christchurch East) (17:05): Thank you, Madam Chair. One of the questions we sought clarification from the Minister of Energy at the select committee was around the community renewable energy—so, solar power for schools. We know that this works, we know that it’s an excellent resource for schools, and we also know that it helps young people take those conversations home to their families, and some political parties have an excellent policy in the solar space, with Labour being one of them. So it’s an excellent opportunity for those conversations to happen but also for young people to talk about the potential for solar energy, which helps to lower power bills. Does the Minister have plans to continue to support the solar power for schools programme? He mentioned in one of his earlier answers about giving power back to the people, and this literally does that.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (17:06): To follow on from my questions—which are short, and I invite the Minister to answer them in a brief way—how much of the operating component of the $42.543 million in his appropriations for the Electricity Authority is being spent on monitoring compliance with his new non-discrimination obligations, and how will the authority establish whether Contact, Genesis, Mercury, and Meridian are offering genuinely equivalent hedge terms?

To follow on with that line of questions, when will the Minister know whether these changes—which in his Government’s own press release were described as a structural change for the market—will actually have the effect of lowering prices? Will he investigate this, or will it be another compliance review that takes more time before New Zealanders see their prices coming down?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) (17:07): I’d just like to remind the Minister of Energy that the committee is still waiting to hear from the Minister what advice he has received so that he can reassure New Zealanders that they aren’t just going to see the costs of liquefied natural gas (LNG) being passed on to their households, given that we’ve now seen the advice that his Government was trying to withhold that shows that LNG is not necessarily going to lower the cost of either electricity or gas, and in a number of scenarios it will indeed increase the costs to New Zealand households and businesses. But I’d also like to know some more information and to get an update on the $450 million reserve that was in the Budget—the temporary targeted support for fuel security that sat in the Budget as a contingency—to know if there have been any drawdowns or if there are any planned drawdowns on that $450 million contingency fund, and, if there are, what specific criteria are going to be used to assess whether or not money and projects will be drawn down from that fund.

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister for Energy) (17:08): I thank members for their questions. In relation to the question around the non-discrimination obligations, the Electricity Authority will, obviously, be receiving data and will be monitoring that and providing advice to me in relation to the effectiveness of those obligations. My clear expectation of both the Commerce Commission and the Electricity Authority is that more work will need to be done because we need to make sure that these level playing field obligations deliver what they are there for.

In relation to solar, we announced in the Budget funding for Solar in Schools. We’ve delivered that. There is now a significant number of schools—500 schools—receiving Solar in Schools. It’s going to make a big difference.

There is also a significant amount of work under way. We’ve removed building consents for rooftop solar and we’ve expanded household solar’s export limits—we’ve doubled it from 5 kilowatts to 10 kilowatts. There is a requirement for providers to provide rebates for exports to the grid at peak times. We’ve launched the Solar on Farms initiative, and work is under way on plug-in solar, which is going to make a big difference, as well. There’s a huge amount happening in that space.

In relation to liquefied natural gas, ultimately the work that’s under way is designed to improve our energy security and affordability. By removing the baked-in cost which goes into electricity of a dry-year risk, we will significantly improve outcomes for consumers. On driving affordability, we’ve already seen a 35 percent reduction in wholesale prices since we made the announcement earlier this year. Our plan is working.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) (17:10): Thank you, Madam Chair. The Minister for Energy was just talking about the work that’s happening around the level playing field. We still haven’t seen the evidence coming out in terms of what impact that strand of work will have on pricing. But I do note that the Minister just released last week a discussion document around the large amount that we need invested in our lines companies over the coming years and how it is that we need to ensure that’s delivering value for New Zealanders and how it’s going to be paid for.

One of the things I was surprised to see, or not see, from the Minister in that document was more of an obligation on lines companies to have to quantify why they would not be looking to non-network solutions, to have to look at what was delivering way of making sure we had a secure electricity system with the least cost from a distribution network perspective. Did he consider and did he get advice on whether or not there should be a requirement on the lines companies to consider non-network solutions such as battery, solar, and things that, ultimately, will lead to lower power bills?

In terms of the advice the Minister has received around putting together that piece of work, what advice has he received about when New Zealanders would expect to see savings turn up in their power bills from the package of alternatives that he’s put there? I’ve had a lot of feedback that a lot of people see this as a reasonably watered down version of what the Government could do, are questioning when benefits will flow to them, and, really, are saying they cannot afford three more years of what this Government is delivering.

SCOTT WILLIS (Green) (17:12): Thank you. We just heard from the Minister for Energy that liquefied natural gas (LNG) is critical to our national energy strategy. What evidence can the Minister provide to back up this statement, given that we haven’t heard that from any other expertise? I’m really interested to hear the expert opinion that the Minister has that would back up that statement, that it is critical to our national energy security, because we’ve heard from Concept Consulting, we’ve heard from the Sapere report, we’ve heard from the Frontier report, and we’ve heard from the OECD that reliance on volatile international prices of LNG will make us tied to expensive fossil fuels when we have home-grown energy available to us right here, right now, and this Government has rejected those options. What evidence has the Minister got in to back up that statement?

ANDY FOSTER (NZ First) (17:13): Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, my question is probably to both the Minister for Energy and the Minister for Resources, because one of the things that’s sitting here behind the price of the energy that we’ve had is that it went up spectacularly when the oil and gas ban came on, and so I’m really interested in what the trends are looking like. I also wanted to note that gas is important. I chair the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, so while the Minister goes and speaks to the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, we do have all of the energy companies in front of us as well, and they’ve been quite clear that the most important use of gas is not for electricity but for actual gas consumers.

I’d be really interested too to hear some comments on the impact of the lack of gas on those businesses which rely on gas, and also on the roughly 1 million Kiwi households which also use gas. We’ve been told that the cost of converting those will be something like $10,000 to $13,000 each, which will be a total of $10 billion to $13 billion across all of those households if they have to convert. Then you’ve got the likes of the Methanexes, the Ballances, you’ve got Glenbrook Steel Mill, and you’ve got a lot of horticulture, which all rely on that gas, so I’d be really interested in what we can do to try and make sure that they actually have a supply going forward, the opportunities that there might be to be able to find more gas, whether that’s onshore, whether that’s biogas, whether it’s offshore, whatever it might be, I’m really interested in that exploration. Then I’d like to come back also with some questions around direct mining as well, because this is energy and resources that we’re talking about here.

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Resources) (17:14): Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s a pleasure to make a contribution. If I can just set the scene. Technically, it is correct that when Jacinda Ardern misled Winston Peters and made that woeful decision and allowed Cabinet processes to be circumvented, it had the effect of chilling investment.

Now, it is administratively correct to say that certain entitlements were left in place. However, it took many weeks later before the Cabinet processes were tidied up. Sadly, the chilling effect of that nuclear moment meant that, throughout the world, the message went that the oil and gas industry under the Ardern regime had no future in New Zealand. Now, that probably wasn’t the intention. I want to be at least fair to the Opposition spokesperson. I don’t think, at the time, they were wanting to extinguish the New Zealand economy, and they certainly weren’t endeavouring to destroy the Taranaki economy. But I have to say, I look no further than the member behind me who shows us photos on a regular basis of empty shop fronts, of houses virtually boarded up as men and women leave because the oil and gas industry, sadly, was closed down when investment was scared away.

It’s important that Kiwis bear in mind that, after this Government reversed that scandalous ban, it has taken time for a level of confidence and optimism to be reinjected into the economy. I have to acknowledge Simeon Brown for doing a tremendous job in seeking a solution to make up for the gap. In good time, the full details of that solution under his leadership will be revealed. However, the $200 million fund, if I can respond to my colleague’s response, is an attempt to make up to the fact that we have dropped down perilously low to petajoule production hovering around 80-85. Now, matters might improve in the event that the owners of Methanex do decide to move on, but that’s a commercial decision.

This is not a Government that wants to chase any more investors out of New Zealand, as happened under the Ardern regime. What this Government wants to do with oil and gas is, actually, to skilfully use the $200 million as a way of derisking, and decisions are imminent—decisions are imminent—and it also wants to ensure that there’s a transition, and where there is a gap, we’ll wait to hear on those details. But under no circumstances whatsoever should any firm fear that we don’t have their back, which is why Nicola Willis, in the Budget, announced up to a billion dollars’ worth of an underwrite to enable firms to transition in the event they have the capacity, with access to bank debt, to move on from their reliance on gas to other forms of energy. But it will take time. But know this from me, New Zealanders: it was Jacinda Ardern and Megan Woods who destroyed our sovereign reputation when they misled Winston Peters, did not follow Cabinet process, and condemned Taranaki to penury.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour) (17:19): Point of order. I’m really surprised that the Minister for Resources had not one but two attempts to mislead this House by using the word “mislead” in an inappropriate way, and he should know better, and quite frankly, he needs to be pulled up on that.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I’ll take it under advisement. Thank you. Scott Willis.

Steve Abel: Steve Abel.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Sorry—Steve Abel. My apologies.

STEVE ABEL (Green) (17:20): That’s all right—we sit beside each other. Regarding the point just made by the Minister: in the context of his proposition that the doors are closing in Taranaki, what is his explanation for the doors closing in Dunedin, and the shopfronts closing in Wellington, and the pea-growers in the Hawke’s Bay, and all of the deindustrialisation across this country that’s happened under his watch? Are you blaming that on the actions of a Government all those years ago?

Andy Foster: Yes.

STEVE ABEL: It’s good to hear that response, because that shows just how deluded this Government is. My question for the Minister is this: given that the biggest and most powerful oil and gas explorers in the world came and searched and found nothing and left before the 2018 ban came into place, and given that our gas reserves were diminishing since 2007, how better could that $200 million Gas Security Fund have been spent? The Minister just alluded to the bank debt to assist industry in moving away from its current gas dependency. What evaluations did the Minister take and what consideration did he give to investing in solar, biogas, biomass, wind, and battery energy systems that actually take us away from the dependence on that finite resource of fossil gas, which many companies have come and looked for and not been able to find?

That’s the first question: when he evaluated that public expenditure on the forlorn hope of trying to find some more gas, what consideration did he give to the other, more effective ways that money could be spent on cheaper forms of energy and abundant forms of energy that are indigenous and locally owned with which we could be powering our system and our economy. My second question is: does he genuinely believe that the most expensive form of fossil fuel available, liquefied natural gas (LNG), is going to solve the energy cost problem of industry across this country? We are now going to be a price-taker in terms of the cost of that very expensive form of—

David MacLeod: Diesel’s more expensive.

STEVE ABEL: I can assure you, LNG is more expensive than diesel, my friend.

Hon SHANE JONES (Associate Minister for Energy) (17:22): That contribution does deserve a response with my characteristic temperateness. The conceit which informs this predictable attack on fossil fuels—that if international or domestic investors are inclined to come to New Zealand, use our geological reservoirs of information, use their own capital, somehow their willingness to exploit our resources and manage a risk is something that we as politicians, or they on the left side, have declared is morally unacceptable in the New Zealand economy. They have no mandate to make that decision.

Kiwis should celebrate the fact that if anyone wants to come to our country, boost the supply of energy and boost the availability of energy, they are entitled to do that, providing they’re obeying the law. But, no, that side of the House wants to change the law and condemn New Zealand to a pipe dream—some kind of Camelot existence; some kind of lotus-land economic reality that, somehow, we’re going to be lotus-eaters; that we can have a secure energy system sans coal, sans gas, reliant totally on wind and solar. Nowhere in the world does that work.

What is going to happen to the firms that are marooned and reliant on gas? Nothing. They have no future. It is absurd to suggest that Kiwis can possibly trust the view that is denouncing the arrival of either Asian capital, Australian capital, or anyone who’s willing to take a risk and work with our Government to open up potential bonanza, El Dorado levels of wealth that lie in the ocean. I say, bring it on.

Now, on the question of the $200 million Gas Security Fund; The Gas Security fund was designed to de-risk the availability and accelerate the delivery of those known fields that with a bit of a helping hand, they can contribute at the margin to what is proving to be a worsening situation—as I said, about 85 petajoules and declining. It is money well spent.

I know—I can predict what’s going to be said: the Supreme Court. Sadly, I’m unable to explain to you what I really think about the Supreme Court. However, that was dealt to partly by my colleague Mr Goldsmith. But the Supreme Court did lay a certain level of obligations on politicians to go through a process in allocating pūtea, allocating capital, to boost our oil and gas. That fund is designed for gas—that fund is not designed for sun or wind—and that gas is absolutely necessary to make up for a time, as Simeon Brown has said, when neither of those resources are available. I mean, it’s extraordinary that I’m even having to explain this yet again. Naturally, there are certain people who don’t care for the sound of my voice—I’m not one of them.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) (17:27): Thank you, Madam Chair. My question actually is for the Minister of Resources. When the Minister of resources came to the Finance and Expenditure Committee, we asked him about whether he was doing any work to have royalties raised for mining companies to pay more for the work that they do in New Zealand. The Minister certainly has made quite a big deal about saying that he wanted a review into this. We know that New Zealand sits at the lower end internationally of the royalties that they do pay—certainly far lower than jurisdictions that the Minister often likes to point to as nirvana, like Western Australia and Queensland; certainly, much lower than that.

There has been a recent Deloitte report that shows that, actually, raising royalties over a number of years—out to 2060, I think, from memory—could actually deliver something like $758 million additionally to New Zealand and the New Zealand economy, and for New Zealanders, given that we largely have global, multinational mining companies working here. Has the Minister revisited the answer that he gave in the select committee that he had given up doing any work on raising royalties and wasn’t going to pursue any work to protect the New Zealand taxpayer and make sure that New Zealanders were receiving their fair share?

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Resources) (17:28): Kiwis, please, bear in mind that 80c in every dollar, we are advised, stays in our economy from those activities associated with mining. Of course, the other side of the House never count the contribution that the mining sector makes to GST, PAYE, corporate tax, ACC, and a whole variety of other levies that enterprises meet in order to remain compliant.

They never talk about the high-paying jobs; they never talk about the contributions that those firms make to the West Coast; they never talk about the engineers, the digger drivers, the geologists, the students, and God forbid the ecologists. No, they never talk about the fact of $13 million to $15 million paid by enterprises associated with mining just to go through the fast-track. But, wait—wait, mining industry: that bill is going to go down when I get back into Parliament and to this role on this side of the House after the election. That’s ridiculously expensive, but that’s another matter.

Let me come back to the business of royalties. If you are a miner in New Zealand, or if you are an investor in New Zealand, it is reasonable that your enterprise which you entered into should proceed on a basis of certainty. Now, there are two ways of looking at this. Royalties could be conceived as an ordinary part of taxation—I know that side of the House, according to Simeon Brown, are incontinent with their desire to put up taxes; that’s a debate, and he’s an expert on those matters in terms of studying their desire to put up taxes—or you could say that a royalty is a specific levy. I’ll leave that debate to people who enjoy talking about Crown revenue.

But the fact of the matter is that if you arbitrarily interfere and indiscriminately change the impost imposed on the mining sector, you can very well destroy industry. Look what has happened in Queensland. This very day, the coal mining industry in Australia, Queensland is knocking on the door of the Queensland Parliament seeking relief as a consequence of the arbitrary imposition of disproportionately high levies changed with the swipe of a pen overnight, freezing investment, chilling investment, and destroying jobs. We are not going to destroy jobs in the mining sector. We are going to massively expand the mining sector.

In fact, today, I was in Rotorua. I gave a memorable speech to the mining conference in Rotorua. Rather incongruous that it should be in Rotorua, but I’ll overlook that geographical incongruity. I promised them that the information that Cabinet asked me to release, that Cabinet mandated me to undertake, which was the Deloitte’s neutral platform of information comparing the royalties with the rest of the world—we compare favourably with the rest of the world because we want to incentivise investment. We want to turn our country into a magnet for investment. We want to encourage the growth of mining, because most of the Department of Conservation (DOC) land is overrun with weasels and rats, and it’s not even DOC land anyway. That’s going to be a key part of my campaign. Stewardship land is not DOC land. It should be opened up, possibly tomorrow, or certainly on 9, 10, 11, or 12 November for massive extractive activity. Those people will enjoy hunting, more tourism, more development. I mean, I’m just getting started.

CAMERON LUXTON (ACT) (17:33): Thank you, Madam Chair. That was a memorable contribution from the Minister for Resources, and from that, he also alluded to being in Rotorua for a miner’s conference. It’s an interesting place, the central plateau; it’s got huge geothermal resources not very far below the surface. However, I have, in my travels, met with a few people in the geothermal space—a few companies, exploration companies, people who are generating energy out of that—and I’ve heard that there’s been quite a rise in the cost of putting borewells down because of the jobs that left this country after the exploration ban was put in place for oil and gas. So, Minister, I would just like to ask you, how do you expect to keep the level of skilled and employee talent intact as we grow mining, and while we grow exploration, when we have struggled so far to maintain that after so many skilled employees and talent left New Zealand after that obscene ban on oil and gas exploration?

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Resources) (17:34): Look, I don’t mind admitting that no one’s career is devoid of imperfections, and there may have been one or three appearances in an earlier phase of my career with kabuki-faced expressions, but we’ll overlook those rather bleak episodes. I stand by what I said. There was a level of poor disclosure to my leader Winston Peters back there in 2018, and a forensic analysis will show a gross betrayal of full disclosure to my leader, but I’ll leave that matter in the past because I don’t want to continually rake over bleak accounts—bleak accounts—of political history.

I want us to look to the future and remind everyone that geothermal energy also has a host of mineral properties, and we have, from time to time—actually, in fact, I have to acknowledge Grant Robertson, and I’m likely to attract a few baleful glances by doing that, and David Parker; they did support me in giving pūtea towards some entrepreneurs to extract silica out in the Reporoa area—

Cameron Luxton: Yeah, they’ve got gold in there too.

Hon SHANE JONES: —yes, out of the geothermal resource, but the point remains that if we don’t keep a certain level of quality workmanship and quality human capital, it will drift to Australia and other places. Now, that’s not necessarily a bad thing because families have to earn a living, but we have learnt with the supercritical, and I have to acknowledge Megan Woods—she did start the project and I carried on with an allocation. Some people have criticised whether or not it was a worthy thing to do to carry on and allocate pūtea to what could be seen as a moonbeam shot, but surely all Governments should be willing to take a punt if it has a transformational effect in terms of energy and the level of human capital, technology, and skill required to go five to six kilometres in the earth. The skills are transferable from using oil and gas experience.

Sadly, it’s very, very much in short supply because those men and women have drifted overseas. I’m confident, however, in the event we have an opportunity to govern again and the billion-dollar fund, should it survive post-election negotiations, can be made available to boost the reservoir of information, de-risk investment, and really turbocharge the opportunities for men and women to recommit themselves to the extractive sector. It’s a brilliant and bright future because it’s posited upon us boosting our economic sovereignty and moving away from this lotus-eating false reality that somehow New Zealand, exclusively, is going to save the planet. Spare me that religious falsehood.

SIMON COURT (ACT) (17:37): Thank you, Madam Chair. To the Minister for Resources: following New Zealand’s commitment to the International Energy Agency Ministerial Declaration of Critical Minerals, how will the Budget appropriated for financial year 2026-27 be used to fast track the mapping and assessment of our domestic strategic mineral deposits?

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Minister for Resources, just to let you know that you’ve just got under five minutes remaining.

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Resources) (17:38): That will enable me to be succinct and concise. Can I respond in two ways? You have raised the importance of critical minerals. I have already referred to the fact that officials have been working with American officials as to whether there’s scope for our nation, through our Government, to form a pact with the United States of America’s Government—that remains to be seen. However, that negotiating process is still under way.

I have also spoken to you, as a Parliament in question time, about the critical mineral strategy and the list of incredibly important minerals that have the potential to boost our capacity, to join the global supply lines, and we are also dedicating additional money, which should not come as a surprise, through the recalibration of funds in the newly established science bodies. But it will require a change in culture and attitude.

The conservation estate should not exclusively be seen as some type of fairytale wilderness area that can never be opened up for development, for hunting, for tourism, and a variety of other economic purposes.

We must support Tama Potaka and the modest changes, the modest improvements, that man is seeking to develop. Amongst that is the potential of the minerals and the mining.

Now, there is a modest footprint that is left. Look no further, Mr Court, than Wharekirauponga a tiny little dot on the landscape of Coromandel—on the right side of the Dixie line. It is not on the side that excites Ms Delahunty; it is on the side where the frogs can be moved, where the moths can fly away, where the Māoris can get jobs, and the Matua can mount a helicopter and survey the mining estate which is rich with potential.

SCOTT WILLIS (Green) (17:40): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll be straight to the point. My question is to the Minister for Energy. If the liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal fails to take off—if we fail to have a solution to the critical energy crisis we are facing, Minister—would the Minister consider the development of a new, publicly owned entity to secure our energy security, to ensure we have a dry-year solution that does not rely on ministerial oversight, ministerial decisions, or Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment professionalism, but would have the expertise to choose the lowest cost, best solution for our firming problem? We could call such an entity “Kiwipower”, for example. Would the Minister get behind such an idea to make that happen to ensure we have security of supply when we hit the dry-year challenge, and will the Minister back this idea? Thank you.

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister for Energy) (17:42): I appreciate the member’s pitch. The answer to the question is that Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) went through a very rigorous process considering all of the options in relation to the dry-year risk, and the liquefied natural gas (LNG) importation terminal came out as the preferred option, as the member knows, and the papers are all online. MBIE looked at a range of different options including diesel, pumped hydro, demand response, battery technology, biomass, rooftop solar—they looked at a range of different options and considered that LNG would be able to be delivered the fastest and also provide the most cost-effective option to be able to manage the dry-year risk that New Zealand is facing and for those benefits to be passed on to consumer.

The good news is, since we made that announcement earlier this year, and because of the significant increased generation that’s coming online through fast-track and other decisions this Government is making, we’ve seen a significant reduction in wholesale electricity prices this year, which is good news. There’ still more work to do.

STEVE ABEL (Green) (17:43): Thank you, Madam Chair. Listen, I know the Minister for Resources is glorious in his effusive rhetoric and his coal-blustering hyperbole, but I wonder if he’s prepared to give up harassing rare endemic frogs for a moment—

Simon Court: They’re not rare, they’re everywhere.

STEVE ABEL: —to answer a more serious question. They’re actually not everywhere; they’re in a very narrow number of places in the Waikato. All of the Archey’s frogs in the universe exist only in the Waikato.

This is a serious question I’d like the Minister to respond to. In terms of the certainty of energy costs for industry, we have had a rude awakening with the unilateral attack by the United States on Iran, which led to ongoing troubles with access to fuel and an extraordinary spike in the cost of fuel globally. The whole world has worn the consequences of that orange madman in the White House, and businesses in this country have—the cost of diesel, the cost of petrol, the cost of fuel on the whole. How, Minister, with our projections of what future fuel security looks like—fossil fuel security—in the global context, does he give industry certainty of the costs of energy when we are now moving from an indigenous gas supply, as it runs out, to an imported liquefied natural gas (LNG) supply where we are a price-taker, and we are therefore subject to the fluctuations of that price, whatever is happening in the international energy market?

That is exactly why—would it not be wiser and give greater security for that same money to be being invested in local biogas, for example, which is the same molecule and can go in the same pipes? Yes, it’s starting from a low base—we’ve got to grow it up—but we can be using the remainder of our reserves for industry now, rather than invest in a very uncertain, expensive form of gas, LNG, and be investing in local options of renewable energy, which have unlimited supply.

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister for Energy) (17:45): I thank the member for his question. We’ve had a number of questions in this House regarding the liquefied natural gas (LNG) debate about “What about this option?” or “What about that option?”. Well, we looked at all the options. We also looked at that option, and, of course, biogas is not of sufficient scale to be able to actually meet the need.

What the Green Party and Labour don’t seem to understand is that on average, we get a dry year about every four years, which means we don’t have the luxury of waiting till 2039 for a big lake at the bottom of the South Island, which was the former Minister for Energy’s solution, and we don’t have the time to wait for biogas to become of sufficient scale—

Hon Shane Jones: 6 terawatts.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: —6 terawatts is what Minister Jones is saying—and biomass we’d need to burn through Huntly, and Huntly has limited capacity of how much it can actually deliver in terms of energy needs. That would simply replace what’s being used for coal; it doesn’t actually fix the rest of the dry-year problem, which is what we need gas for, which is why LNG has become the preferred option.

Now, in terms of the price volatility, that is of course an issue that has been looked at—something which I examined very closely on becoming the Minister for Energy again following the war in Iran. But the reality is that the International Energy Agency is saying that the amount of LNG gas coming on board over the next few years is going to well outweigh what has been lost through the Strait of Hormuz, and of course, at the moment, we’re reliant on coal from one particular country. LNG would actually diversify those supply chains across different parts of the world. There are a number of reasons why the Government has made the decision. The problem with the Opposition is they don’t have a plan; they don’t have a solution; they’re simply complaining when we’re actually getting on and fixing the mess they left behind.

SIMON COURT (ACT) (17:47): Thank you, Madam Chair. A question for the Minister for Energy: given that there are reports that Huntly’s 400-megawatt gas generator is currently offline because that gas has been instead allocated to Ballance to make fertiliser—

Hon Shane Jones: Food—food.

SIMON COURT: —that’s right, absolutely vital for food—how important is it that we have liquefied natural gas, not just for electricity generation, but so that the residual gas in the market can support industry?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister for Energy) (17:48): We’re going through a procurement process, and as I outlined in my speech to the Auckland Business Chamber in relation to that decision, ultimately, we need to make sure we’ve got the backup energy first and foremost for our electricity. The funding model which we’re working through and considering is about also how do you fairly ensure that those other parties who may wish to access the gas pay their fair share?

The reality is, if we want to have an industrial base in New Zealand, if we want to have an electricity system where we’ve dealt with the dry-year risk, we need thermal backup generation in order to do that. With rapidly dwindling supply of gas here in New Zealand and the gap currently being filled by a coal stockpile filling half of it and gas needed for the other half, we need another option. That’s why the officials have advised that liquefied natural gas is the preferred option; that is why we’re pursuing it; it is critically important for the future of this country, and I am not going to do what the previous Minister for Energy Megan Woods did, which was leave the country high and dry and crash the oil and gas sector, which ultimately led to massive deindustrialisation and high energy prices in New Zealand. We are fixing the mess left behind by Labour.

Dr DAVID WILSON (NZ First) (17:49): Simple question: due to the closure of—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Can I just inform the member there is one minute and 57 seconds remaining.

Dr DAVID WILSON: Yeah, no problem. Due to the closure of Marsden Point, has that affected our vulnerability as a nation and, supplementary to that, our exposure to the vicissitudes of the International Energy Agency?

Hon SHANE JONES (Associate Minister for Energy) (17:50): I can assure you, that scandalous, woeful, dangerous decision when Marsden Point was closed down with the approval of Megan Woods—not only did our Government need to ride to the rescue and spend up to $20 million re-establishing a tank to create a 100-litre buffer of diesel that she left empty; we have saved the New Zealand fuel resilience as a consequence of the closure of Marsden Point. It would never have happened if the matua and the rangatira Winston Peters had not been tossed out as a consequence of an inordinately negative campaign run and lies that were told at the time about Marsden Point. Marsden Point, sadly, no longer can fulfil its full potential, but we have rescued it by re-establishing a tank that was left bereft as a consequence of Megan’s failure to effect economic security.

CAMERON LUXTON (ACT) (17:51): Thank you. To the Minister of Energy; it’s wonderful to have you in the chair, because I’ll get a chance to ask you this question. New Zealand’s building out energy generation all over the country, but we’ve got to connect that up, and so, getting lines—how do we make sure that lines are being built in the right place and are not being overbuilt to transport energy around the country?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister for Energy) (17:52): I thank the member for the question. Ultimately, Transpower has a long-term plan, but, also, they have to get approval from the Commerce Commission (ComCom) for their investments. The Commerce Commission scrutinises their plans to make sure that it’s proportionate and that it’s meeting the needs that New Zealanders have—because, ultimately, all of those charges end up on people’s bills, and so the ComCom has a very important role in doing that. In terms of the discussion document we released last week, particularly around distribution companies, there’s a lot of work that needs to be done to make sure that they are focused on affordability, and that’s what the discussion document is out for. I look forward to people’s feedback.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Can I just consult with the Opposition members. If there are no more questions, it’s likely to collapse the Estimates debate, so, technically, I need 30 seconds more before we can report progress on today.

Dr Tracey McLellan: Point of order. Can I just seek some clarification on that, Madam Chair, because this debate started at 4.45 p.m., which is now several minutes over the hour.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Correct, yeah.

Dr Tracey McLellan: That is correct?

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Correct.

Dr Tracey McLellan: So you still need about another 30 seconds?

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I need seven.

Dr Tracey McLellan: OK, thank you.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) (17:54): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just as this debate comes to a close, I think it’s important that New Zealanders reflect on the fact that what we’ve seen here is two Ministers that have come down to this House and misled the New Zealand public—they’ve misled the New Zealand public and they’ve withheld advice. They’ve misled the New Zealand public—

Hon Louise Upston: Point of order. You clearly can’t use language like that in this Chamber.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Speaking to the point of order—“misled” has been a phrase that has been used throughout this debate. I’m only reflecting language that Government Ministers have used during the course of this debate.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I do agree with you, but at the time there was quite a bit of to and fro in that interchange. I would just ask members to keep it parliamentary.

Hon Shane Jones: Indeed. Professional—professional!

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): That’s not helping, Mr Jones.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: We’ve had Ministers come down here and we have had them mislead the New Zealand public—we’ve had them mislead the New Zealand public and not release information, and this is going to lead to New Zealanders paying more for their electricity and for the energy. We’ve had a Minister that continually comes down here and misleads the public about Marsden Point. This was after he went to Marsden Point—went around the country proclaiming he was going to reopen it. He didn’t; he’s failed. So what does he do? He comes here and he makes things up in this House. That Minister needs to actually show the New Zealand—

Hon Shane Jones: Point of order. Thank you, Madam Chair. Could the member elaborate on how this so-called member has made things up? The member would love to hear that story.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): That’s not a point of order, Mr Jones. No.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: That’s not a point of order. I believe we’re at time now. That’s 30 seconds.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Yes. Thank you very much.

DAVID MacLEOD (National—New Plymouth) (17:56): I move, That the committee report progress on this bill.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): That’s a very good idea, Mr MacLeod.

Motion agreed to.

Progress to be reported.

House resumed.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Mr Speaker, the committee has further considered the Appropriation (2026/27 Estimates) Bill and reports that it has made progress. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

SPEAKER: Members, the time has come for me to leave the Chair. The House is suspended for the dinner break and will resume at 7.30 p.m.

Sitting suspended from 5.58 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Sittings of the House

Urgency

SPEAKER: The House is resumed.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Leader of the House) (19:30): I move, That urgency be accorded the committee stage of the Planning Bill and the Natural Environment Bill, and the remaining stages of the Emergency Management Bill (No 2), the Social Security (Jobseeker Support and Accommodation Supplement) Amendment Bill, and the Serious Fraud Office Amendment Bill.

Today we accord urgency for one main reason: to progress the committee of the whole House stages of the Planning Bill and the Natural Environment Bill. These are among the most ambitious changes this Government will make this term and we expect a fulsome and mature debate on the legislation before the House. Urgency is therefore being used predominantly to allow these bills to have their committee stages completed in one sitting, as opposed to being broken up over many days or weeks.

We have also included three other bills in the urgency motion—bills which have been to select committee and reported back to the House. These bills are Government priorities to pass before Parliament dissolves, and with only four sitting weeks left in the Parliamentary year, they are being included in the urgency motion to make the most of the time that we have available. The Social Security (Jobseeker Support and Accommodation Supplement) Amendment Bill, in particular, has a commencement date of 2 November 2026, so it does need to be finished before the end of this term.

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

Ayes 67

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

Noes 55

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

Motion agreed to.

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

Bills

Planning Bill

Committee of the whole House

Part 1 Preliminary provisions, proposed new clauses 10A and 10B, and Schedules 1 and 12

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, the House is in committee on the Planning Bill and the Natural Environment Bill. We start with the Planning Bill.

Members, I’ve been advised that the Government proposes that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for RMA Reform be in the chair for some of this committee stage. Typically, Ministers will be in the chair for Government bills, and Speakers’ ruling 82/4 states that if the Minister in charge of the bill is present in the Chamber they must be at the Table, otherwise the Government may decide who is best placed to be accountable for its legislation and that may be a Parliamentary Under-Secretary. The requirement under Standing Order 41 for a Minister to be in the Chamber at all times remains.

Members will be aware the Planning Bill and the Natural Environment Bill are heavily interrelated and that there are matters that are relevant to both bills. This will be taken into account when addressing relevancy in debate.

We start with Part 1. Part 1 is the debate on clauses 3 to 10—“Preliminary provisions”—including proposed new clauses 10A and 10B; Schedule 1, “Transitional, savings, and related provisions”; and Schedule 12, “Statutory acknowledgements”. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (19:34): Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for clarifying that Part 1 includes Schedule 1 and Schedule 12. We’ve had a very large Government Amendment Paper, which covers off the whole bill, and in this case I’m going to go through that—that is Amendment Paper 709. When I’m referring to numbers, that’s what I’m planning to do; other people may, of course, do something different. I note that the Minister also has a different Amendment Paper that I’m calling the “small Amendment Paper”, which relates to setting up a statutory office and also makes some changes around Plan Change 1 in the Waikato and Plan Change 2 in the Manawatū. It would be useful if the Minister could confirm if we’re expecting other Amendment Papers other than those two—he’s shaking his head, OK.

Of course, we have many published Amendment Papers, as do the Greens, and we’ve also got some amendments that will be tabled shortly, as well. Given the vastness of this legislation, they are not an abundance—I don’t think we’d call it an abundance of amendments, but there are certainly some.

Hon Phil Twyford: It’s a competitive market in Amendment Papers.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: That’s right.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): And on that note, we would be very happy as Chairs if clauses and Amendment Paper numbers were referred to, because we’re not sure what’s on what page all the time. If you could just refer to it, that would be great. Thank you.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: I will certainly do my best, Madam Chair, and do feel free to remind me, though, if I slip into some excitement about a provision and forget to tell you where to find it. But, as I say, I’m looking at this Amendment Paper 709, which is the whole bill reproduced.

Part 1 includes the definitions, it includes the purpose clause, it includes the Treaty clause, and then it includes some new amendments that the Minister has made. How I would like to deal with this is to go through clause by clause and then move on to Schedule 1 and then, if people have issues on Schedule 12, to go to Schedule 12.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yeah—part by part is good.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: On that, if we start on the interpretation—and I will look for some guidance here, because “designation”, in the interpretation, “has the meaning given in clause 3 of Schedule 5”, and that is not in Part 1—Schedule 5—but the reference is to Schedule 5. I would ask for some guidance on where the Chair would like that debate on the definition of “designation” to happen.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’ll just take some advice on that. We do understand from our briefings that there is crossover between the two bills, so we’re not going to be strictly saying one is different to the other, but I’ll just take advice on that.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Thank you. This is within the same bill, anyway.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yeah.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Thank you. I’ll move on, then.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): It’s in Part 1, so that’s fine.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Fine to talk about the definition of “designation”. As I was saying, this is in clause 3 of Schedule 5, and whilst I don’t think it’s an amendment that the Minister has made, it appears to be a very wide definition. I’m wondering if the Minister can speak to the breadth of that definition and the importance of the definition, because “designations” pop up all the way through the legislation. Designations are an old and important tool to identify where a piece of infrastructure is intended to be. Most people would consider infrastructure to be things like roads or pipes, but the feeling is that this definition of “designation” is now very wide, so some commentary on that would be useful.

If I move on to “infrastructure”, I have an Amendment Paper, and my Amendment Paper is 695—it’s a published Amendment Paper—and this is about the functioning of the economy being in that definition. This is an important point because it relates to the designations that I was just talking about—designations are generally for infrastructure—and a lot of these bills rely on infrastructure. My question, if I can just go for a little bit longer, is that (a) the definition of “infrastructure” has an inclusion of the functioning of the economy. That seems to be importing quite a different criteria from what infrastructure and designations have traditionally been for—public work that local government is in charge of, and that is why they’ve got the special treatment of being able to get designations.

If you have these wider definitions, then that is going to undermine what previously has been thought of as public infrastructure. If the Minister can comment on that and why that’s happening and whether or not I should be worried.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (19:40): Madam Chair, thank you very much. I thank the member for her questions. Just as a prefatory remark, the Government has withdrawn one of the smaller Amendment Papers in relation to competitive land markets and has tabled a new Amendment Paper.

Arena Williams: So it’s a new one?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: It’s a new one in relation to Plan Change 1 and 2 and the statutory urban land market officer. It’s just been tabled in the last 20 minutes.

Hon Rachel Brooking: Does that include the plan changes as well?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yes. Yes it does; they’re all grouped up together. But the urban land market officers had some refinements in the last few hours, which I think will meet with the member’s approval.

Hon Rachel Brooking: OK. Why don’t you do more of that? More of that.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Let’s wait and see—let’s wait and see. We’re starting as we hopefully mean to go on.

In relation to designation, I’m advised that the definition is functionally the same as under the Resource Management Act, so that member’s claim that it’s a broader definition is not really correct.

In relation to infrastructure, I was struggling a little bit to get at what the member was referring to. It’s defined in clause 3, as the member is aware, and it’s all there in black and white: it’s a physical structure; it performs a public function, necessary to support one or more of the following; the functioning of the economy. But of course, infrastructure can be privately provided. Ownership is, frankly, neither here nor there. We have private infrastructure all over the country and we are likely to continue to do that. The key is whether or not infrastructure meets the definition laid out in clause 3.

Arena Williams: Madam Chair.

Hon Damien O'Connor: Point of order, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Arena Williams.

Hon Damien O'Connor: Point of order, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Oh, sorry. Point of order, the Hon Damien O'Connor.

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Labour) (19:42): Sorry. Look, I’m just not sure the sound system is working. I don’t want to accuse the Minister of mumbling, but it’s really hard to hear him from here. I appreciate I’m hard of hearing. I’m not sure that they’re coming through the speakers here in the seats.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): OK. We’ll make sure this is lined up and we’ll just get someone to check the sound system. But in the meantime, if you can’t hear something, let us know. Arena Williams.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (19:42): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just following on from the Minister responsible for RMA Reform’s helpful clarification about his new Amendment Paper (AP) 709, just for ease of reference in this debate, can I ask him what parts of new 709 amend Part 1 of his proposed bill, so that we’re just clear. Most of the amendments to the old 709—this is the new 709—were to Part 5, and so we are prepared to debate them then. But I’m just clarifying with him whether there is anything unexpected that we need to cover off in this part.

To the first substantive question for the Minister—I’m on page 19; we’re still in section 3, the definitions section—I want to ask him about his narrowing of the new definition of “built environment” in this bill. The deletion of the word “includes” and insertion of “means all or any” seems to make that definition more prescriptive and also narrower. The built environment question is important because it’s one of the two halves of the conceptual architecture of the Planning Bill, so I’m asking him here whether, firstly, it is his intention for (a) to (e) under that definition to be the exhaustive list of what “built environment” means, or whether it’s also meant to have a natural reading. Then, if it is an exhaustive list—and not “built environment” in the meaning of what we would usually mean by “built environment”—has he intended to exclude commercial buildings, houses, schools, hospitals, stadiums? Why does this definition not include buildings?

These definitions are the sorts of characteristic definitions that the Resource Management Act (RMA) used to give effect to some of those things like amenity values and characteristics of a neighbourhood under the old system. I can understand why his definition doesn’t include those things, but it doesn’t now seem to make sense for on where that term is used in the rest of the Planning Bill if it excludes those things, which are things that are made by people in the environment.

I also want to ask: the old RMA sort of equivalent definition included a specific mention of public spaces that are not green spaces. He hasn’t defined green spaces in the same way as the old system. Again, I can appreciate why he has done that, but then how do you read in to these rules public spaces like town squares, civic plazas, streetscapes; reading closer to things like neighbourhood values and characteristics of a particular urban space? But there are also physical things which seem to be left out of this definition as it is now.

Those first questions are about the conceptual nature of the definition. How are we meant to read it? Then did he mean to exclude those things which are included in the natural meaning of the word?

I also want to then turn to page 21 at the top—we’re at decommissioning. New AP 709, I assume, still—sorry, I’m talking about 709, which is the big one. This creates a new offshore renewable energy (ORE) regime specifically for decommissioning rather than creating a general concept of decommissioning. It’s important to distinguish those things because there are also special powers within this bill that distinguish that sort of function from other ORE generation activities. For example, elsewhere in the bill there are provisions that say that a planning consent can be cancelled for generation of infrastructure, but decommissioning can’t be cancelled. So it makes sense to have those two regimes—that’s not the question. The question is: why is there not an equivalent regime for decommissioning other sorts of infrastructure? Reading through the definitions, that is also something which seems to have a special statutory power: waste facilities, quarries, mines, landfills, Huntly. Why is there not that specific power in the planning regime now, where decommissioning of that sort of assets hasn’t been provided for as well?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The honourable Minister. I understand the sound system’s working. I think it was the direction of the microphone, but give me the thumbs up.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (19:47): It might have been me. I was muttering away. My apologies for that.

Just to deal with a few of these issues. In relation to the member’s first question around the—let’s just call it the competitive land markets Amendment Paper (AP)—

Arena Williams: Yeah, OK. Good.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Cool—CULM, which is a tabled amendment. The member asked: does it affect Part 1? We’re just checking that. I think there might be a minor change there, but it’s largely later in the bill. But in the interests of debate and transparency and having a good heave-ho at it, I wanted to Table it as soon as possible.

Built environment: again, I was struggling a bit to understand where the member was going with this when it doesn’t exclude stadiums—stadiums are structures—it doesn’t exclude many of the things she said. I mean, it’s “all or any of the following: (a) people and communities: (b) land and the identified values and characteristics: (c) structures: (d) infrastructure: (e) the surface of water”. Of course, you take an ordinary statutory interpretation approach to all of the interpretative provisions, as you do in all legislation. Nothing really turns on that.

Arena Williams: It doesn’t seem to say buildings.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: It does; it says “structures”. Buildings are structures.

Arena Williams: Well—

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, they are. Look, sorry, but they are.

Hon Rachel Brooking: Helpful to have it on the Hansard.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): It’s on the record.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: OK. Well, if the Planning Bill fails on that one, then I’ll cop to that, but I’m not sure it’s going to fail.

Public and green spaces: I suspect we’re going to have a bit of debate about this. There’s nothing to stop the councils and those who do these sorts of things, from public realm improvements, from reserves, from parks, from public squares—nothing to stop that. The suggestion that there are prohibitions on that are wrong.

Decommissioning: again, I was not 100 percent sure where the member was going. The definition listed in the bill is an update, essentially, because when the bill was first drafted, we had the Offshore Renewable Energy Act 2026 pass, which now has passed, so it’s a cross-reference back to that in relation to the ORE generation infrastructure activities, or “ore”—but it’s the opposite of ore because it’s offshore renewable energy. But, you know, I found that amusing late last night.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (19:50): I’m happy for the Minister responsible for RMA Reform to explain his “ore” joke some more.

Hon Chris Bishop: Iron ore.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Oh, got it, thank you—thanks, thanks. Going back to the definition of infrastructure, where the Minister said that ownership is neither here or there, the point of my Amendment Paper 695 is to delete clause 3(a)(ii)(A), “the functioning of the economy”, because at the moment, how infrastructure is defined, it says, “is necessary to support any 1 or more of the following:”. One could simply be the functioning of the economy, so, presumably, a retail shop could therefore be defined as infrastructure. It means “a physical structure, facility, or network that—(i) performs a public function; or”—and this “or” is important, talking about “or”s—“is necessary to … (A) the functioning of the economy”. That seems to be an incredibly wide definition of infrastructure. Even if the Minister thinks that ownership is here nor there, it does seem to be opening infrastructure up to, say, shops.

Now, I’ve got two more points I’d like to raise in this contribution. One is that I should shortly have on the Table an amendment for “well-functioning urban environment” that goes to the point the Minister was just making about the importance of public space and that it’s very clear that councils are able to plan for it. This is particularly important when so much of this legislation is about, as the Government says, the enjoyment of private property rights—so, enabling people to build out almost all of their land, which means that there’s going to be more need for the green space that is often provided for on people’s private properties to be in public space.

Also, we’re worried, with settings and commentary around rates caps and those things, what is going to happen to this public sphere? How will it be funded? Does the Minister consider that there needs to be other tools to provide for that, particularly when we’re talking about intensification of areas, which, you know, I think is a good thing to be doing.

Then my third question for the Minister on these definitions is—and I know he’s already talked on the decommissioning and the offshore renewable energy, but are there any policy changes in the other changes that he’s made in his Amendment Paper—so not what went to select committee—except for, of course, the Mana Whakahono ā Rohe, which is, obviously, a very big policy change, but I think we’ll want to speak on that in a more substantive provision.

The three questions are: aside from the Mana Whakahono ā Rohe, does his Amendment Paper include policy changes to the definitions? Will he consider my “well-functioning urban environment” definition, that is more specific around the importance of public space and planning for place? And would he also consider my Amendment Paper 695, that removes the functioning of the economy from being one thing that can in itself define a physical structure as infrastructure?

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (19:54): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m at page 25, at iwi participation agreement. This definition is another question, really, about plain language phrase that the Amendment Paper seeks to define. So, first question is: what are we intending to do here by defining an iwi participation agreement? The answer isn’t as simple as, you know, an iwi participation agreement, on its normal reading, has to be something which is the sort of agreement which is entered into through proposed new clause 198A, because there are plenty of times where those words mean an agreement which is entered into by a local authority and an iwi organisation. For instance, agreements between Auckland’s Independent Māori Statutory Board (IMSB) and the iwi who appoint the members of the IMSB, or arrangements between the governance entity that manages the Ōrākei lands at Takaparawhā between local body and iwi representatives, and how they are appointed. Those are iwi participation agreements which exist between local authorities and the iwi, and they also involve an exercise of public power that is being exercised by the local authority. Then there are other sorts of iwi participation arrangements which will not involve the exercise of that sort of public power but will still exist between a local authority and an iwi.

The question is: firstly, are those iwi participation agreements that exist now more like the written documents which I think the Minister responsible for RMA Reform is envisioning under 198A—are they extinguished because they haven’t been entered into under the new process of 198A? Or, if you have been through a process which is similar to the process described in 198A, do they now exist, and is there sort of a savings provision between those arrangements that exist that are written down on paper and the new ones?

Second question is around those sorts of arrangements—the Ōrākei lands arrangements are a good example. They are not saved by his transitional arrangements in the statutory acknowledgments set out in Schedule 12. That statutory body is a creature of—it’s acknowledged in the settlement of the Tāmaki iwi that was made in 2020; that body has iwi participation arrangements and agreements that make it able to constitute itself. So those will continue to exist because they’re a creature of other legislation, but are councils sort of needing to formalise those arrangements again under this new regime, and why aren’t they saved by Schedule 12 if they don’t have to do that?

I also want to ask him particularly about things like right of first refusal land acquisitions: those do need documented iwi participation agreements because they are commercial arrangements about how iwi will participate in a council disposing of land where that land has a right of first refusal that has been granted in the past, either by a council or by the Crown. So do councils need to re-enter into those arrangements, or do they exist outside of the statutory meaning of an iwi participation agreement in this law? Those agreements are commercially valuable to iwi; they have a value. So are we now seeking to renegotiate the way that iwi participate in those, and how does the Minister sort of conceptualise—like, what is this provision trying to do if it doesn’t have any effect on those arrangements as they exist?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (19:58): The member has spent four minutes answering her own question. “Iwi participation agreements” means an agreement entered in accordance with proposed new clauses 198A to C. They’re not iwi participation agreements as defined by the Planning Bill. They are other types of agreements, but they are not iwi participation agreements as laid out in this bill. The member just has to read the bill. There’s a whole schema laid out in new clauses 198A to C, which her colleague said we were going to get into later, but, you know, there’s a schema there around what they look like and what they are allowed to include. They are, essentially, the replacement for the Mana Whakahono ā Rohe agreements that we have decided we should not continue with. So, right of first refusal (RFR), separate agreements that councils have got—you know, it’s all fine. It’s not relevant to this bill because they are separate creations; they are separate vehicles, mechanisms—whatever. So that deals with both those two issues, including the RFR acquisition issue.

In relation to Rachel Brooking’s points, look, I’m comfortable with the definition of infrastructure as it’s laid out. Of course, there is the ability through national policy direction and national standards to be more specific. That, I think, is an important point to bear in mind is that the bill is the bill, which will hopefully become an Act—the way the scheme is designed is national policy direction, of which we’ve published the first illustrative draft today—and I’d encourage members to have a look at this very coherent but yet comprehensive document that lays out direct—

Glen Bennett: Informercial.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: What’s that?

Glen Bennett: Informercial.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, OK. Anway, the national policy direction, which some people out there have been surprised to discover we already have under the Resource Management Act (RMA)—a national policy statement on renewal energy, for example, urban development, which members will be very familiar with. But it’s an attempt to bring much more coherency and structure to how we do national direction. So, of course, that will flesh out some of the stuff that’s in the bills. I suspect that will be a recurrent theme going through the debates over the next few hours.

In relation to public space, look, I don’t have a huge amount more to say then what I’ve already said, which is I’m a believer in public spaces. I think they are important. The bills do not distract away from the idea of public spaces, the public realm, parks and reserves, and placemaking by councils.

Hon Rachel Brooking: They don’t focus on them either.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: What’s that?

Hon Rachel Brooking: They don’t focus on them either.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, to be honest, that response and the sort of exchange, I think, neatly illustrates maybe one of the divides, which is the bill can’t do everything—that’s the whole point. The RMA sought to do literally everything and provide a statutory authority and directives here, there, and everywhere. That was actually part of the issue. So, yes, the legislation doesn’t say a lot about public spaces, but that’s not to say that public spaces aren’t important. Legislation does not have to speak to every element of every aspect of society—that’s potentially one of the dividing lines between us.

In relation to her very good question around policy changes in Amendment Paper 709, through the interpretation stuff, the answer is no. There are some minor tweaks and stuff like that, but not much.

HŪHANA LYNDON (Green) (20:02): Tēnā koe, Madam Chair. I wanted to ask the Minister some questions from the amendments tabled by my colleague Tamatha Paul around clause 3, looking at the iwi participation agreements that are to be developed. In her amendment, tabled at about 5 o’clock this afternoon, around clause 3, we’ve got “after subclause (b) to insert (c) to include hapū”. So for iwi Māori operating in the Resource Management Act (RMA) over a number of years, the voice of hapū marae have actually been those that have tangibly been doing a lot of the work in the RMA for a number of years. With the ability for us to add hapū in specifically, could provide the space for hapū groupings to come through and strengthen their relationship in a formal way to provide that mechanism to initiate those participation mechanisms with local council.

This would be a win because even under Mana Whakahono ā Rohe it was very iwi focused. In this legislation, we’re still very iwi focused again. So as a tono to the Minister, how can we provide space for hapū who are at place, who have that close relationship to whenua, to moana, to taonga, to be able to initiate those participation agreements and mechanisms through this bill and with local government into the future? That’s one pātai.

Then, the following amendment from Tamatha Paul, again under clause 3—same area. So we’ve done: insert (c) for hapū. I’d like to also recommend that we could look at the way that we could increase or enhance the way that we can define what a Māori person is in Aotearoa New Zealand and provide that additional definition. So in the amendment provided, subclause (c), under qualifying resident (d) “insert the definition does apply to a Māori person or entity as defined by section 2 of the Maori Community Development Act”. So in clause 3, after the heading of mana whenua, if we were to insert what Māori means—a person of the Māori race of New Zealand—could include also the descendants of. This could provide a helpful clarity in the bill in terms of the distinction between a qualifying resident and a distinction with tangata whenua or iwi Māori.

So those are a couple of tono from me. Knowing that hapū have that very close relationship and have working knowledge of the RMA of the past and they still currently have their hands on the steering wheel, but have nothing in statute to formalise that participation and the way that they can formalise their arrangements with local authorities. And then ensuring that we’re clear as to the distinction between Māori and the qualifying resident. Kia ora.

DAN ROSEWARNE (Labour) (20:06): Thank you, Madam Chair and Minister. I just have a question around clause 7(1)(a) and clause 7(1)(b). I found that quite interesting that the “Act does not apply to any of the following: (a) warships of any State other than New Zealand: [and] (b) aircraft of the defence forces of any State other than New Zealand:”. One thing that this House knows very well is that Kiwis take a keen interest in what warships from visiting forces actually have on board. When I think of a warship as I know it, they’ve got the electromagnetic spectrum, and if one is alongside and that spectrum management isn’t sorted, then it can shut down a whole cellular network. It also has things like HE for high-explosive munitions aboard, and large quantities of fuel, which is quite a concern for Kiwis. I was just wondering what your thoughts were around that, particularly if you could explain what environmental risks that you see could arise from exempting foreign Government ships and military aircraft from this legislation.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (20:07): Thank you. Well, let’s deal with the last question first. It’s a direct carry over from the Resource Management Act 1991—no changes there. I think it is what it is—it’s sensible.

In relation to the question from the Green member earlier, there is no definition of hapū authorities. The bill includes requirements for consultation with iwi authorities on national instruments and plans; iwi authority being defined as the authority that represents an iwi and it is recognised by that iwi as having authority to do so. I’m also not supportive of Ms Paul’s amendment. We believe that there is adequate participation provided for for Māori through the clauses in their interpretation clause, in the clause that we’re talking about, and the other forgoing provisions.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai) (20:08): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just coming back to the definitions, we had a substantive Amendment Paper from the Minister, 709, drop not too long ago, so I just have a series of questions that affect both clause 3 and clause 6. I just was wondering why significant non-compliance as a definition—this is on page 30 of the Amendment Paper—has been deleted in the Minister’s Amendment Paper. Then there were some amendments made by the select committee to that definition, but now it’s just been totally deleted.

Clause 6(5) through to (12), which have a lot of detail around enforcement orders, infringement notices, offences under the Act, all of that’s been deleted. I’m just wondering if the Minister can tell us, has that been moved to a different part of the bills?

Hon Chris Bishop: What clauses are you talking about?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Clause 3, the definition of significant non-compliance on page 30—it’s at the very bottom of the page. This is on the Amendment Paper 709. Then clause 6(5) through (12), and that’s on pages 35 and 36 of the Minister’s Amendment Paper 709. I can keep going with questions.

I guess I’ll just use the rest of this call to reiterate concerns around the definition of “infrastructure” and whether, in the context of planning rules, infrastructure should be somewhat limited to something that is performing a public function. That would be, under the definition of infrastructure on page 24, Amendment Paper 709, under clause 3, definition of infrastructure, subclause (a), paragraph (i), having “performs a public function;” and “is necessary to support any 1 or more of the following:” would make sense. Because in the context in which we’re talking about infrastructure, it’s almost always in the context of it having some sort of wider public function, not a strictly private function.

That’s the context in which we would have designations and planning rules and try to accommodate infrastructure, right? As if it’s serving some sort of more broad function than just one for a private landowner. I’m just curious why we wouldn’t have an “and” in that definition and in subclause (b) under infrastructure—same situation. Just, you know, whether it’s a natural feature or a physical structure or a facility or a network, it would perform a public or semi-public function “and” is necessary for, one of the other, (A), (B), (C), or (D).

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (20:11): Very briefly, we’ve kind of canvassed the infrastructure debate and I’m comfortable with the definition that is in the bill.

In relation to the member’s previous question, I’m advised that “significant non-compliance” is contextual and best defined using a dictionary definition of “significance” applied to the context relevant to the non-compliance. In plain English, that means it’s very hard to define through a bill what significant non-compliance is. I mean, you either comply or you don’t comply, and then it’s either significant or it isn’t, and we’re just relying on the ordinary construction of that to apply when it comes to non-compliance and a judgment as to whether or not that is significant or not. So essentially not defining it in the bill, so it’s a drafting thing that decided.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) (20:12): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to make the first of a few interventions on the question of competitive urban land markets, which is one of the features of this bill. There are many things in this bill and its companion that Labour does not support—and I think members will know we’ll be voting against the bill, but the provisions—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Could you please point me to the page that you’re on?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Yeah. I’m going to be speaking to Part 1, clauses 2 and 3.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Thank you.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: But the provisions on competitive land markets are ones that we do support. I just want to note that I think the cross-party consensus around competitive land markets, and how essential they are to housing affordability, to the productivity of our cities, is a real bright spot in this policy area of housing and of our cities over recent years.

In relation to Part 1, clause 2, I just really want to question in fact the decision that has been made to allow commencement of these provisions to happen, triggered by some future executive decision. I’d be interested to hear from the Minister responsible for RMA Reform why that has been chosen. I worry that some future colleague who is the Minister who may not be committed to this particular area of work would have the option open to them just to let it sit indefinitely. That’s not something that we would like to see, so why does it—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): We’re just checking: clause 2 is the preliminary clause—

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Yeah.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): So we’re actually on Part 1. We’re not—

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Oh, I beg your pardon. I was speaking to—OK. All right, I shall leave it then. I’ll come back to it.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (20:14): Thank you. [Interruption] He was saying a nice theme there.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I was trying to find it.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Madam Chair. The purpose—I’m moving on now to clause 4. I’ve finished with the definitions, and this normally would be in a very important clause in the legislation, but here it’s surprisingly not. It’s: “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 land.”

It is clearly the intention of this Government to be a totally enabling Act, and “enjoyment of land” is an interesting turn of phrase—that’s probably new to New Zealand legislation. But I have an Amendment Paper, and that is Amendment Paper 693, and that is to amend the purpose and that is to be: “The purpose of this Act is to enable development, high-quality infrastructure, and primary sector growth within the environmental protections provided for by the Natural Environment Act 2025.”

I’m wondering if the Minister responsible for RMA Reform could comment on my proposed amendment and why it is that his legislation doesn’t do that knitting together, that integration. I know Simon Court has made statements before that he is opposed to the integration and that these bills represent the end of integrated management in New Zealand. Would the Minister consider an amendment to the purpose clause to reference those environmental protections that are supposedly found in his Natural Environment Bill? That is my question on the purpose clause.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (20:16): Madam Chair, thank you. The purpose of the bill is an important provision. The purpose clause is a descriptive clause of what the bill does, and it does not have a decision-making role throughout the system. That is provided through the specific provisions based on the funnel approach, which members—certainly members who have sat on the Environment Committee—will be familiar with. We start with goals, then you move to national policy direction, then down through standards, down through spatial plans and land use plans, down to individual consenting level. One of the central aims of the legislation is to avoid the endless re-litigation about what the purpose of the Planning Bill or the Natural Environment Bill purposes are.

The Resource Management Act (RMA) has produced a situation where everybody has to cite the purpose clause of the RMA and we end up with endless debates about what “sustainable management” means. The purpose clause of this legislation is a descriptive clause. It does not have a role in decision making through the system. Instead, we do that through the specific provisions based on the funnel approach.

The member makes a comment about the enjoyment of land being a change, and that’s deliberate. Central government policy—certainly of this Government—is to elevate property rights in the system. The member might notice that there is not a broad reference to property rights in the legislation. The way we have decided to emphasise that is by talking about—or at least focusing on—the enjoyment of land, which means being able to have the freedom to use land and not be unreasonably affected by other land uses.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson) (20:18): Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to jump possibly slightly ahead—but noting that I’m sure colleagues have still got questions on other clauses—but this is just in relation to my portfolio of oceans and fisheries. It’s Part 1, page 41 of the Minister responsible for RMA Reform’s Amendment Paper 709, and we’re looking at clause 10B, “Rules that control fishing”. I just want to turn first to 10B(1), which states that “No instrument made under this Act may include a rule that controls fishing within the coastal marine area.” I’m quite interested in this quite specific clause on the back of conversations around the Fisheries Amendment Bill, which has been stalled. There has been significant discussion around biodiversity impacts around fishing rules, around quota, but also around where fishing can occur—so not just the numbers, but which parts of the various parts of the system.

I understand that under the Resource Management Act, regional councils do have the role to be able to restrict fishing within the coastal marine area on very narrow grounds. Those narrow grounds are around maintaining indigenous biodiversity. This clause looks to be far more permissive than what is currently within the rules. It has been quite a hot topic of conversation. In fact, it’s a pretty hot topic of conversation at the moment, when you think about what’s happening with whitebait down the Waimakariri.

And so, I’m interested in understanding from the Minister—because the challenge we’ve got is this piece hasn’t gone through select committee, and so as the spokesperson, I don’t get the opportunity, through colleagues who sit on the Environment Committee, to ask these questions further around exactly why this has been done. Has there been lobbying from people in order to include this so that, essentially, no restrictions can be applied by a regional council? At the moment, they can apply a restriction, but it is very narrow. That’s appropriate, because we often look at—and this has been a really important discussion as part of the Fisheries Amendment Bill, which colleagues from the National Party have actually participated in in a really useful way: it’s not just around stock A, and how stock A and stock B might interact with each other; it’s actually the entire biodiversity of how fisheries stock interact with the sea floor—the kelp, the other creatures and critters that are in that part of the coastal marine environment. So I’m really interested—this is a very hot topic of conversation.

If you look further at new clause 10B(2), it appears, just on my reading—and, again, this is the challenge of not being able to interrogate this at select committee. My reading looks like this mostly interacts with the Fisheries Act—well, not so much with the Fisheries Act, but with other Acts that provide customary fishing. I’d just be interested in the Minister’s response on that. Then, the definition in new clause 10B(3) gives, essentially, a definition of what the instrument is. The reason I’ve asked about this is when we talk about regional spatial plans and draft regional spatial plans, I assume that those are the types of spatial plans that a regional council would be putting in place that would make these types of applications.

I’m certainly interested in new clause 10B(1), as it looks more permissive than what regional councils can currently do. That is of concern to me as spokesperson, particularly in the context of the conversations we’ve been having around the Fisheries Act and the need for us to maintain a, what we call, an ecosystem approach within that Act. That’s been a matter of controversy. There are a lot of examples that are out there in the public domain, and, I think, a better understanding now across the House of how fisheries operate with us in these environments—that it isn’t just a straightforward, “Look at how much fish you have and how much you take away and how much you’re left with.” It’s actually about how everything within the ocean environment interacts with each other—and, of course, how land and water use and the land-based environment impacts on what’s happening in the coastal environment.

I’m interested in the Minister’s comments on the reason for new clause 10B(2) being introduced, but, most specifically, I would like a robust—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): We’ve got the question. He’s actually just waiting to answer your question.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (20:23): Let me just firstly deal with Julie Anne Genter’s question from—I don’t know—20 minutes or so ago in relation to clause 6(5) to (12) on Amendment Paper 709. I’m advised that that has actually moved, rather than being deleted, to clause 27(1)(a). So there you go.

Righty-o. On the fisheries: we’ve made a decision, which was reflected in the bill—or it’s the Amendment Paper now—but councils will no longer be able to make planning rules that control fishing in the coastal marine area. Basically, we’re trying to reduce the regulatory overlap with the Fisheries Act. What we’ve been seeing is the Resource Management Act (RMA) kind of creeping into the fisheries space and the Government’s view is that, essentially, the Fisheries Act should deal with fisheries, and the Planning Bill and the Natural Environment Bill—hopefully, Acts—will deal with the environmental effects, will deal with everything else. And so, under the changes made by the Government Amendment Paper, councils will no longer be able to make planning rules that control fishing in the coastal marine area.

There are existing RMA fishing controls that have been made to protect values in the coastal marine area, such as biodiversity and natural character. Natural character is now being dealt with through the Planning Bill, and so the Planning Bill needs to clarify that rules that control fishing are excluded, in addition to being excluded under the Natural Environment Bill. Current council fishing controls in Northland, Bay of Plenty, and Marlborough will remain in place during the transition period until the new system comes online—estimated for 2030—as part of their respective RMA plans. Existing RMA plan-change processes involving proposed fishing controls and plans that are not subject to plan stop will also continue to progress during the transition period.

The Government’s decision does not remove the requirement to manage the environmental effects of fishing. The Government’s view is that these controls should be considered through fisheries legislation and other marine protection frameworks, rather than through council planning rules. For example, the purpose of the Fisheries Act includes providing for the utilisation of fisheries resources while ensuring sustainability. So, basically, we’re just seeking to roll the fisheries into the Fisheries Act.

LAN PHAM (Green) (20:25): Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s a real pleasure to be able to be part of sparking off this assessment of bills which hold such serious implications for the entire country and for our future. I want to particularly start with questioning the Minister about the purpose statement of the Planning Bill, because what was absolutely clear from the information and the advice that we were provided with at the Environment Committee was that the descriptions of the purpose clauses across both bills, but particularly this planning one, is that it is a purpose clause with no purpose.

I think the thing that I really want to understand with the assessment of this and where the Government has actually got to in deciding to retain where they are with the purpose clause of the Planning Bill, is why it was not considered that, for example, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment specifically put in front of us—and I’m sure it has made its way to the Minister—very clear suggestions for how these bills, particularly this Planning Bill, could actually provide clarity and direction and have a purpose with a purpose.

We currently have that 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 land”. Now, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment raises the question, as did many submitters across the committee stage, of whose enjoyment and for what purposes. As the Government insists that this is going to be practical and pragmatic and this is going to provide certainty in all these things, the enjoyment of land is not one that many people anticipate is something that provides that certainty. The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment has suggested the purpose of this Act is “to enable development, high-quality infrastructure, and primary-sector growth within the environmental protections provided for by the Natural Environment Act”. Now, that would actually spawn integration. It would actually spawn direction.

Why has the Minister changed so many things about the bills in these last-minute amendments and not gone to the primary purposes that would actually offer some direction, some workability? I’d really like to hear that, because I think it’s such a critical area where these bills have gone wrong.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (20:29): I’ve spent about three to four minutes on this a couple of times now. We’re deliberately having a descriptive purpose clause that does not—I mean, the member says we might as well not even have one. I mean, that’d be great, to be honest, but the whole point is to not end up with endless debate in the courts and councils and through individual consent applications around what the purpose of the planning bill is, but if that ends up happening, we’ll have failed. We’re trying to get away from that, and so it’s a descriptive clause that does the bare minimum. It does what it says on the tin: provides for the enjoyment of land, establishes a framework. Essentially, another way of putting it is that it’s a framework clause. It basically says, “There’s a framework for that. See the rest of the Act or the bill, see the national policy direction, see the national standards for planning and regulating the use of planning.”

The member makes a claim that she doesn’t know anyone who anticipates the enjoyment of land as something that people might want to do—well, respectfully, that might be her perspective.

Lan Pham: So what does it mean?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Respectfully, the idea of property rights, I would argue, is fundamental to a modern market-based economy and the utilisation of land is an important thing.

The member says, “Why did I not listen to the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment?”. Well, I’ve got huge respect for the Rt Hon Simon Upton, but he is not the oracle. The fact that he has been involved in the Resource Management Act (RMA) for 30 years and is the author of the modern RMA means that he knows a lot about it, but it does not mean that he is an oracle. Ministers and the Government are entitled to disagree with him. I agree with him on many things, but his suggested purpose clause is, essentially, just a modern-day version of the RMA purpose clause, which is partly why we are in this mess. We are deliberately taking a different approach and we stand by that.

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Labour) (20:31): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. For all of those people who are tuned in tonight looking for a reform of the Resource Management Act (RMA) and refinement, I’d just like them to look at this pile of paper here, which is what this Government is trying to pass. In referring to Part 1 here, I’d like to point to—well, the Minister was trying to explain his way out of why he should utilise the term “enjoyment”. If ever there’s a “woke” terminology, it’s “enjoyment”, and I’m absolutely flabbergasted as someone who has been a farmer and someone who actually loves the land and really wants to have a bit.

If the Minister, as he explained, was setting a framework, and if it was, as he said, to protect property rights, then why not put it in the purpose? Why not state it here if the objective of the Government is to protect property rights? There’s not just individual property rights; there’s public property rights and there are wider property rights. My question to him is: please explain more about “enjoyment”, because I know people who have land and their enjoyment of the land is digging it up. I know people who own land and their enjoyment of the land is grazing animals on it. I know people who own land and enjoyment is planting trees.

There are many, many ways of enjoying land, but what the Minister has said is that the primary objective or the purpose is not to allow all those things, because I can tell you what—the member over there will understand: if he’s a farmer and the person next door starts planting trees, he’d be the first one to jump up and down and object. He’ll say, “My property rights are being impacted by my neighbour.” If the Minister is trying to set up a framework, then make it clear. If indeed, as the clause says, “by establishing a framework for planning and regulating the use and development of land.”—for who? Is it for the person who owns the land now or the person who might own the land in the future? Is it for the individual or is it for society? Very, very vague. The people in this country who thought there was going to be an improvement to the RMA—I’m sorry, but they’re sadly being misled.

This is the paperwork for the Minister in the Government’s new RMA reforms—ridiculous. I’m not a lawyer, thank God—there are plenty of them here in the House—but this is going to be a wonderful, wonderful circus and celebration. If the purpose of the bill is so “woke” and so vague and sets up a framework, imagine the opportunities for legal debate and disputes when this passes through.

Hon Rachel Brooking: You don’t need to be a lawyer to think that.

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: You don’t, indeed. Even someone like myself, who just wants to enjoy my land—well, the way I’ll enjoy the land is probably grazing, planting a few trees, but, as I say, I’ve got plenty of mates who want to dig it up. Digging it up now—will that enable the enjoyment of the land by future generations? Probably not. This is such a “woke” and weird purpose clause, I don’t know what planet the Minister is on. If he genuinely thinks that this is going to provide more clarity for people who are lucky enough to own land and own property, he’s dreaming.

The question to the Minister, once again, is: how can he ensure that enjoyment of the land will be enduring, or is it indeed his and the Government’s objective that the enjoyment of the land is only for the people who own that land now, and not into the future?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (20:36): I thank the Labour list MP based in West Coast—or maybe’s Otago, or wherever it is these days—for his weird, weird statements. First time I’ve ever been called “woke”—so there you go. First time I’ve ever heard the word “enjoyment” as “woke”.

I think this issue’s been well canvassed. I’ve said about three or four times now how we are approaching the purpose clause. The member complains about the length of the bill; he may be interested to know that from, I think it’s page 517 onwards, they are consequential amendments to other legislation that will fall away once the bill passes and won’t become part of the final Act, so if that makes him feel better, that’s good—although, based on that last rant, I suspect not.

Hon Damien O'Connor: What page? 500?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Something like that. There’s the back end of it—it’s all the consequentials; the member can look it up. I’d also encourage him to look up the national policy direction, which he clearly is unaware of. In fact, it’s really clear from his comments around not being a lawyer that he also doesn’t understand how even the Resource Management Act (RMA) works. Anyway, I’ve said enough around the purpose clause.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (20:37): Thank you, Madam Chair. Very briefly on this purpose clause and the Minister’s comments—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): And we will make it brief, because the Minister’s actually answered purpose a few times.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: I know, but he has not answered the question that I’m about to ask, which is: he has referred to the court cases taken under the Resource Management Act (RMA), which have deciphered what the purpose of the RMA is; is he saying that there will be no such court cases about this purpose statement, particularly with regard to this novel term “enjoyment” that we’ve just heard a contribution about? I’ll leave it there—[Members stand to seek call]—on that point. I want to now move on to a different clause.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): All your colleagues were standing up!

Arena Williams: I just really support her!

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: I would like to move on to clause 8, which is the Treaty of Waitangi clause. What we have here is a big change from the RMA in terms of the RMA having a general Treaty clause, also at section 8, and this one does not. I have Amendment Paper 690, which is to add in, at clause 8, after the heading, “(1) All persons exercising powers and performing functions and duties under this Act must give effect to the principles of te Tiriti o Waitangi.” I would like the Minister to consider that, and he may also want to comment on an issue that I’m going to raise in the subsequent clauses about how this legislation goes backwards for Māori compared with the Resource Management Act—not compared with the Labour legislation that we did last term with the Greens, but how it compares with the RMA, and then that goes to the equivalence.

But I’ll leave the contribution there on: will he consider having a general Treaty clause as this legislation has had, and does he accept that the removal of both a general Treaty clause but also the equivalent of section 6E from the RMA, plus all his changes that he’s about to make to Mana Whakahono ā Rohe, plus there being no environmental limits—but we’ll get to that in the next bill—means that it’s very difficult to determine equivalence.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (20:39): Very, very briefly, whether or not there are court cases is not an issue for me. I suspect there’ll be some, but I’m not intending to make a forecast in relation to that.

Hon Rachel Brooking: Oh, but you commented on it in the other speech.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Oh well, not this time.

In relation to the Treaty of Waitangi, clause 8 has been very carefully drafted. It’s a descriptive Treaty clause that lists the specific provisions that recognises the Crown’s obligations under the Treaty in the Planning Bill. You may notice it is not a generic Treaty provision, à la Treaty principles provisions. It’s quite a specific descriptive Treaty clause and it lays out that to recognise the Crown’s responsibilities in relation to the Treaty, there is a Māori interests goal, which we’ll get to in Part 2. There is Māori participation in the development of national instruments, regional spatial plans, and land use plans—that’s important—and identification and protection of sites of significance to Māori and waahi tapu water bodies, sites in or on the coastal marine area, and the development and protection of identified Māori land.

We’ve gone through quite a careful process around this. It’s my view—and I accept that members will have a differing view—as I said, in my role as Attorney-General about a month or so ago to the Law Association, that Parliament needs to be more deliberate and specific about what we mean by giving effect to the Treaty. What obligations and duties are we seeking to impose on decision makers and how do we expect the system to function. My view is that a reluctance to actually do the thinking about these issues has led us to a shortcut, which is just Treaty principles—just “Oh, give effect to the Treaty.” or “Give effect to Treaty principles.”—

Hon Rachel Brooking: That’s not section 6(e)—that’s not Mana Whakahono ā Rohe.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, you asked about a Treaty clause, and I’m just giving you my general contextual views.

The harder job is to do what we’ve done, which is figure out exactly how the system should work for everyone, including Māori. Do I think the system should provide a vehicle for iwi to participate in regional spatial plans? Well, yes, I do. Do I think there should be a vehicle for the identification of ancient burial grounds or historic pā sites or sites of particular significance for whatever cultural reason to our tangata whenua? The answer is yes. The system we have designed will make that clear and provide for that to happen. So we’ve gone through quite a careful delineation exercise around that. I appreciate that members opposite will have a different view, but I think we have done a pretty good job of clarifying all of that and laying that out in quite some detail, both through the bill, but, also, if the member picks up and reads the national policy direction planning system document, you will see a range of things that flesh that out in a bit further details. Then there are standards to come as well—so national standards to come around some of that stuff as well.

STEVE ABEL (Green) (20:43): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. On the Treaty of Waitangi section that has just been referred to and the Minister responsible for RMA Reform’s been speaking to: Minister, regarding the very specific point around national instruments and creation of those, the process for making a national instrument—we’re on page 37 of Amendment Paper 709—in the earlier iteration of the bill, I’m not sure when, I can tell from the reported-back bill from the Environment Committee, clause 8(b), the original wording said it would require the Minister to consult with iwi authorities on a draft or summary of a proposed national instrument. In this Amendment Paper, that has become “seek comment”. It strikes us that that is the weakest and most meaningless requirement or imposition on the Minister. It’s not “consult”, it’s not “take into account”, it’s far from “give effect to Te Tiriti”; it is simply “seek comment”. Can you explain to us how such an insipid and weak imposition on the Minister as “seek comment” can in any way give effect to a meaningful relationship between Māori and the Crown, let alone give effect to our founding agreement?

Secondly, in paragraph (c) of that same clause 8, in relation to spatial plans, also in the earlier iteration of the bill reported back to the House, remained an expectation that the spatial plan committee of the region prepare and change their regional spatial plan in accordance with any applicable iwi participation legislation, any agreement under that legislation, and any Mana Whakahono ā Rohe. Obviously, in this Amendment Paper, Mana Whakahono ā Rohe has been struck out. Can you additionally explain, Minister, how it is possible or beneficial for these long-term relationship arrangements between a regional council and a local iwi to strike them out and require them to be renegotiated? I understand from your commentary in the media on this that the argument is that we’ve got a new planning regime and we need to start from scratch on those things. Surely there’s a version of how the Minister accommodates the change in the planning regime that doesn’t wipe out those arrangements and those agreements, which are yet another example of a Government that has consistently undermined and undone the health of that relationship between the Crown and Māori and between regional councils and Māori.

It’s like a snake slithering in the grass in terms of the ability of iwi to have some sense of constancy and certainty in the mechanism or the means by which they achieve fulfilment of their desires for self-determination or tino rangatiratanga if the Crown is being this slithering object, changing the rules, removing agreements that have been made and striking them out. Can he give us some indication of why you have taken that choice and what other options he considered in how to manage those existing agreements, which it seems—and we have heard from councils—no one was asking to be got rid of, except the Taxpayers’ Union or the “Race Baiters’ Unions” as I know them.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (20:48): Thank you, Mr Chair. Going back to the Minister responsible for RMA Reform’s answer about clause 8, he said the harder job is to specify the details rather than to have a general clause. With that in mind, and also with section 6(e) of the Resource Management Act not being replicated here, and Mana Whakahono ā Rohe going, how can he explain the equivalence clauses in clauses 9 and 10? How can there be equivalence is my question. Then, while I see the Minister’s interested in this issue, can he also go through Part 1—these clauses in the main part; there’s not very many of them left, but a lot of them are new or there have been changes. So can he explain to us the policy changes that appear in front of us in the tracked-change version?

Hon Chris Bishop: In relation to what?

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: In relation to all of these clauses from 8 to the end of Part 1. You’ve already discussed the fisheries one—so 10(a).

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (20:49): Oh, right. Well, I can take a brief call. I mean, Steve Abel’s speech was a long-winded lament for the Mana Whakahono ā Rohe agreements. The reason we got rid of them is they’re not scoped to the new system. The iwi participation agreements that are in this bill will be tightly focused on their role and some of the roles that I’ve just talked about—for example, identification of sites of significance, participation in national instruments, and things like that. The member can see that for himself. That’s not to say that there aren’t pre-existing relationships—and, actually, there were only eight of them until the Government decided to change the planning system, at which point there was an explosion in interest, and maybe we should have seen that one coming. But we didn’t, and so that’s on me, I suppose.

The member Rachel Brooking made a point around clauses 9 and 10, and we’ve spent quite a bit of time in relation to these provisions. The issue of equivalent effect of Treaty settlements is distinct from broader obligations to provide for Māori participation, as I think the member knows, and the member made a point around the deletion of section 6(e) of the Resource Management Act (RMA), and—I mean, the point is that in clause 9, and then clause 10, it’s there in black and white, which is that it is an arrangement which operates with the same or equivalent effect to the greatest extent possible under this bill and the Natural Environment Bill. That’s an interpretation, and I accept that, but it’s a clear indication of Parliament’s intent for the Crown to uphold its end of the bargain when it comes to Treaty settlements.

New clause 10A on Amendment Paper 709 is Te Ture Whaimana, where we have agreed with the river iwi, with Te Ture Whaimana being the primary direction-setting document for the Waikato and Waipā rivers and activities within their catchments. That’s part of the Treaty settlement and the Waikato River Act of 2008, I think it is—or it might be 2010, sorry—and the related arrangements there. We’ve reached agreement with Tainui to port that specifically into the Planning Bill, with their agreement, and there’s been some agreement over what the words are.

One of the Government’s core objectives in designing this legislation was to not undermine settlements and to not breach the Crown’s settlement obligations reached in good faith that have been legislated for over many years. Now, the member will appreciate that she and her Government of the day faced the same challenge because many of the settlements were signed under the Resource Management Act. There is a view—it’s not a view that I share, but there is a view—that, because of that, the RMA must remain stuck in formaldehyde for ever and that because we signed it under the RMA—

Arena Williams: Who thinks that?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: There are people who say that.

Hon Rachel Brooking: We don’t.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, that’s good, but I’m just saying that there are some people who say that. But that can’t be true as a proposition of law, and it also can’t be true as a general principle.

The next question after that is: well, how on earth do you change the underlying planning legislation but also give effect to settlements at the same time? The answer is clauses 9 and 10 and the subsequent provisions in the Planning Bill—you know, I think it does the job. Other members may have a different view, but I think it’s good, and there’s still a long way to go on some of this stuff.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (20:53): Thank you, Mr Chair. I have a little question on that, and then I just want to ask the Minister responsible for RMA Reform—thank you for the explanation of where new clause 10A came from. He said there had been some negotiations with Tainui—the settled iwi—and that the words came from those negotiations. Given there are many other settlements, has the Minister been through those same conversations about other settlements, and can we expect that, before we end our committee stage on this bill, there will be more amendments to do what has been done for Tainui to the other settlement groups?

Simon Court: The river iwi.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: You’re quite right: all of the river iwi. My apologies.

HŪHANA LYNDON (Green) (20:54): Hello. Thank you—awesome. We heard from the Minister responsible for RMA Reform about how some agreements should be locked in formaldehyde and upheld. I think, when Māori sign Treaty settlements, they think those are full and final and binding on all parties. But what we saw in submissions—and we’re referring to clause 10—was that, largely, the majority of Māori opposed what was being sought in the clauses, because it diluted and practically weakened or undermined their settlements. I’m trying to understand whereby there is a bit of iwi input, seeking their comment.

The main concerns coming through from iwi submitters was that the post-settlement governance entities (PSGEs) had said in submissions that they sought to remove the wording “to the greatest extent possible” in clause 10 and considered the implementation of the new system should not begin until agreements are reached with PSGEs on how their settlement redress would be given equivalent effect. In hearing that, we’ve got an amendment that takes into consideration Tainui’s interests in the settlement in relation to Te Ture Whaimana and Waikato River—just noting that there’s Tuwharetoa, there’s Ngāti Raukawa, there’s Te Arawa; all those other iwi. I’m keen to understand how the Minister spoke with the other iwi of interest with Waikato River and Waipā River to get their agreement for that amendment—so tautoko. I would love to hear that. If we’re saying that we can reach agreements and come up with amendments, as my colleague the Hon Rachel Brooking has already shared, for one particular piece of redress, at what point are the other PSGEs, who have reached settlement, who are active participants in the previous RMA iterations, now moving forward into the new system? How are they going to see an equivalent of effect being given to their settlements?

Now, local government, including Taituarā, Hawke’s Bay, Napier, Upper Hutt City Council, all expressed concerns about clause 10 giving inappropriate delegations to council: the responsibility then to determine what the “same or equivalent effect” requirement is on the given settlement. They’re an administration function of the system, and they argued that the understanding of how settlements are given effect to is between the Crown and iwi Māori; it’s not for councils to relitigate what a settlement is and how it applies in their rohe. PSGEs had vast—vast—deep concerns about clause 10. They even raised the fact that there is a disproportionate burden on them to work to support the transition of their settlement redress into the new system, into this whole new framework. Is there going to be any resource to support that—the building blocks of it? I raise that because I have a well-formed understanding of the issues around Mana Whakahono ā Rohe. The legislation was provided, but the resource was not. Legislation was there, iwi groupings entered into the Mana Whakahono, but there wasn’t a dollar to be seen to support iwi participation and capacity to give effect to the opportunity of what Mana Whakahono is. As we move into this new system, which apparently we’ve got to go contort and we’ve got to find a way to fit into the way that the system is going to speak to us or give us some type of consideration, is there going to be a dollar available in resourcing for iwi Māori in this space?

These are some initial questions, because I would like to go in and understand further, around Te Ture Whaimana, how Ngāti Raukawa, how Te Arawa, how Ngāti Tuwharetoa were all consulted in the way that you’ve reached your amendment.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (20:59): I think it would be fair to say that upholding settlements has been a key policy decision underlying these reforms, especially part of the coalition agreements that formed the Government, so we’ve worked really hard to try to land a position that upholds the settlements. The member can see that reflected in the bills. There have been discussions that have taken place with PSGEs across the country on how to do this. I wouldn’t claim that I have done that personally always, but I have met with many. Staff from the former Ministry for the Environment, the now Ministry of Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport, have done that and will continue to do that.

Ms Brooking asked before around the river iwi, and I can tell her, for the committee’s edification, there are also agreements that have been reached with Ngā hapū o Ngāti Porou; the Whanganui River and Ngāti Rangi. They are included in the bills in a similar way to Te Ture Whaimana, and they are included in the consequentials rather than upfront in clause 10A. Clause 9 applies once the bill passes—clause 9 applies to the Crown in relation to other settlement redress and other arrangements. I worked hard on it. I appreciate not all members will agree with it, but I think it’s a good landing pad to move forward as a country.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) (21:00): Thank you, Mr Chairman. Just a query about the definitions in clause 3. There’s no definition anywhere in the bill that I can see or in Amendment Paper 709 that we received at 7.30 this evening of “competitive urban land markets”. I just am curious, given this is a relatively new area of work, why that decision was made. There is a very good definition that I’m sure the Minister responsible for RMA Reform will be familiar with. Competitive urban land markets means a market in which the supply of land responds to demand such that land prices at both the margin of urban expansion and of urban intensification do not persistently or materially exceed the total of the current market price of the land plus the costs to deploy that land in the higher-value use. Very good working definition, but it doesn’t appear anywhere on the bill or the Minister’s Amendment Paper, and I’m curious as to why.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (21:02): I thank the member for his contribution; shoutout to the competitive urban land market legends watching the committee, and the urban nerds who helped us craft this bipartisan consensus on the idea that competitive land markets are fundamental to productivity growth and prosperity, and I thank the member for his contribution towards that over many years.

I have a great degree of sympathy for his position that the definition should be enshrined in primary legislation. We ran into some difficulty around it.

Hon Phil Twyford: Overridden by officials.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, not because it’s not impossible to define it, but syncing it up with the way in which it would work in the legislation presented some challenges. My personal view—I can’t believe I’m saying this, given we haven’t even passed these bills—is it would be good to come back to, to have it enshrined in legislation.

It will be defined and given greater clarity through national policy direction and national standards, and I encourage the member to have a look at New Zealand’s new planning system which provides an extensive array of directives to enable competitive land market spatial plans, abundant development opportunities—[drops papers] excuse me, my apologies; it will teach me to bring down a stapled copy—and I’m sure we’ll get into that later on, but I encourage the member to have a look at it. We had a good look at it, and it’s difficult legally but I reckon we can get there in the end.

LAN PHAM (Green) (21:03): Thank you, Mr Chair. I just had a quick question of clarification from the Minister responsible for RMA Reform, particularly around Mana Whakahono ā Rohe. Was he saying, you know—because it was a shock to everyone, particularly those of us on the Environment Committee where we had been, in good faith, supporting and moving through the retention of Mana Whakahono ā Rohe and then just suddenly, within hours, it being removed. Was the Minister saying just earlier that it was the sites of significance for Māori and the—was he implying that there would be a barrier to moving those over into the new system as to the reason as to why they were getting rid of it?

Hon Chris Bishop: No, the opposite.

LAN PHAM: It would be great if the Minister could clarify.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (21:04): No, the opposite. I’ll say the opposite. I mean, I think those things are important and they should be part of the new planning system. In fact, they are part of the new planning system. The issue with the Mana Whakahono ā Rohe agreement is—I mean, I’d encourage the member to actually go and read them.

Lan Pham: Yeah.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, OK. Good on you. Most people haven’t. They are extensively layered documents, creating endless obligations for everyone in the system—all sorts of things that are just simply not part of the new system. People kind of neglected that, I think, when they were going and arranging them and debating them and having endless discussions around them. All of that stuff was going to fall out of the new system anyway because they were only ever going to be relevant to the extent that they were possible in the new system anyway. We just thought, “Look better to make a clean break of it. Have these iwi participation agreements.” It’s not to say that those relationships aren’t important. It’s not to say that Sites and Areas of Significance to Māori aren’t important. They are important. I think the member may have confused me or maybe it’s late and maybe I confused her and others.

The opposite is the case of what she was saying. They are important and there should be an ability for the system to recognise those relationships—the appropriate places, the iwi participation agreements—in the new system because they’re in the new system rather than the old. Look, I accept there’s a bit of friction as we get through this because it’s a bit like the plan stop process where you’ve got one old system, you’ve moving to a new system; there’s stuff in the middle, there are a bunch of plan changes that are kind of in the middle, which, what do you do with them? We’re sort of muddling our way through there. I’ve allowed some to go ahead; I’ve said no to some others. There’s no perfect solution to any of this stuff.

Hon Rachel Brooking: You said no to the ones that are about water pollution.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: What’s that?

Hon Rachel Brooking: You’ve said no to the ones about water pollution.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: No, that’s not true—no, that’s not correct. It’s all on the Ministry for the Environment or Ministry for Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport website; that’s not correct, but, I mean, I’m not going to lie to the committee. They’re difficult decisions. They’re finely balanced judgement calls, but at some level, you have to say, “Well, the old is ending and the new is beginning.”

Hon Rachel Brooking: In 2030.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, no. Firstly, some things come into effect immediately or nearly immediately. Then there’s transitional national rules, then there’s a national policy direction. The transition starts the moment the bills end; the transition is already under way. Without doing a Fitzgerald v Muldoon on you, people are gearing up for the transition, and rightly so. The new digital system is under construction right now, and not really part of the legislation and probably not worth going into but it’s really exciting—really exciting—what we can do with the new digital tools, federated data; big investment from the Crown into creating that new digital-first e-plan - enabled planning system. We’re going to have—to Mr Twyford’s point before around competitive land markets—much richer data around land efficiency indicators, around consents, around housing and business development capacity which we won’t have to go out and argue with councils for for six months to get the data. We’ll be able to see the data in real time. It’s going to be exciting. It’s a Government IT project, though, so, you know, we’ve got—it’s quite a bit of work to do. I say that with full respect for the team working on it; it’s going well so far. But we’ve got to keep our eye on the ball.

Anyway, that’s a roundabout way of saying—I’ve forgotten where I started, but I’m done. I’m done.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (21:08): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just going back to a discussion that the Minister responsible for RMA Reform and the Hon Phil Twyford were having about the absence of an amendment for competitive urban land markets or competitive land markets. Perhaps the Minister would like Phil Twyford to draft an Amendment Paper? Is that something that the Minister would be interested in because we could do it now, I’m sure.

Hon Phil Twyford: Yeah.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Yes? Phil says yes. Just waiting for a nod from the Minister. Not happening.

I’m going to move now to Schedule 1 and so this is some many, many pages on and I have a range of questions on it. Again, I’m going to ask the Minister—and he’s probably going to get sick of me asking this with various different parts of the bill—where he’s made changes since it’s been reported back from the Environment Committee, I think it is very useful for him and efficient, even—he likes to talk about efficiencies—to explain if there are policy changes or if the changes are merely things are being moved around. That’s totally understandable in a bill of this size.

So the first one there would be the identification of initial national standards—if the Minister wants to comment on that, that would be useful. I can hold that thought and move on to clause 12—there are a whole lot of 12s with big letters—which is under the subheading “Applications for consents and notices of requirement during transition period”. I have Amendment Paper 742, and that would insert a new clause 12G to say that Auckland’s Plan Change 120 continues and must be determined under the Resource Management Act. I have another similar amendment which comes up in a different part, but perhaps the Minister would like to take the opportunity to talk about that Amendment Paper and that suggestion, and go on to the discussion that we just had about the difficulties of deciding what continues under the current system and what is not worth continuing under the new system which is going to come in in 2030. That would be an interesting discussion to have, or we can have it later when my other amendment comes up.

Then, of course, if we keep going through the schedule, there are some underlines on clause 14A, which is about arrangements for subdivision consents and reclamation consents, and at clause 14B about cross-leases. There are some other changes as we go through, particularly around certificates of compliance and existing-use certificates. I don’t know if those are policy changes or not. Mana Whakahono ā Rohe will come up in other parts as well, and I understand that that is a policy difference.

There is a new clause, clause 25AA, which is about the meaning of Resource Management Act terms and expressions in continued secondary legislation. That seems to be just a simple rollover clause that maybe we hadn’t thought of before when looking at the legislation—if the Minister can confirm that.

Then I do want to go to clause 36, and this is on page 274, and that is that the application of clause 4.1(2) of the national policy statement for highly productive land 2022 is disapplied, and if the Minister could explain why it is that it’s going to be disapplied and what impact that will have on the protection of highly productive land, and, in fact, on New Zealand’s food security, that would be useful too. I note again that there is a new clause 39, and underlined is emergency works under the Resource Management Act. I thought I had another thing here but those are my questions on Schedule 1, Mr Chair.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (21:13): I’ll deal with a few of those and come back on a couple maybe, if there’s time. Clause 39 is a provision related to emergency works authorised by the Resource Management Act (RMA). There’s no policy change there. Likewise, there is no policy change in relation to, I think it was, clause 25AA. Generally, the schedules do not contain significant policy changes. Plan Change 120: her Amendment Paper is unnecessary. I’m advised that it carries on under the RMA—a very important plan change to get right for Auckland’s future.

Hon Rachel Brooking: Indeed.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Indeed. In relation to the highly productive land (HPL), which is clause 36 of the schedule, I will come back on that. The point is, I think, that currently there’s a requirement for regional councils to map HPL until 31 December 2027, which is actually not that far away, and it’s suspended until the specified transition date, and I’ll come back to you about that one. Thank you.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (21:14): Thank you, Mr Chair. I have a general question in relation to Schedule 1. I think that through Amendment Paper 709 he repeals the Resource Management Act (RMA), whereas his Planning Bill before that did not. So I’m just asking him what the status of those instruments, which are creatures of the RMA, is for the purposes of the transitional provisions because they also reference the RMA.

I want to ask him specifically, first, about the fact that there are difficult decisions and some of these get dropped along the way—about consents that exist within the system because they’re given effect by the old law, and now in this period where we are transitioning the effect of those. So I want to ask him which transitional provisions saves the Auckland consents that he and I had discussed in a committee stage previous to this one where he said he would be sorting it out in this bill. There are developers in Auckland who had their consents, effectively, made inactive by legislative changes previous to this, so I assume that one of these changes saves those developers. They’re small and there’s not a large number of them but they are mum and dad developers for whom these decisions are big and valuable.

I also want to ask him about clause 21 on page 264 of Schedule 1. As I understand it, he said that iwi participation agreements in this legislation are only defined for the purposes of the legislation and that Mana Whakahono ā Rohe agreements in this schedule, all of them that exist or are at the stage of almost existing, no longer have legal effect. But what I understood from his answer is that he would anticipate that those could be called contracts for services—services provision agreements, memoranda of understanding (MOU)—and that they would still be enforceable arrangements but not for the purposes of his bill. Is that right, Minister? Have you extinguished Mana Whakahono ā Rohe agreements but do you anticipate that those agreements might have some other name that is not aMana Whakahono ā Rohe agreement but is in fact an MOU, which is the old system, and they would deal with any number of things that a local authority is perfectly capable of entering into an arrangement about?

Simon Court: He’s answered this.

ARENA WILLIAMS: No, he hasn’t. I think that’s what he said—that they will continue to exist; they’ll just have a different name.

Simon Court: That’s right.

ARENA WILLIAMS: OK. Well, if they will, then, continue to have a different name, why have we gone to all the heat and light of saying that they will no longer continue to exercise public power in that way? This provision seems to cease to give them any legal effect, in which case that wouldn’t be true. So it would also be helpful if he gave us an idea about why, then, there are provisions for transitioning these sorts of arrangements over to iwi participation agreements, which are meant to be the new in-scope creature of the legislation.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (21:18): Clause 6, which one of the members asked about, is an empowering provision for initial national standards. It allows new system standards to apply under the Resource Management Act with constraints. Previously, there was a defined term, but this is an empowering provision.

In relation to clause 36, which I said I’d come back to, basically the intent of this is to stop councils wasting resources in the resource management system. A new system standard will replace clause 36 in the schedule in relation to highly productive land, and I have good news for the Hon Phil Twyford. I had neglected to point out, largely because I forgot, that competitive urban land markets are defined in the national policy direction that we have issued today—which is defined as—

Todd Stephenson: He’s a happy man.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: He is a happy man. It is defined as a market in which there is abundant supply of developable land suitable for different uses such that land prices do not materially and persistently reflect premiums caused by constraints on land use.

Hon Phil Twyford: Close.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: It’s close. We could have a debate about it, and you’d probably win. We can have an argument about it—it’s an illustrative draft so I look forward to many discussions with likeminded folk over the exact, precise terminology of what a competitive land market is, but there is a working definition in the national policy direction. I’m advised that that is the appropriate place to put the definition, because that puts the flesh on the bones, so to speak, of the bills. We could have a debate about that. There might be a case for it in the legislation. Potentially, we could come back to that. So that’s good news. That’s made my night.

In relation to the existing-use rights certificates that, I think, Rachel Brooking asked about, that is all clarificatory and there are no substantive changes there.

SUZE REDMAYNE (Junior Whip—National) (21:20): I move, That debate on this question now close.

A party vote was called for on the question, That debate on this question now close.

Ayes 67

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

Noes 55

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

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Hon Rachel Brooking’s amendments to clause 3 in Amendment Paper 709 set out on Amendment Paper 751 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 67

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

Amendments to the amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Hon Rachel Brooking’s tabled amendment to clause 3 in Amendment Paper 709 inserting a definition of “Mana Whakahono ā Rohe” be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 67

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

Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the Minister’s amendment to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 709 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 67

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

Noes 55

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

Amendment agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Hon Rachel Brooking’s amendment to the definition of “infrastructure” in clause 3 set out on Amendment Paper 695 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 67

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Tamatha Paul’s tabled amendment to clause 3 inserting new paragraph (c) is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

Tamatha Paul’s tabled amendment to clause 3 amending the definition of qualifying resident in defining Māori is out of order as being inconsistent with the previous decision of the committee of the whole House.

The question is that Hon Rachel Brooking’s tabled amendment to clause 3 inserting a definition of well-functioning urban area be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris.

Noes 67

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Hon Rachel Brooking’s amendment replacing clause 4 set out on Amendment Paper 693 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris.

Noes 67

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Tamatha Paul’s tabled amendment to clause 4 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris.

Noes 67

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Hon Rachel Brooking’s amendment to clause 8 set out on Amendment Paper 690 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris.

Noes 67

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Tamatha Paul’s tabled amendment to clause 8 inserting (8f) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris.

Noes 67

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Hūhana Lyndon’s amendment to clauses 3 and 9 set out on Amendment Paper 733 are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee of the whole House.

The question is that Hūhana Lyndon’s amendment to clause 10 set out on Amendment Paper 733 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris.

Noes 67

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

Amendment not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 1 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 67

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

Noes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris.

Part 1 as amended agreed to.

Committee of the whole House

Part 2 Foundations

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Members, we come now to Part 2, the debate on clauses 11 to 62A, “Foundations”. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (21:31): Thank you, Mr Chair. This is a very substantive part of the bill when it’s called “Foundations”. I don’t think it includes any schedules, but it does include a lot of important clauses. The first of these is clause 11, which is “Goals”. A lot of the architecture and framework of these pieces of legislation go to those goals. They don’t have a hierarchy, they’re going to be in conflict with each other, and they’re very development-focused in this bill.

As we work our way through this part, we can get to the issue of the resolution of conflicts that the Minister cites. But starting on goals, I have an Amendment Paper, 694, which would replace clause 11 with some of the same goals but also different goals. Some of these goals are talking about, in my new clause 11(1)(b), supporting and enabling economic growth “alongside environmental protections, restoration, and enhancement of the natural environment:”, and also (c): “to create well-functioning urban and rural areas that are responsive to the diverse and changing needs of people in their communities in a way that promotes—(i) the use and development of land for a variety of activities, including for housing, business use, and primary production; and (ii) development capacity, in relation to housing and business land, being available well ahead of expected demand; and (iii) adaptable and resilient urban forms that provide access for people and their communities to and between social, economic, recreational, and cultural opportunities while protecting productive soils:”. That is important.

Another change would be at 11(1)(i), which is to provide for Māori interest, and to replace that with the equivalent of section 6(e) in the Resource Management Act, and to also include a climate change goal in paragraph (e) of my Amendment Paper, which states, “to assist New Zealand to meet the target set under section 5Q of the Climate Change Response Act 2002 through the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and the removal of greenhouse gasses from the atmosphere:”.

I think these would be great changes to the goals, in order to have a piece of legislation that does better for all of us. So I would be interested in the Minister’s comments on that, and then I have another amendment in that Amendment Paper, which would be to insert a new clause 11(3), which is, basically, that if there is a conflict between the goals, then you go to the purpose of the Act. My version of the purpose of the Act that we discussed in the other part was a bit more fulsome than the Minister’s in terms of the fact that it talked about integrated management. So I was wondering if the Minister would like to comment on my great recommendations for improvement to the “Goals” clause, to do better for all of us.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (21:35): The short answer, without being disrespectful or rude, and I’m sure the member’s put a lot of effort into them, is that we also have, equally, put a lot of effort into the goals of the Planning Bill, which members can see at clause 11, and we’ve literally thought very carefully about every single word and the provisions there. We think we’ve got the balance right. The goals are at the heart of the new system, and we’re not intending to make any changes.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai) (21:35): Thank you, Mr Chair. I have no doubt that the Minister responsible for RMA Reform won’t be interested in my tabled amendments amending clause 11, but I do want to speak to them and ensure that they are sufficiently on the Hansard, because I think this really comes to the heart of the missed opportunity to create an enduring and bipartisan approach to planning and environmental protection.

While Government parties may have thought carefully about the wording in the goals, it’s pretty clear that it is not wording that I think captures the broader interests of New Zealanders in our urban planning system, which is not simply to ensure that land use doesn’t unreasonably affect others. So my first tabled amendments would change the first paragraph (a) of subclause 11(1), to state, “to ensure that land use supports sustainable, livable, and affordable human settlements while reducing greenhouse gas emissions.”

I’m totally open to the purpose changes that the Hon Rachel Brooking put in the first part, and also the alternative wording to take into account climate change. But there’s no question that fundamentally creating towns and cities that reduce greenhouse gas emissions is part of the solution to climate change. If we don’t have that as a goal of this bill, then there’s not going to be the ability to do that important planning that would reduce the emissions from people living their everyday lives.

A whole lot of the emissions that are making climate change worse and then flooding our communities or creating unbearable heat in the northern hemisphere during their summer—our winter—are affecting the ability for us to produce food affordably, and can be seen in the fact that our planning rules and planning approach basically maximised greenhouse gas emissions, because it makes it so that people have to drive around and use excessive amounts of fossil fuels to get from point A to point B, which, by the way, is a horrible waste of time, a drain on our productivity, and a huge cost to individuals. So here is a total missed opportunity to do something that would get better outcomes.

For paragraph (b), I, of course, as a Green MP, don’t think economic growth for the sake of it is worthwhile. Economic growth, just GDP growth, could mean a whole lot more costs and a whole lot more misery for a lot of humans. What we do want is to support and enable quality of life, affordable housing in transport, and density and diversity of land use within urban areas. I think the Minister might agree with that last bit. So that is my alternative clause 11(1)(b), which makes it more about what the actual point of the economic growth is in the Minister’s mind, which is actually improving the quality of life for people. That should be the goal, not economic growth for the sake of it, which could come at the expense of wellbeing for a whole lot of people, and indeed does, at the moment, in places like the United States.

In clause 11(1)(c), after “rural areas”, I suggest simply inserting “within environmental limits”, because I think that is important that we recognise that well-functioning urban and rural areas do have to be within environmental limits, because everything we do as humans is reliant on a planet that has life on it, that has clean water, that has clean air, that has healthy soil, that’s able to produce food, that has a stable climate. Clause 11(1)(d), after “business use”—again, just adding something to the end of this: currently, it says “to enable competitive urban land markets by making land available to create abundant development opportunities for residential and business use”. I insert, following “business use”, “while protecting the health and diversity of natural ecosystems.” I just think that point has to be made so clear in 2026, in the second quarter of the 21^st century, where we’re seeing catastrophic loss of species and increasing severe weather events that are affecting the ability of people to live. We will not have a thriving future if we don’t start living within environmental limits and looking after the health of ecosystems.

Clause 11(1)(e): before “infrastructure”, I suggest inserting the word “sustainable”. I think sustainability has a pretty well understood meaning, in terms of both fiscal and environmental sustainability. We also had suggestions—[Time expired] Mr Chair, if you don’t mind, I’d like to continue to finish summarising my amendments to clause 11.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The Hon Julie Anne Genter.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Thank you, Mr Chair. There was quite a proposal from, I think it was, The Aotearoa Circle—I think it was them. There was a group that did a big splash about natural infrastructure, or green infrastructure—

Hon Rachel Brooking: It was them.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: It was The Aotearoa Circle—sorry, it’s kind of late. They were suggesting explicitly defining natural infrastructure and green infrastructure. There’s just this huge opportunity to recognise natural ecosystems as part of our infrastructure, and they can do somethings better than we can. For example, kelp forests are possibly more effective than seawalls at preventing encroachment of rising seas and tides, and kelp forests have all these other fantastic benefits. For most of the 20th century, I’d say—maybe it goes back as far as the Industrial Revolution, but especially in the 20th century—civil engineering, for all its wonders, undervalued the impact of natural ecosystems and the possibility of working with ecosystems rather than working against them.

Anyway, we could have “natural infrastructure” instead of “sustainable infrastructure” or “green infrastructure”. It would be helpful, I think, to add that to the definitions or to recognise it explicitly in our planning laws. I was at the World Green Infrastructure Congress speaking two years ago in Auckland. It was a massive world conference where experts from all over the world came to our country and we’re speaking about the role of green infrastructure in lowering costs and getting better outcomes for air quality, biodiversity, water management, and climate control in cities. That concept seems to be entirely missing from this. Admittedly, the Government could put it in the national direction—

Hon Chris Bishop: It is.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: I look forward to seeing it in national direction—fantastic. I haven’t had a chance to read it, because I’ve been reading the amendment Bill.

I’ve just got one more, Minister, which is on clause 11: after clause 11(1)(g), inserting a new paragraph (ga). This is, again, an alternative to what the Hon Rachel Brooking suggested, which was an explicit goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to climate change. It seems a sensible thing.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (21:43): Happy days for the Hon Julie Anne Genter. Infrastructure, which we just covered in Part 1, “(a) means a physical structure, facility, or network”—blah, blah, blah—“(b) includes a natural feature that is modified in order to—(i) perform a public function; … (c) includes a physical facility …”. I think the member’s points around natural features and green infrastructure and ecosystems are included within the definitions of what she is talking about. So I agree with you.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: It’s not in the goals.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: It’s not in the goals, because it doesn’t need to be, because the word “infrastructure” is in clause 11(1)(3): “to enable infrastructure …”. Then you look at what infrastructure means and you look at the definition. This is basic statutory construction. Infrastructure includes the things I’ve just talked about. There is no need—in fact, arguably, it is more confusing—to add prefatory phrases in front of key terms, because then the lawyers will say, “Well, but infrastructure is already defined in clause 3 and you’ve added something else to it, so now we’re in a confusion.” We don’t need to do that. That would actually be bad drafting. It’s included. Every word matters. To quote the great matua of the House, Mr Peters, “words matter”, and that is true.

Tom Rutherford: The great rangatira.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The great rangatira; that’s right. I agree with you about green infrastructure: it’s important, it’s useful, it’s necessary. I don’t think adding the word “sustainable” adds anything to it, frankly. Likewise, the same critique can be made of the idea of adding the phrase “within environmental limits” into the goals. We actually thought about that; some members made a good point. There is a whole separate regime in the Natural Environment Bill in particular around limits. Given you’ve got that environmental limits regime in the bill, you don’t need to repeat it in the goals.

Clause 11(1)(d): I’ve dealt with the point around ecosystems. Climate change: just to lay on the table the Government’s position, we have a whole separate regime to deal with the effects of greenhouse gas emissions.

Hon Rachel Brooking: How’s it going?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I can hear the cries already: “The emissions trading scheme is ineffective.”, “It’s not perfect.”—blah, blah, blah.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: But it’s after the planning happens, so it’s not an effective price signal.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The Government’s view is that the appropriate place to deal with the negative effects of greenhouse gas emissions is not the environmental system or the planning system; it is the Climate Change Response Act. The positive effects of things like renewable infrastructure, renewable energy infrastructure, for example, are included in the system, but the negative effects of greenhouse gas emissions are not. I accept that members have a different view around that; it is a legitimate debate about public policy around that. The Government’s position is the one that I have laid out. Natural hazards is important as well, which includes things like floods, erosion, and other areas. The effects of that should be dealt with through the planning system, but climate change emissions reduction is not included in this system.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (21:46): Thank you, Mr Chair. One further Amendment Paper that I had on the goals: if in the unfortunate event that the Minister responsible for RMA Reform doesn’t agree with my Amendment Paper 694, how about including, at clause 11(1)(d), after “competitive”, “and efficient urban land markets”? There’s just a little Amendment Paper there, No. 743, that the Minister might want to consider. Then I’ll move on.

Clause 12 is the relationship between key instruments in decision making. At subclause (2), it says “Each key instrument (other than the national policy direction)—(a) must implement the instrument listed directly above it; and (b) must implement an instrument higher up the list if required by that instrument.” It’s just a very small question here to the Minister: does he read that as, essentially, codifying King Salmon? Is that why we’re putting in clause 12 there.

I’ve also got a very different amendment from the ones I was talking about before. This is Amendment Paper 707, and it’s an inclusion at subclause (3). We’re still on clause 12, which is “Relationship between key instruments in decision-making”. At subclause (3), it says, “A person exercising or performing a function, duty, or power under this Act in relation to a matter” must consider various things. I’ve got an insertion there, which is a paragraph (d), “must consider the polluter pays principle.” I think this would be an excellent thing to give some comfort that the Government isn’t, in fact, doing what I suspect they’re doing and just opening up our whole economy for polluters to pollute some more and for the public to pick up the price tag.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (21:49): Nice try! No, we won’t be agreeing to that. It depends what you mean by “polluter pays”, of course, which would be the great challenge there.

Hon Rachel Brooking: We could define it.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Oh, well, I look forward to that! In relation to the Hon Rachel Brooking’s substantive question around King Salmon—there’s a lot in King Salmon, but in relation to the point she was making—I’m going to give a tentative yes to that intention. Codification, I think, is probably not correct. New Zealand law doesn’t really codify things. We have laws or we don’t, but it certainly lays out a statutory schema of, as I understand it—she’d know more about it than I would—the King Salmon decision from 2006, I think.

Hon Rachel Brooking: A long time ago.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: A long time ago, back when you were a young whippersnapper lawyer in Dunedin and I was not an MP.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (21:50): Thank you, Mr Chair. A quick question for the Minister about the “Goals” section, clause 11 in Subpart 1, read in light of the Treaty principles. The question is, should this provision be read in light of what the Resource Management Act (RMA) was before? Is this taking that away, and the courts are meant to interpret the removal of an express provision for giving effect to kaitiakitanga that you can’t sort of read in to providing for Māori interests?

The Minister will know that, so far, the duties and the powers he’s removed from the goals section where he’s striking through “all persons exercising or performing functions or powers under this Act”—previously, that probably would have brought in any sort of, say, consultation or the ability for local authorities to include iwi or Māori representatives within their decision-making processes that weren’t given effect to just buy planning instruments. But now we’re limited to just those documents, and though there’s a goal to provide for certain Māori interests within those, they’re not the full suite of what the courts have interpreted over the years as being the rights and duties that iwi Māori have to participate in local government decision making.

I’m not asking for a return to the recognition of kaitiakitanga here—I know why he’s gotten rid of that—but there are things here which seem to be missed out, and things which many in this House would see is reasonable to include iwi Māori in. Those are things like the protection of the pōhutakawa trees at Judges Bay, which were an issue of significance in Auckland’s local politics for some years when the Erebus memorial was being proposed in the Parnell Rose Gardens, for instance, that is not within the definitions of something like a wāhi tapu—those were the trees themselves.

The question here is around, well, do the principles still apply? Does the series of cases, starting with the lands case, being developed by the Huakina case, then Wellington Airport’s consultation case, which set out over a long period of time that the RMA wasn’t the basis for those consultation rights, but Te Tiriti o Waitangi and its principles were—are they meant to be updated by what he’s doing here, or do they exist in tandem and it’s for the courts to decide whether those consultation rights still exist? And when are you meant to then apply the goals if they only apply to those instruments, but there are other powers, like the duty to act honourably, the duty to act in good faith, the duty of active protection, and the duty to consult?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (21:52): Well, there’s quite a lot in that—a real tour de force through the last 30 years of Treaty jurisprudence.

Arena Williams: Very brief—very brief.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Very quick. Also, I’m advised that the King Salmon case was 2014, so I don’t know where 2006 came from.

Hon Rachel Brooking: Oh, OK. I wasn’t young—I wasn’t young.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: You were a little bit younger. Anyway, I got that wrong, too, so no doubt Gary Taylor is going to send me an angry text message about my lack of knowledge.

So quite a quick tour, without presupposing where councils may get to—I mean, the member will be more familiar with Judges Bay than I am. The sites of significance to Māori is not—subparagraph (i)(ii) in clause 11, “including wāhi tapu, water bodies, or sites in or on the coastal marine area”; that’s just a kind of gloss on that. It’s not limiting to that, so it doesn’t have to be wāhi tapu. There will potentially be national direction in relation to how those are defined—look, I think there needs to be an evidential threshold. It can’t just be a self-defined, you know, “Whatever you want.” So there may well be national directional standards around evidential thresholds and things like that. The member will know more about Judges Bay and other areas in Auckland, in particular, where there’s obviously a range of sites, including here in Wellington, as well. I’m not going to get too far into that. That will be provided for through planning.

I just want to repeat what I said before, which is that the intention of what the Government is trying to do here is lay out, to some exhaustive detail, a statutory scheme that, as much as possible, addresses what the role of Māori interests in the system are. You can see that through participation in national instruments, spatial plans, land-use plans—there’s a range of other things throughout the Act. I’m not going to make a comment on some of the other things the member mentioned in her remarks, but I think we’ve done a good job at providing for laying out what those interests are and how they’ll be given effect to. And then, of course, national direction will do a lot of the fleshing out of that through the national policy direction and then the standards.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The time has come for me to leave the Chair. The house will resume at 9.00 a.m. tomorrow. Everyone have a good night.

Sitting suspended from 9.55 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Wednesday)

Urgency

Wednesday, 26 August 2026

Bills

Planning Bill

Committee of the whole House

Debate resumed.

Part 2 Foundations (continued)

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Good morning, everybody. It’s 9 o’clock, so the chair is resumed. I’ll just make a quick comment for those of you that haven’t been and had a look at Movember; please make the effort to go and have a look this morning. They’re in the Banquet Hall.

When we suspended last night, we were considering the Planning Bill. I remind members that the Planning Bill and the Natural Environment Bill are heavily interrelated, and that there are matters that are relevant to both bills. This will be taken into account when assessing relevancy in debate. Last night, we were debating Part 2, the debate on clauses 11 to 62A, “Foundations”. The question again is that Part 2 stand part.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (09:00): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just for those viewers at home, to try and replicate what the Hon Scott Simpson used to do when I was in the same seat that Simon Court is in, he’d remind the viewers of the excitement of where we were with the Resource Management Act (RMA) replacement legislation. Three and a bit years on, here I am, reminding those viewers that we have just started Part 2. I have put forward my great amendments to the goals. There was not very much interest from the Minister. I’ve asked about the hierarchy of the instruments; I’ve asked about the “polluter pays” principles; so now I’m coming to—other people might be going somewhere else—clause 13, and that is “Procedural Principles”. Before I get there, I have been asking the Minister who was in the chair last night about the track changes in this Amendment Paper, and whether or not the member in the chair can tell us if it’s just a movement or if it’s a policy change. That’s the question about clause 12(1)(a)—if he can comment on that.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): A movement or a policy change—was that the question?

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

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

SIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (09:04): In response to the member’s question around changes to clause 12(1)(a), that is a ministerial decision. To clarify, the decisions on consents and permits must be made in accordance with the funnel concept in this legislation. They must first consider the provisions of the relevant land-use and environmental plan, and then any national rule contained in national standards. That is policy intent.

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

STEVE ABEL (Green) (09:06): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m just wishing to acknowledge the passing of Dolly Parton, who I think was meaningful to all of us. Moe mai rā.

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

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

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

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

SIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (09:09): I thank the member for his question. As somebody who’s lived in West Auckland, in the Waitākeres, for decades, of course we appreciate the value of trees. In answer to his question—what are trees? —well, trees can be part of an infrastructure solution; the legislation provides for that. When we’re considering developing cities or responding to intensification, providing infrastructure solutions so that we can build up and out, trees will surely form part of an infrastructure solution—whether that’s in open spaces, for community facilities, or whether that’s part of constructed wetlands, places where we can provide for managing stormwater in the urban environment. That is surely part of a well-functioning urban area.

STEVE ABEL (Green) (09:10): Thank you, Madam Chair. So to that point, Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform, I believe you were answering in terms of development of new infrastructure. I accept that point, yes, and I agree that the trees are an important part of that.

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

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

SIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (09:13): Just to refer the member to definitions, that was in the interpretation section that we had debated yesterday. It’s in Part 1. With respect to where the trees are in the legislation: well, trees are provided for in terms of open areas on public land and private land. They form part of a well-functioning urban area, which is where the member’s questions are targeted. Of course, we don’t need to specify every single aspect of the urban environment in order for people to understand the concept. Where are trees provided for, the member asked, and what about the heritage trees, those wonderful trees planted by the English, those great oaks, say, in Christchurch, and many others? Some people even regard a Norfolk pine, imported here from Norfolk Island, as a tree that is worthy of some type of protection. In the new system, heritage trees—trees that have that heritage value that the member spoke of so fondly, and which I share—will be provided for in the new system.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (09:14): Thank you, Madam Chair. In going back to my questions before, thank you to the member for answering about clause 12(1)(a), that’s helpful. If he could just touch on this. He said that it’s incorporating the funnel approach. Is it relevant to the Minister’s decisions? That’s just one question there.

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

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

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

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

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

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

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Hon Rachel Brooking.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: —thank you—these extra two regarding the well-functioning urban environment.

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

SIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (09:20): Thank you, Madam Chair. In terms of the member’s question about 12A, I have answered that: there was a policy decision taken by the Minister responsible for RMA Reform.

Hon Rachel Brooking: But does it apply to the Minister? That was just the question.

SIMON COURT: It doesn’t apply to the Minister.

Hon Rachel Brooking: Does it? Does not?

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

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

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour) (09:23): Thank you Madam Chair. Like my colleague the Hon Rachel Brooking, I have a question about clause 14, which is of course the clause that, essentially, deals with mandatory considerations that the duty holder must not consider, which is an interesting way of framing it. My question relates to how this clause interacts with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (BORA) and specifically clause 14(1)(f); this is that the “type of residents to be housed in a new development:” is not a consideration.

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

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

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

SIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (09:25): Thank you, Madam Chair. First of all, responding to the member Vanushi Walters: indeed, I can confirm that this clause is intended to mean that the type of residents to be housed in a new development will not be a matter that’s in scope, because what we want is for our cities and the places where people live to be open and accessible to all, and rules and decisions not to exclude or discriminate on who the type of resident is. We’ve been very conscious, very purposeful, and very directive in making sure that in the new system, that will not be a consideration. I hope that puts the member at ease and deals with that question.

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

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

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

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai) (09:29): Tēnā koe, Madam Chair, thank you. I have a specific question about the wording in clause 14(1)(b): “negative effects of development on trade competition” are out of scope. What is meant by “negative” in this context, because I would read it as reducing trade competition is therefore out of scope but then it says “including on competing providers of input goods and services:”, so that’s just a bit unclear. Do we think “negative effects of development on trade competition” means less competition or less competition? The second half of that paragraph seems to imply that you can’t consider that it would make things more competitive and that would adversely affect a business that’s there—let’s say, because a competing business, a competing supermarket, is going to set up. But then I would think that would be a positive effect of the development on trade competition, so I’m just a bit confused about that.

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

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

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

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

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

SIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (09:33): In answer to the member the Hon Julie Anne Genter’s first question about effects excluded under this Act—clause 14(1)(b): “negative effects of development on trade competition, including on competing providers of input goods and services:”—the intention is that we want more competition, and that effects on a trade competitor, which have been have been brought into planning discussions in the past, are specifically excluded. So if a business wants to set up, sell something to people, trade, exchange value for value with other members of the community, their ability to carry on trade should not be a matter that the planning system needs to consider.

Hon Members: Madam Chair.

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

Tamatha Paul: We’ve got longer.

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

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

Arena Williams—you’ve been very patient.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (09:35): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I want to ask two brief questions of the Minister, just clarifying earlier what he said. I’m on page 45 at clause 13(4). He clarified that the hierarchy, as he is provided, doesn’t apply to the Minister’s decisions, and he drew on that, sort of, judicial power for the reasoning for that. When the Minister’s appointees are making decisions using the Minister’s public power, does that also apply to them—say, the hearings panel in Auckland, which is a special case; I just want to clarify whether it applies to them or not.

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

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

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

SIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (09:39): I’ll just come back to clauses 12(a) and 13(4). If I wasn’t clear in a previous answer: 12(a) does not apply to the Minister; 13(4) does.

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

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

TAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central) (09:42): Thank you, Madam Chair. This is my first contribution in this debate, so I appreciate you allowing me to take a call. My call is going to focus on clause 11(1)(i), continuing on the question lines around Māori interests. I appreciate the Minister’s comments clarifying intent, but I’m more interested in the avenues by which that intent will be delivered. I have, I think, three tabled amendments which seek to strengthen and protect Māori interests within this bill, that I will speak to as well, if I have time—taking the Chair’s advice to stick to questions and not yarn for too long.

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

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

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

The final question that I had on Māori—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’ve just been told that your most recent point was back in Part 1.

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

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

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

SIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (09:47): Look, many of the matters that the member raised were covered in debate last night on Part 1, particularly around Mana Whakahono ā Rohe agreements, but let’s be clear, Māori participation is provided for in terms of iwi participation agreements that are provided for in legislation. There may be other ways that councils seek to engage—

Tamatha Paul: I’m asking for specificity.

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

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour) (09:48): Thank you, Madam Chair. This is actually a supplementary question from a question I asked a while earlier on reasonable accommodation. I just did want to say that the Minister made the point about being clear in terms of their objectives. Of course, one of the things that courts look to is the Hansard, and, particularly, responses from the Chair during this session. In my last question, the Minister made two comments which lead to two very different conclusions, so I just want to put those back to the Minister to be clear on which outcome he is saying will eventuate from the bill as it’s drafted now. On the on the first hand, when I talked about reasonable accommodation and whether a council could set guidelines in terms of disability for example, the Minister said no at the start of his answer. For example, if the council said they wanted 10 percent of housing in a particular area that had reasonable accommodation in terms of transport, according to the first half of his answer, it sounds like that would be unlawful or outside the scope of the legislation. At the end of his answer, I was heartened because he then said “accessibility for all”. That suggested to me that his view is that the legislation, essentially, directs that all planners in this space must have their mind turned to accessibility at all times. Now, if that’s the case, that is potentially compliant with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The Minister’s laughing, but this is important because it does determine what will be the day-to-day lived experiences of thousands and thousands of New Zealanders going forward. It could also result in litigation if the Minister isn’t clear about what his intent—what the Minister’s intent is—is at this stage.

SIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (09:50): Thank you, Madam Chair. Let me clarify that. Clause 14, “Effects outside [the] scope of the Act … the type of residents to be housed in new development.” We’re very clear about that language. That’s what it means. “A person exercising or performing a function, duty, or power under this Act who is considering the effects of an activity must disregard— … the type of residents to be housed in a new development:”.

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

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

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour) (09:51): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d like to draw the Minister’s attention to new clause 15A. It is on page 46 of the bill. This was put in, I think, by the Environment Committee. I don’t sit on that select committee, so I am concerned about this particular clause. What the clause does is it says that a person, when performing a function under this Act, when considering the effects of the activity, “must not … consider any adverse effect on climate change of any greenhouse gas emissions that … may … be increased by the activity, whether directly or indirectly; [but] (b) may consider any positive effects of the activity that are associated with avoiding, reducing, removing, or displacing greenhouse gas emissions.”

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

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

SIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (09:54): We’re very clear—and the reason that this new clause 15A has been inserted is, essentially, for the avoidance of doubt that we already have a cap and price on emissions through the emissions trading scheme. We already have the Climate Change Response Act, which provides for policy and regulations. The intention of this Government is to reduce regulatory duplication and overlap, avoid matters being considered in multiple scenarios, whether it’s a Building Act matter or a climate change matter, whatever it is.

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

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

LAN PHAM (Green) (09:55): Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s really great to be examining the clause 15s. What I’m really keen to pick up, very briefly, is a clarification from the Minister around the “outside scope” clause 14, because I’ve got some really specific examples that we heard during the Environment Committee time, which I’m really interested in the Minister’s response to where these communities actually go, because what we’re talking about here is concerns that were raised about outstanding natural landscape and areas of high natural character, essentially, being too high of a bar.

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

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

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

SIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (09:58): Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, I do welcome the member Lan Pham’s question, particularly as a self-confessed geology nerd. I’m familiar with the cast formations in the Waitomo district. I’ve been underground in the Waitomo Caves a number of times, including in other caves, and I’ve spent quite a bit of time on friends’ farms in that part of the country, and it is fascinating. But there is one thing that I can reassure people who are listening and watching: hardly anyone at all lives in Waitomo, and that there may well be a need—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): A few people do.

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

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

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

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

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (10:01): There are, Madam Chair, and these are new questions that haven’t been addressed yet on clause 14. Clause 14 is so important because it is really the mechanism by which the ACT Party and the member Simon Court are restricting environmental considerations and are enabling what he’s specified, and so that’s why we’re quite focused on it.

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

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

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

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

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

I can move on to clause 15. I’ve got—

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

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Great, thank you. It’s just a short one on that.

SIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (10:05): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll just come to “retail distribution effects:” first—effects that are now outside the scope of the legislation. For far too long, those who seek to develop commercial retail premises in new communities or in new locations have faced this contention that no development must be concentrated in, say, an existing town centre—that’s what the member referred to—and, as a result, there’s been extensive time and cost delays to the establishment of, say, new supermarkets.

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

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

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

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Clause 14(1)(e).

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

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

Hon Members: Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The Hon Rachel Brooking indicated that she wanted to ask some questions on clause 15.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (10:08): Yes—thank you, Madam Chair—and I’m just reminding the member Simon Court that I did have a question about what processes clause 14 applies to beyond consents. I asked whether it applies to plans and the Minister’s decisions, as well, and so there’s that question.

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

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

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

SIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (10:11): Look, I thank the member for her question. I’ll just come back to a question that she asked in a previous question about stormwater matters. The effects of stormwater beyond the property are in scope and will continue to be.

Hon Rachel Brooking: Where does it say that?

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

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

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

Scott Willis: Yes, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Scott Willis hasn’t asked a question yet.

SCOTT WILLIS (Green) (10:13): Thank you, Madam Chair, I appreciate this, and certainly, my question is prior to Subpart 2—clause 15A. We’ve had two previous questions from my colleagues in Labour, but the Minister yesterday asserted that climate change is dealt with elsewhere, so it shouldn’t be in the Planning Bill. I missed the irony in that response, because we can see that climate change is dealt with in the fast-track legislation because it’s going to open up the Denniston Plateau, and that climate change is dealt with in the Gas Security Fund. Those are bits of legislation that are opening up.

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

SIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (10:15): We’ve gone over that ground extensively with the Minister last night. I’ve answered a number of questions today which were basically on the same topic. The legislation’s very clear; the drafting is very clear. It means what it says.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I am going to take a call now from the Hon Rachel Brooking, because we are moving on to Subpart 2.

Steve Abel: Point of order, Madam Chair.

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

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (10:16): Thank you, Madam Chair. I do not have very many questions on Subpart 2 of Part 2, but I do have one—[Interruption]

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’m trying to hear the Hon Rachel Brooking, please.

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

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Thank you.

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

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

Tom Rutherford: Page 79?

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

SIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (10:18): As far as I can tell, there are no substantive policy changes in Subpart 2. There are changes to better reflect policy intent and Parliamentary Counsel Office drafting clarity.

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

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Labour) (10:19): Thank you, Madam Chair, and I apologise, I haven’t been in the Chamber all morning—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Just for clarity, we’re on Subpart 2.

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: Subpart 2? Clause 14, or we’ve moved beyond—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): We’ve moved on. It’s clause 16 and beyond.

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: Oh, OK. You can’t go back? It’s still in Part 2.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): No, we’re not going back.

SIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (10:19): Thank you, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I was just about to take Lan Pham’s call, and then the member stood up—so, Lan Pham.

LAN PHAM (Green) (10:19): Thank you, Madam Chair. Noting that there haven’t been substantive changes, but there have been changes, I’m really keen to pick up on concerns that were raised by submitters across clause 20 and clause 21. The most consistently and strongly expressed concern was really the concern that particularly clause 20 might overprotect existing uses, particularly when it comes to hazard-prone areas. Councils were really concerned that this could undermine their own ability to reduce those risks over time by moving development away from certain areas.

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

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

SIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (10:22): Thank you. The member Lan Pham raises a really important point. I’ll answer the second part of the question first, on new clause 19A. New clause 19A provides for rules that can modify or extinguish the existing land-use and existing building work protections. The change that the Environment Committee added to provide a mechanism for specified natural hazard rules to enable existing land uses to be modified or extinguished to manage natural hazard risk has been retained. A further minor technical change has been provided for in this Amendment Paper to clarify that requirements for a rule to qualify is one of the special natural hazard rules that they can qualify as a natural rule or in a land-use plan and proposed land-use rules with legal effect.

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

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (10:24): That makes sense to me. I thank the member for their explanation of that. I want to ask directly about clause 22 on page 51. Existing building works—this clause goes so far as to include at clause 22(1)(c)(ii) all of the allowed activities that were permissible without a consent at a certain time. We’ve written in that the natural hazard rules will apply from the beginning. In answer to Lan Pham’s point, in situations like the Tauranga Council, where they’re notifying a very large number of landowners that their properties will be affected by flooding in the future—

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

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

SIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (10:26): I thank the member Arena Williams for the question. Clause 22 is essentially a carry-over from the Resource Management Act. So status quo—no change.

Arena Williams: But you’ve added—

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

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

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Lan Pham.

TAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central) (10:27): Ha, ha!

Hon Member: Tamatha Paul.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I am sorry.

TAMATHA PAUL: That’s all right. She is a great person.

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

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

SIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (10:28): Madam Chair, we've already moved on from Part 1 to Subpart 2. But I just, for the member’s benefit—

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

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Correct. And you were referring to clause 25?

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

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Correct.

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

Tamatha Paul: It’s 25.

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

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (10:29): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m going to move forward to Subpart 3, and this is “Key instruments”. Very importantly, in this subpart there is the classification of activities.

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

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

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

SIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (10:32): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll just cover off clause 28 first. That has been deleted in its entirety as it was considered unnecessary and added complexity, and these matters can be better directed through national standards or non-statutory guidance. That was a decision that the Minister responsible for RMA Reform and I took.

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

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

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (10:35): Isn’t this registration requirement, though, effectively a need for a consent? Is the member Simon Court saying, like his use of “pragmatic”, that it’s really about slogans and to say to different lobby groups, “It’s OK. It’s permitted, but”—but, but, but—“you need to do this registration”, which makes it just like a controlled activity. Why not step above that noise and say, “Well, no, there are these things that we do need to be controlling for”—yes, you can have the certainty that the member just spoke to, about a controlled activity; that it will be granted—“but you also need to do these various different steps.” Why not just call it a controlled activity? Is it, in fact, just a political sloganeering statement to make to different lobby groups?

SIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (10:36): I reject the assertion in the member the Hon Rachel Brooking’s question. The purpose of this reform is to reduce the number of activities that need consents. When it comes to this bill, the Planning Bill, we’re intending, by providing for registered permitted activities in limited cases—and only if allowed or required by a national standard—to reduce the number of low-risk consents that are needed. This is intentional, and it’s going to have a very significant benefit. We intend that the number of consents that are required are reduced by up to 46 percent. Now, that’s just for starters, and this is one way to do it.

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

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (10:37): I’ll move on to Subpart 4, I think, and that is “National instruments”. These are very important because so much of this bill turns on what is in the national instruments, and so much of the ministerial power that we’ve talked about leading up to this committee stage goes to decision making in these national instruments. It has been described to me like a spinning top. Whilst the Government members talk about a funnel, you can also look at it like a spinning top: you have all this weight at the top, which the Minister decides in the national direction, and then that flows down. But, if something goes wrong, the spinning top will fall over, so it’s really important that we consider how it is that these national instruments are made.

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

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

SIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (10:42): Thank you, Madam Chair. Quite a lot in that, and I appreciate that the making of national instruments is fundamental to the implementation and operation of this new system. Just to come back to considerations for national policy direction, the member has raised the matter of whether a board of inquiry would be better placed, as she proposes in her Amendment Paper, to consider national policy direction. The Government disagrees. The considerations of the process to be followed are set out in clauses 58 and 59 for the national standards. Let’s be clear, the national instruments do not replace the framework set by Parliament, but what they do is they seek to achieve compatibility between the goals as far as practical, and when the Minister is developing the proposed national policy direction, that is what the Minister will be required to do. If compatibility between the goals, whether it’s in the Planning Bill or the Natural Environment Bill—or the Acts we intend they become—can’t be achieved, then identifying and providing for the resolution of conflicts between the goals or within a goal is required to be considered by the Minister.

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

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

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) (10:45): Thank you, Madam Chair. A question for the Minister in relation to the provisions under clause 52 in the Minister’s Amendment Paper 738 that inserts the following phrase: “(6B) National standards may include requirements relating to the performance or exercise of the functions, powers, and duties of the statutory officer appointed under section 188A”. So this has to do with the land market officer. My question is about the desired independence of the land market officer, and really my question is: why does the new clause touch on every function, power, and duty of the officer rather than being confined to, for example, procedural, administrative, or notification requirements? We share, I think, the Minister’s desire that the land market officer operates within their mandate and can’t be, basically, bossed around or manipulated by the Minister of the day. It seems that this clause would, basically, give the Minister of the day that ability to not just direct through the national standard those kind of administrative or procedural matters but, actually, it touches on all of the kinds of factors. I suppose another way to ask the question is: can that national standard, in this case, prescribe the officers, for example, the economic methodology that they use, the thresholds, or the substantive analytical approach? Because if that’s the case, it doesn’t seem like a good idea to me, and I’d be surprised if the Minister was supporting a provision that would risk really undermining the necessary independence of the land market officer.

SIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (10:48): Thank you, Madam Chair, and I do appreciate the member the Hon Phil Twyford’s long-term commitment to urban development and intensification, particularly in Te Atatū Peninsula where we both live. We have experienced both the benefits and the dis-benefits of urban intensification.

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

GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland) (10:49): I move, That debate on this question now close.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): It’s a bit early I think, Mr McCallum.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (10:49): I’ll make the questions very brief, Madam Chair. Firstly, to new subclause 45(2). I just want to ask the Minister a question around whether directions under the new formulation in the new amended version also includes ministerial directions. Are there new directions? Is that why this is here? If so, are there also meant to be directions—not in the natural meaning of the word but in this section—which apply to directives that are given by the statutory officer? Does it also then apply to directions that are given by a panel exercising the ministerial powers that are delegated to it by the Minister? That’s the first question.

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

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

SIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (10:52): Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the member Arena Williams’ questions—there were quite a few in there, so I will attempt to answer them in the order that they were asked.

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

Arena Williams: The directives, yeah.

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

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

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

Arena Williams: Clause 51(1), new paragraph (f).

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

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Scott Willis—Steve Abel.

STEVE ABEL (Green) (10:55): I’ll take that, Madam Chair. Thank you, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): So sorry, my apologies.

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

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I beg to differ!

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

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

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

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

SIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (10:58): Firstly, I accept that the member Steve Abel would know what the air conditioning in a tree is like, because he spent over 240 days occupying a tree in New Lynn in West Auckland, stopping a housing development, where there are still no new houses!

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

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

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (10:59): Thank you, Madam Chair. I am taking a call on clause 58 and the changes at the bottom of page 77 and also clause 62A, which I think are linked. I want to ask the member in the chair, Simon Court, about the new insertions, and then at the bottom of that page, how the conflict provisions are then meant to be interpreted by the Minister?

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

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

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

SIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (11:02): I thank the member for the question. Look, in terms of consideration for the national policy direction, clause 58(3A) is quite clear. The Minister must be satisfied that the proposed national policy direction is consistent with other national instruments, as far as practical—I’ve highlighted that in my copy on the desk here. Then looking down to clause 58(3C), the Minister must have regard to achieving compatibility as far as is practical, and in clause 58(3C)(b), identify and provide for resolution for conflict between goals if compatibility between them cannot be achieved.

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

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

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

TODD STEPHENSON (ACT) (11:05): I move, That debate on this question now close.

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

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (11:05): Thank you, Madam Chair. Actually, I do not have very much more on Part 2, but I have one Amendment Paper that I haven’t spoken to during this Part 2 debate. That was tabled on 25 August at 5.35.01. Unfortunately, it’s not a published amendment, but what it does is it brings in the provisions for Mana Whakahono ā Rohe from the Resource Management Act into this part of the bill, which is obviously a different policy position from the Government. But I’m just wondering if the member in the chair, Simon Court, would consider that and also he might want to comment on what part of Part 2 it would be best in. Oh, he’s shaking his head.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I’m just trying to relate it to a clause in Part 2.

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

SIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (11:07): The Minister was very clear when he responded to questions last night on Part 1 why Mana Whakahono ā Rohe arrangements are no longer appropriate in the context of this legislation. We are providing for iwi participation agreements which can be made in context of the scope of the new legislation. Mana Whakahono ā Rohe arrangements come from the Resource Management Act. They will end when this legislation passes through all stages and achieves Royal assent.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (11:08): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just following on from that question, I’m at clause 59(3). It’s a new insertion that is the converse power but for the secondary legislation of clause 10(2), but it applies differently here because the national standards are secondary legislation, so we’ve got decision makers here who are not the Minister. This is about giving effect to Treaty settlements that have been arranged with the Crown and that Parliament intended with its full chest to give effect to. How can that be right what he has just answered in relation to my colleague the Hon Rachel Brooking’s question, when, now, he has included a provision which does recognise that those arrangements were made under the Resource Management Act and has deliberately created this clause, which is meant to give equivalency, and yet still argue that those agreements, the Mana Whakahono ā Rohe agreements, don’t have a place in this regime when that is sort of a having it both ways clause here? We do have, actually, those settlements that are made with iwi. They are meant to be given effect to, even at the secondary legislation level, even at the national plan level, as if they were still being implemented under the Resource Management Act.

SIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (11:10): The Minister covered this extensively in his responses to questions around clause 10 last night, but I’ll reiterate that the Government is committed to upholding Treaty settlements, and where those settlements have provisions in them which relate to the Resource Management Act (RMA), “to the greatest extent possible under this Act, give an effect that is the same as, or equivalent to, the effect that the [relevant] redress … arrangement” had under the RMA. It couldn’t be more clear in clause 10; couldn’t be more clear here. That’s the intention of this Government, and we hope that Parliament agrees with us.

TAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central) (11:10): This is a call in response to that answer. The Minister can’t keep referring to clause 10 and the answers given last night by the Minister, because iwi Māori interests and participation are not exclusive to clause 10. In fact, there are provisions that provide for Māori participation in national planning instruments, policy direction, spatial plans—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Excuse me, member, we are not—

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

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): We are not revisiting clause 10.

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

Simon Court: We’ve covered it.

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

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

SIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (11:12): For the benefit of the member, the legislation provides for—and we’re talking about clause 59(3)—

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

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

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

SIMON COURT: Well, there was no question.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Sorry, the debate doesn’t happen across the Chamber. I’m going to take one more call. Hon Julie Anne Genter.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai) (11:13): Thank you, Madam Chair. I actually just wanted to clarify, because there is some reference to Schedule 3 in Part 2—I have some amendments to Schedule 3, but Schedule 3 is also referenced in Part 3. When is the appropriate time to speak to amendments on Schedule 3? Are we doing that now or in the next part of the debate?

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): It is the next part.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: The next part? Thank you.

GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland) (11:14): I move, That debate on this question now close.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the debate on this question now close.

Ayes 67

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

Noes 55

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

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Minister’s tabled amendments to Amendment Paper 709 amending clauses 47 and 52 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 67

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

Noes 55

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

Amendments to the amendments agreed to.

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

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 67

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

Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.

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

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 67

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

Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.

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

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 67

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

Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.

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

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 67

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

Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.

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

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 67

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

Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.

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

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 67

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

Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.

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

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 67

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Oriini Kaipara’s tabled amendments to clauses 11, 12, and 13 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 67

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

Amendments not agreed to.

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

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 67

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

Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.

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

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 67

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

Amendments to the amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 2 set out on Amendment Paper 709 as amended be agreed to.

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

Ayes 67

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

Noes 55

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

Amendments as amended agreed to.

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

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

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

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 67

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

Amendment not agreed to.

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

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

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 67

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

Amendments not agreed to.

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

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 67

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

Amendment not agreed to.

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

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 67

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

Amendment not agreed to.

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

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 67

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking’s amendment to clause 12 set out on Amendment Paper 707 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 67

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking’s amendment to clause 13 set out on Amendment Paper 701 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 67

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

Amendment not agreed to.

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

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 67

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking’s amendments to clause 14 set out on Amendment Paper 697 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 67

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

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Hūhana Lyndon’s amendments to clause 14 set out on Amendment Paper 749 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 67

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

Amendments not agreed to.

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

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 67

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

Amendment not agreed to.

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

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

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 67

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

Amendment not agreed to.

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

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 67

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Tamatha Paul’s amendment to clause 25 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

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

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 67

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

Amendment not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 2 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 67

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

Noes 55

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

Part 2 as amended agreed to.

Committee of the whole House

Part 3 Combined plan, and Schedules 2 to 5

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): We come now to Part 3. This is the debate on clauses 63 to 106, “Combined plan”, including Schedule 2, “Regional spatial plans”; Schedule 3, “Further provisions relating to plans”; Schedule 4, “Independent hearings panels”; and Schedule 5, “Designations”. The question is that Part 3 stand part.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (11:42): Thank you, Madam Chair. This is another very important part. All of it’s important, but we will get to regulatory relief in this part, which has been very controversial. As you’ve just noted, there are Schedules 2, 3, 4, and 5 as well, so I propose to go through Part 3 and then move into the schedules.

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

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

SIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (11:44): The purpose of having two distinct pieces of legislation—the Planning Bill and the Natural Environment Bill, which we intend to become law—is so that effects are managed in the right place and each piece of legislation has different goals. It is not our intention to integrate. I will not be accepting the member the Hon Rachel Brooking’s proposed amendment to the purpose of spatial plans.

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

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

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (11:46): Thank you, Madam Chair. Quickly responding to the member Simon Court’s comment there, unfortunately, I think what he has done with these bills and these goals is totally muddy the waters, literally and figuratively, and there will be a whole lot of litigation around the conflicts in those goals, and it’s very dangerous to have it all rest on one person, being the Minister.

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

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

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

STEVE ABEL (Green) (11:50): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ll directly pick up on what my colleague Rachel Brooking has just been speaking of and expand on it, in terms of the line of questioning. I also have an amendment that specifically refers to the Waitākere Ranges heritage area, amending clause 63C that the purpose of a regional spatial plan is also to recognise and give effect to the purpose and objectives of the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Act 2008, where a regional spatial plan applied to land within the heritage area.

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

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

Oriini Kaipara: And me.

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

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Par for the course.

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

SIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (11:53): To just respond to the questions from Hon Rachel Brooking and Steve Abel about the Hauraki Gulf protection Act and the Waitākere Ranges heritage Act: the intent is to carry over the existing relationship between those two Acts and the Auckland spatial plan. The Auckland regional spatial plan, as currently written, says that it must not be inconsistent with the Waitākere Ranges heritage protection Act. If you want to have a look at more detail about those transition arrangements provided for in legislation, you can have a look at Schedule 11, where the relationship, say, with spatial plans—Hauraki Gulf, Waitākere—is addressed in the consequential changes to those Acts.

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

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour) (11:56): Thank you, Mr Chair, I just have some follow-up questions regarding the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Act, because this has been a matter of considerable discussion in my community and, along with Mr Abel, I do reside at the gateway to the ranges. There have been community meetings; local councillors; Sir Bob Harvey, who raised his voice in terms of expressing concern that what he refers to as the lungs of Auckland will be at risk.

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

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

LAN PHAM (Green) (11:59): Thank you, Mr Chair. I think it’s really good to be able to step through these clauses because each one has such significant implications. I want to pick up directly on the previous Minister in the chair’s comments about how key these spatial plans are in terms of key drivers of growth and change in a region. My amendments, which I’d love to hear the Minister’s thoughts on, are related to that specifically, because we know when these first spatial plans, in particular, are put in place, there will not be the associated environmental limits and plans that could inform those spatial plans when it comes to the environment.

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

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

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

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (12:03): I’ll deal with a couple of questions. To Vanushi Walters’ question around the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act—I understand undersecretary Court dealt with this—the point is the regional spatial plan can’t be inconsistent with the Waitakere Act. It is true that the tools in the system to do that are different from the Resource Management Act, obviously, but there are mechanisms in the new legislation so that the regional spatial plan for Auckland is not inconsistent with the Waitakere Act. So, essentially, the intention to port those controls over in a different way.

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

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

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (12:06): Thank you, Mr Chair. A quick question on clause 63: now that the Minister’s explained the timing considerations and his new amendment, effectively, knocks out the Resource Management Act (RMA) entirely, I’m just asking whether that’s a requirement or a description of the factual context. At clause 63(1), does that mean that councils are required to, but there’s no punishment if they don’t, have a regional plan at all times, or is it a description in that whatever they have there—whatever it’s labelled—is the plan?

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

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

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

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

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (12:10): A complicated series of questions there, but relatively simple answers. In relation to—

Arena Williams: I’m not getting many calls.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: What’s that?

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

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

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

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

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (12:12): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m interested in a comment that the Minister responsible for RMA Reform made before about spatial plans being a watercolour, and I’d refer to Labour’s previous legislation—the Spatial Planning Act—in the same way. Given that it’s a watercolour, how does the work with both clause 67D, which are the provisions in a regional spatial plan that include objectives—objectives sound “watercoloury”—but maps are a bit more difficult to make into water colours, and actions, policies, methods, but not rules. I get the rules would be a strong oil painting. I’m just interested in some more discussion about how “watercoloury” actions and maps are, and particularly with reference to this new clause 67BA that the Minister has inserted, and that is, “Regional spatial plan must include standardised plan provisions as directed by national instrument”. These sound, and the Minister can correct me, like those provisions might be quite oil-based, rather than watercolours, and then how does that link with the answer that he just gave to Lan Pham about not including limits in spatial plans because a spatial plan was a watercolour?

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

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

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (12:15): Very briefly, at the risk of destroying the metaphor entirely, it’s a watercolour-slash-oil painting with some text-based additions, like a large caption underneath the painting. So it’s not—

Steve Abel: Oil and water don’t mix.

Hon Chris Bishop: What’s that?

Steve Abel: Oil and water don’t mix, mate.

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

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

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

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): There’s a lot of members seeking the call here. I’m quite happy to give members the opportunity for the back and forth, and then move on to another member. Rachel Brooking.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (12:17): Thank you. I’ll be very short on this. Yes, of course, Labour supports spatial plans. That’s why we had our Spatial Planning Act that you repealed.

Hon Chris Bishop: Mention number four!

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

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai) (12:18): Thank you, Mr Chair. This is my first contribution in Part 3 of this bill. I do want to speak to some of my tabled amendments that amend bits of Schedule 3.

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

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

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

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (12:21): The issue of a census is a live conversation, as I understand it, but regardless of whether there is a census or not, there is information and there will continue to be data. The issue of whether there is a census or not is neither here nor there, frankly. The intention is, I’m advised, that a national standard for spatial planning will cover data standards, which could include things like projections around population and natural hazards.

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

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

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) (12:22): Thank you, Mr Chairman. I want to speak to this. In the Minister’s Amendment Paper 709, clause 80 inserts after clause 80(4)(b)(ii) a requirement that a local authority, in producing, preparing, and deciding a land use plan, must have regard to any determination made by, in this case, the land market officer under clause 3 of new Schedule 10A on Amendment Paper 738. The Minister for RMA Reform has said that the land market officer determination will, effectively, kind of—what was the word that he used—put a finger on—

Hon Chris Bishop: Put a finger on the pip dial.

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

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

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (12:25): Yeah, the member Phil Twyford is right, and we did have a debate about this. It’s just about getting the balance right between the democratic control of plans and the ability of communities and councils to plan their cities but also making it clear that the decisions that those communities and councils make democratically have significant economic repercussions, as I know that that member appreciates. At the moment, we don’t have, in my view—and I think that the member probably agrees—the balance right, and so we’re setting up this independent economic referee.

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

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

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) (12:28): Just in light of that, is it not true that, hypothetically, a council could put in place a hard urban growth boundary or down-zone a part of a city next to a rapid transit corridor, for whatever reason; the land market officer then makes a determination that this is contrary to the obligation to foster competitive land markets; and, because of this provision and the use of the term “have regard to”, the council could have regard to it, explain its position, and then carry on, regardless?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (12:29): The short answer is that this is a debate about how much is in primary legislation and how much is in the national policy direction (NPD)—OK? I mean, if you read the national policy direction in relation to housing and development, there is an extensive amount of things that deal with some of what the member Phil Twyford is talking about. For example, the housing development directive 1.5 says, “To enable urban expansion, land use plans must not include urban growth boundaries or requirements for development to be connected to existing urban areas.” The member might say that that should be in primary legislation. We’ve decided that with the way that the National Policy Statement on Urban Development works at the moment, the next layer down below the bill is the appropriate place to do that.

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

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

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

Hon Phil Twyford: Maybe that’s a bad example.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Sure.

Hon Phil Twyford: It could be a smaller, more specific example that they could explain away.

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

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

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) (12:32): But in light of what we’ve seen over the last few years, quite a long list of councils have prevaricated, stalled, gamed the process, and run previous Ministers and this Minister ragged in their efforts to avoid complying with national direction on these issues. I would argue that this provision underpowers the land market officer and that position’s ability to have its determinations enforced.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (12:32): Well, ultimately, the Minister can step in, in the same way they can do under the Resource Management Act now. Fair enough, I understand where the member is coming from.

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

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

ORIINI KAIPARA (Te Pāti Māori—Tāmaki Makaurau) (12:34): Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. I particularly want to ask the Minister, straight off the bat, and it’s in regards to Part 3, clause 63 to 74G, spatial plans, given that we’ve already debated the Mana Whakahone ā Rohe. But this is really in regards to mana whenua and is different from Mana Whakahone ā Rohe.

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

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

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

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

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (12:38): I thank the member for her question. We thought quite hard about the composition of the spatial planning committees. The first thing to say is that people on them don’t have to be elected members. So I think there’s a widespread assumption that the people appointed to the committees by the local authorities will be elected councillors. They probably will be, I’m sure that will happen, but there’s actually quite broad discretion as to how that happens. Clause 71(3) says, “Every local authority in the region—(a) is entitled to appoint at least 1 member of the spatial planning committee”, and paragraph (b) says they may agree that they will not appoint a member, and there are some requirements as to who is on it, and the rest of it.

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

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

Arena Williams: Ha, ha!

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Why are you laughing? Do you want me to get started on that?

Arena Williams: Yeah, get started on it!

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: No, no, no. Time is against me.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Don’t get the Minister started on other stuff.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: No, don’t do that.

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

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

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (12:40): Thank you, Mr Chair. I was, in my last contribution, asking about the type of artwork of the spatial plan. I would now like to keep on spatial plans, which are still just at the end of Subpart 1, and also noting, Mr Chair—I can’t remember if you were in the Chair or not when we started at this Part, but the intention is to go through the clauses and then the schedules rather than jumping to the schedules, in part because it’s just a big document.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): It’s the jumping around that’s making it a little bit awkward, so I think we need to keep moving forward.

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

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (12:42): I mean, it’s partly just a statement of the obvious, which is, in clause 74E(1), when you’ve got two regions to agree to a joint one, and that may happen. I mean, clause 74EA specifically says that Nelson and Tasman need to do a joint one for reasons that I think are relatively obvious. I don’t know, I don’t want to get ahead of other regions or imply that I think they should do that, but there may be regions that decide, “Righty-o, we’re going to do a joint one.” Clause 74E(2A) is sort of a statement of the obvious that you need to work out who’s administering each provision because, by definition, you’ve got two different regions with the boundary in the middle, and it’s intended to signal that there may be subcommittees that work on different parts of it. It’s really just, probably, a bit of a catch-all to be honest. I would say an avoidance-of-doubt clause.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (12:43): Thank you, Mr Chair. Moving on, then, to land use plans and my tabled amendment at 7.36.01 last night that goes to clause 81, “Provision in land use plan”, and it is the same inclusion that I had for the spatial plans. I’m not sure if the Minister responsible for RMA Reform was in the chair then, and that is that “they must include objectives for achieving well-functioning urban and rural environments, including objectives relating to the distinctive characteristics, values, qualities, identity, and anticipated future character of places within the region.” As I mentioned earlier, that is to give some colour and to note the importance of place and plans when you are doing planning.

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

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai) (12:45): Thank you, Mr Chair. Because we did jump around a bit referring to the Minister responsible for RMA Reform’s amendment to the Amendment Paper, specifically about the statutory officer, I just wanted to signal that I think this merits a bit more discussion because it’s not something that was considered during the select committee process. It’s just been introduced quite late, so I just had a series of questions on that, but I still want to come back to some Amendment Papers about the regional spatial committee process and membership. I guess I’ll go to the statutory officer because I think it would be worth us having just a bit of a discussion about how that’s going to work.

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

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (12:46): The short answer is that it’s about land use plans, not spatial plans. The second question was about advice to Government around national direction, and the answer is yes. My expectation would be that if there are trends developing over time, the statuary officer could say to the Government that you might want to amend national direction here or use this wording, to Mr Twyford’s point before.

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

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

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

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai) (12:49): Thank you so much, Mr Chair, and thank you to the Minister responsible for RMA Reform for his answers. I guess I’m wondering—and it’s somewhat related to the example he just brought up about the station design at Maungawhau—will transport costs also be within the brief of considering competitive urban land markets? As I have raised repeatedly, you kind of can’t separate housing costs and transport costs. There’s a relationship between them. You can get much cheaper land and have much higher transport costs, and the overall impact on a household budget could be the same or worse. Low-income people are often pushed out to places that have poorer transport access because there are lower housing costs, but then they have much higher transport costs. It is entirely possible that you could get advice that you need to zone for a whole lot more land where there are not good transport infrastructure services, because that will bring down the cost of housing, but it could have a perverse impact on the overall cost to households if we’re not taking into account the transport infrastructure and services that are available.

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

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (12:51): Yeah, I mean, some of what the member is covering is under the kind of general rubric of well-functioning urban areas, which is a theme of the—well, it’s in the goals, for starters, but it’s a general theme.

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

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai) (12:52): Just one more. You’ve mentioned that it’s not applying to regional spatial plans, but land use plans have to be consistent with regional spatial plans, so how does that work?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (12:52): The land use plans are where the rubber hits the road on this stuff. I mean, I suppose it’s not completely accurate to say that they don’t affect regional spatial plans, because one follows the other, but going back up, I suppose they’re tangentially related. The point is there is a focus on the land use plans because that’s where the rubber hits the road around competitiveness. Yes, it’s true that the land use plans must follow the spatial plans, but the competitiveness stuff comes in at the land use plan level. The whole point is that the spatial plans will be “watercoloury” enough so that if a land use plan change is required, that will not be inconsistent with the spatial plan. I suppose, is it possible to envisage a scenario in which that is the case? Yes, possibly. We can’t plan for literally every eventuality, but my expectation is that doesn’t happen.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (12:53): Thank you, Mr Chair. This is a question that returns to the spatial planning committee reviews, which is clause 74 to the end of that subpart. The most straightforward way I can ask this question that I want to know—you’re right that the Crown has an interest in some of the arrangements that exist between iwi and council. Then there are some instances where the Crown doesn’t have an interest, but those arrangements exist just between the iwi and the council. When you end up with local councils that are participating in the spatial planning committees, my question is when the arrangements change at the council level with iwi, how is the spatial planning committee meant to take that into account? Is the council meant to go and advocate for it? You’ve created some special conditions here which mean that the spatial committee must consider that. That’s in the case of marine and coastal area title or in the environmental covenants for ngā rohe moana o ngā hapū o Ngāti Porou.

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

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

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (12:55): Well, all I can say in response to that is it depends. It depends. I mean, the bill lays out requirements for the appointment of spatial plan committees. Councils are separate things from local authorities, although obviously connected, because local authorities make the appointment. The short answer is it depends on what the local authorities wish to do in relation to their own arrangements with local authorities. The bill is not prescriptive around that.

CATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki) (12:56): I move, That debate on this question now close.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Optimistic.

STEVE ABEL (Green) (12:56): Thank you, Mr Chair. I didn’t expect us to get another call this close to lunch, but I appreciate it.

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

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Going backwards without new points won’t help.

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

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

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (12:58): Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to move on—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Actually, no, I’m anticipating the member may take some time. We’re very near the cut-off for lunch, so save yourself for afterwards. I’ll go to the Minister.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (12:58): I’m advised that not every region will need to do that. It may be that in some regions we do that. If it is significant, we may do that through national standards, but it’s not a hard legal requirement, but regions may choose to do it or we may make them.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The time has come for me to leave the Chair for the lunch break. The committee will resume following question time. Thank you.

Debate interrupted.

Sitting suspended from 12.59 p.m. to 2 p.m.

House resumed.

Visitors

Fiji—Parliament

SPEAKER: The House is resumed. I’m sure that members would wish to welcome a delegation from the Parliament of the Republic of Fiji’s Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, who are with us, in the gallery, this afternoon.

Presentation

Papers

SPEAKER: I present the report of The Audit Office entitled New Zealand Defence Force: Progress towards eliminating harmful behaviour.

I also present the report of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment entitled Adrift: What future does the Emissions Trading Scheme have? Those papers are published under the authority of the House. We come now to oral questions.

Oral Questions to Ministers

Finance

Question No. 1

KATIE NIMON (National—Napier) (14:01) to the Minister of Finance: Does she stand by her answers to oral question No. 3 yesterday?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (14:01): Yes, in particular my statement that to raise core Crown revenue to 33 percent of GDP in the 2030-31 fiscal year, the Government would have to increase taxes by $10.4 billion in that year, which equates to over $100 more tax per household every week. I’m very glad that the Leader of the Opposition is listening. I’ve done his maths for him, but perhaps he should’ve done it before he made his announcement.

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

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: If she stops telling lies about us, I’ll stop telling the truth about her.

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

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

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

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: I withdraw and apologise.

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

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

Katie Nimon: What sorts of tax increases would raise that amount of revenue?

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

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

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Can I try again with a better answer?

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

Katie Nimon: Could personal tax increases raise enough revenue?

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

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Living in a fantasy world over there.

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

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

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

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

Hon David Seymour: Supplementary.

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

Hon David Seymour: Oh, what, come on—I was up. I stood up quick.

SPEAKER: Yeah, I know. Read your Standing Orders.

Prime Minister

Question No. 2

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green) (14:06) to the Prime Minister: E tautoko ana ia i ngā kōrero me ngā mahi katoa a tōna Kāwanatanga?

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

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister) (14:06): Yes, and I can reassure the member that there will not be an increase to 45 percent for the top tax rate; we won’t be implementing an inheritance tax, a death tax, or a rentals tax, or a wealth or asset tax.

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

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: It will do a better job of protecting the environment but also getting the economy growing.

Hon Marama Davidson: Should environmental limits protect the environment to support both ecosystem health and human health?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: The new legislation strikes the right balance of getting the country moving and growing while also protecting our environment.

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

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

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

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I reject the characterisation of that question.

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

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: In answer to the first leg of the question, no.

SPEAKER: Question No. 3, the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins.

Hon Shane Jones: Is that all?

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

Prime Minister

Question No. 3

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition) (14:09) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all of his Government’s statements and actions?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister) (14:09): Yes, I do, and particularly our desire to implement and vote for a rates cap at first reading, at second reading, and at third reading to make it law to lower the cost of living for Kiwis.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hon Members: Private.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Perhaps the Prime Minister—

Shanan Halbert: He doesn’t even know.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hon Members: Yes.

Local Government

Question No. 4

Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill) (14:15) to the Minister of Local Government: Why has the Government introduced legislation to cap council rates?

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Local Government) (14:16): Because for too long, ratepayers have been hit with steep and unexpected rates increases, adding pressure to household budgets at a time when many New Zealanders are feeling already the squeeze. Ratepayers nationwide have been hit with median increases of 14.2 percent and 9.2 percent over the past two years, respectively. Under this Government, the days of roller-coaster double-digit rates increases are coming to an end.

Dr Carlos Cheung: How will the rates cap help keep rates affordable for households?

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

Dr Carlos Cheung: How much could ratepayers save with a rates cap?

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

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

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

Finance

Question No. 5

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) (14:18) to the Minister of Finance: Does she stand by all her statements and actions?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (14:18): In context, yes—particularly my answer to question No. 1 today, which the Leader of the Opposition took issue with. Everything I said in that answer was completely factually accurate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does that mean that overall food prices are higher or lower than three years ago?

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

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

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

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

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

Regulation

Question No. 6

SIMON COURT (ACT) (14:23) to the Minister for Regulation: What initiatives has the Government taken to ease the regulatory burden on New Zealanders?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Minister for Regulation) (14:23): A great many, in fact. I dare to say that cutting red tape and deleting stupid rules has almost defined this Government’s programme. Perhaps no initiative stands out more than replacing the Resource Management Act with a simpler system grounded in property rights, and for that I commend the member for his stoic and conscientious efforts, alongside Chris Bishop. That reduction in rules and red tape around using people’s own land is the single biggest initiative to make wages higher and houses more affordable as we spend more time getting stuff done and less time being told no in this country.

Simon Court: What practical results has the Ministry for Regulation delivered?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agriculture

Question No. 7

SUZE REDMAYNE (National—Rangitīkei) (14:27) to the Minister of Agriculture: Is the Government considering a capital gains tax on farms?

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture) (14:28): No, we will not be implementing a capital gains tax on New Zealanders, just as we will not be implementing a land tax. As the Prime Minister has said, a capital gains tax would be a wrecking ball tax for the New Zealand economy. The Government is keeping taxes low so New Zealanders, including rural New Zealand, can keep more of what they earn and have more choices about what they and their families can spend their money on.

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

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

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

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

Suze Redmayne: Has he seen any other reports about taxes on farms?

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

Education

Question No. 8

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) (14:30) to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by all of her statements and actions?

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education) (14:31): Yes, and in particular my actions in special education. I’m really proud of the work that we’ve done in the last three years, with 142 extra special and satellite classrooms around the country; six almost full school redevelopments of our special day schools; and three new special schools: one in Drury, one in Palmerston North, and one in Gisborne—they are the first that have been built in 50 years—and tens of millions of dollars into learning support modifications. Inclusion is choice, and I’m really proud to have ruled a line in the sand to fully support the special education sector.

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

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

Hon Dr Megan Woods: You could do it today.

SPEAKER: No, careful. Carry on. Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SPEAKER: You’ve said enough.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hon Kieran McAnulty: You got caught out.

SPEAKER: Sorry, do you want to leave or not?

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Oh, if you want me to, I will.

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

Prime Minister

Question No. 9

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori) (14:39) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government’s statements and actions?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister) (14:39): Yes, in particular this Government’s response not to implement a capital gains tax or a wealth tax.

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

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

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

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I reject the characterisation of that question.

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

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

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

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

Resources

Question No. 10

JAMIE ARBUCKLE (NZ First) (14:42) to the Minister for Resources: What announcements has he made regarding petroleum and mineral exploration in New Zealand?

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Resources) (14:42): Recently, I announced that the seventh petroleum permitting application has been accepted for assessment. Since the repeal of the offshore wimpy, unloved, loathsome exploration ban—

Hon Dr Megan Woods: That you announced.

Hon SHANE JONES: —imposed by Jacinda Ardern, when she misled Winston—

SPEAKER: No—no, sorry.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order.

SPEAKER: No, it’s not necessary.

Hon SHANE JONES: I don’t want to hear from that 3-inch toad.

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

Jamie Arbuckle: Supplementary.

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

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

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

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

SPEAKER: No, you’re answering the supplementary.

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

SPEAKER: No, I didn’t say that.

Hon SHANE JONES: —correct my answer to the primary question.

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

Hon SHANE JONES: So on the supplementary?

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

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

Jamie Arbuckle: How does the extractive sector support the New Zealand economy?

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

Steve Abel: We’ll cancel them soon.

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

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

Jamie Arbuckle: Supplementary?

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

Infrastructure

Question No. 11

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (14:47) to the Minister for Infrastructure: Does he stand by his statement that “it depends”, when asked if ratepayers will pick up the bill that would otherwise have been paid for by development contributions for fast-track approvals on land not zoned for housing; if so, what does it depend on?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister for Infrastructure) (14:47): In context, yes. My full statement during the environment Estimates debate last week was: “The short answer is that it depends. It depends on the project, and it depends on the conditions granted in relation to that project.” I also said that people need to read the conditions, because I think there is an assumption that, if something is fast-tracked, building can happen immediately. People should read the conditions. They’re often extremely extensive around highway upgrades, waste water and stormwater, local roading upgrades, wetland restoration, the need for network capacity or an alternative solution if there is no capacity, and more, before a project can even happen.

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

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

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

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

Hon Member: Looking after your mates.

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

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

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

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

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

Shanan Halbert: Sewage to Whangārei. Read it.

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

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

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

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

Prime Minister

Question No. 12

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green) (14:53) to the Prime Minister: E tautoko ana ia i ngā kōrero me ngā mahi katoa a tōna Kāwanatanga?

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

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister) (14:53): Yes, and particularly our decision not to implement a 45 percent top income tax rate, and particularly our decision not to implement an inheritance tax, a gift tax, a rentals tax, or an asset tax.

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

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

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

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

Hon David Seymour: Supplementary.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Supplementary.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chlöe Swarbrick: I’ll take one.

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

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

Bills

Planning Bill

Committee of the whole House

Debate resumed.

Part 3 Combined plan, and Schedules 2 to 5 (continued)

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, the committee is resumed on the Planning Bill. When we suspended earlier today, we were considering Part 3. This is the debate on clauses 63 to 106, “Combined plan”, including Schedule 2, “Regional spatial plans”; Schedule 3, “Further provisions relating to plans”; Schedule 4, “Independent hearings panels”; and Schedule 5, “Designations”. Once again, the question is that Part 3 stand part.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (15:01): Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, as you’ve said, we’ve been working through Part 3. We’ve not got near the schedules yet, nor regulatory relief. I’m sure we’ll all want to talk about regulatory relief; that comes in at clause 92 and I’ve got an Amendment Paper on that. Before then—and I think maybe my Green Party colleagues might have other questions, I’m not sure—we’ve got clauses 84(a) and 84(b), which are all struck out, which are the requirements for rules that control fishing. I know there was a small debate on this point—well, one question—in a different part of the bill about the processes of the Fisheries Act in a contribution from Rachel Boyack, but what I would like to know from the member in the chair is why was it that these changes for rules that controlled fishing happened after the select committee process, and, in fact, after another resource management bill that went through the Environment Committee that amending the fishing controls that took a lot of House and committee time last year?

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

SIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (15:03): Fishing and the impacts of fishing on biodiversity and on the environment are able to be managed under the Fisheries Act. What this Government’s been very clear about is we want this legislation—the Planning Bill and the complimentary Natural Environment Bill, which we intend to become law—to be very clear and focused in their scope. If the impacts of fishing can and should be managed under the Fisheries Act, then there is provision to do that. We’re just being clear about what the scope of this bill is.

LAN PHAM (Green) (15:04): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m really happy to take this call right now, because I specifically want to pick up on the Minister’s comments around fishing, because this has been a substantive change that has come in in the last-minute amendment. I’m really interested to hear directly from the Minister about what the implications will be for particularly those areas of the country who have put in protections for ocean ecosystems under their planning regimes. When they move to the new system and they’re putting in place these bills, does that mean that the protections will have to be removed when those plans are notified? I’m thinking particularly where we’ve got instances in Northland, in the Bay of Plenty, and in Marlborough. This is a serious change and those people and communities, and iwi and hapū in those jurisdictions, will be really keen to hear the Minister’s answers to that.

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

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

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

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

SIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (15:07): I thank the member for the question. Thank you, Madam Chair. The member and I have chatted many times, in different forums, about how we agree it’s very important that New Zealand identifies and protects marine biodiversity, and that in the places where overfishing and fishing practices have damaged the marine environment, there’s a pathway to restoring them, including through the Hauraki Gulf/Tīkapa Moana Marine Protection Act, which is a start.

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

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

MIKE DAVIDSON (Green) (15:10): Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to ask a question on clause 71 around the appointment of the spatial plan committees. My question is based on the answers from the previous Minister in the chair. It was actually quite an important question, and it relates to an answer he gave earlier that the local authority can appoint a non-elected member to the spatial plan committee. My question is whether that member, if they are not elected, has full voting rights and make up part of the quorum. Based on the answer to that question, I’ll have a follow-up question.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (15:11): Just one little point on the fishing: the member in the chair said it is not in scope because this is the Planning Bill. But the bill as introduced included the fishing controls, so it’s totally in scope. There can’t be an argument of scope; that makes no sense whatsoever. It’s there and he’s deleted it, so it is in scope. I’m happy for the Minister to tell me why I’m wrong about that.

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

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

Hon Member: 6-7!

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

Joseph Mooney: Put it on TikTok!

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

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

SIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (15:15): There are a number of questions I’d like to respond to, before we get on to regulatory relief. To the member Mike Davidson, who asked about spatial plan committees, members do not need to be elected members of a local council, they can be appointed, and that is because we envisage that people with sufficient technical capability and competency will be required, and they may not come from the pool of elected members. They will have voting rights, apart from the appointee from central government, who will not.

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

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

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

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

HŪHANA LYNDON (Green) (15:20): Kia ora. I just wanted to follow up on my colleague Lan Pham’s point around marine protections and just ask a brief pātai to the Minister around the transition, and whether, following the transition, those marine protected areas such as us in Northland will exist. Or will they cease? And then with these amendments that have come forward, what consultation or consideration has the Minister and officials undertaken with Te Uri o Hikihiki, Patukeha, Ngāti Kuta of the Bay of Islands—so, the tribes of the North—who worked really hard and advocated alongside community for these marine protection rāhui tapu areas to be installed? Will they exist afterwards, you know, with the transition? If not—oh, OK—why? But also following transition, if they are to exist, will they still exist in the same form? Kia ora.

LAN PHAM (Green) (15:21): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to pick up on this novel and controversial topic of regulatory relief. There’s a lot in this, and in sort of opening, and picking up from Rachel Brooking touching on this, I want to make it really clear that the majority of submitters—and these are literally the words from the departmental report—"of the submissions that touched on regulatory relief, nearly all expressed opposition. So this was across councils, it was Māori, it was environmental and community organisations, it was heritage groups, it was resource management practitioners, it was legal organisations and individuals. I can appreciate the theoretical place where this has come from because there are absolutely those nightmare stories out there where individual people have found themselves to have quite significant barriers put in place on their land.

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

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Can you come to your question.

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

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

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

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

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

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The member’s time has expired.

SIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (15:26): The member may well be right that many submitters to the select committee were concerned about the cost, the burden of having to identify these qualifying matters at private property level. Well, let’s be clear, these costs are already being borne. They’re being borne by the property owners who have restrictions, often applied with very, very vague information based on aerial photographs, based on assumptions made from the farm gate or in the case of trees in Upper Hutt. I had a letter from my constituent who said, “There’s a tree hanging over my house. I can’t get rid of it because it’s going to cost about $10,000 in consent fees and arborist fees, and I can’t afford it.” How on earth is a pin oak that is probably 30 or 40 years old end up being such a cost to private property owner? That’s what the current system allows.

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

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

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

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert) (15:30): Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for letting me have this call, because I want to directly discuss the issues that the Minister has just raised, and I want to do it in a really practical way.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Are you referring to clause 92?

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

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

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

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

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Have you got a specific question you want to direct?

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

SIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (15:35): Just before we get to that member’s question, I just want to correct the committee on a comment I made in relation to clause 71, appointment of spatial planning committees. I’ve been advised that the Minister can choose or decide whether central government’s member on the spatial planning committee has voting rights or not. That’s in response to a question from the Green member Mike Davidson, so just making sure that that’s clear to the committee.

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

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

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (15:39): Thank you, Madam Chair. Two quick questions in response to the member in the chair. One is: can he clarify—I think this was his answer, so this is just a simple clarification—that if there is an existing protection, say, an indigenous biodiversity protection, on someone’s land, that regulatory relief will not apply to anything that is existing? That’s one question.

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

But then I think I could move on—

Hon Member: No.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: No? I’ll sit down before moving to Schedule 2.

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Labour) (15:40): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll just take the opportunity to follow on from Helen White, who raised what she thought was a theoretical situation; actually, it’s a very real situation in the Mackenzie.

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

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

SIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (15:43): In response to the member’s question, who will develop the regulatory relief mechanism, it’s intended to be developed as a national standard. The reason for that is because the Government intends that these processes not be bespoke and that they be applied consistently across the country. In order to do that, a standard will be developed. That is our intention.

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

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Labour) (15:45): Thank you very much, Madam Chair, just for the opportunity to carry on with that discussion. I suggest that it may be that people who have pens and highlighters will be replaced with people with quills, who used to be called lawyers. The question for the member—well, the member states that there will be a standard across the country. The landscape values in the Mackenzie are quite different from those of south Westland or, indeed, of north Auckland.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): There’s not much pressure for a solar farm down there, though.

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: No. A lot of very good quality farming down south Westland.

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

SIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (15:46): In response to the member Damien O’Connor’s questions, regulatory relief will be established—the process will be established through regulations, and the standards I referred to will apply specific methodologies, say, for example, to outstanding natural features and landscapes.

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

Hon Damien O'Connor: Madam Chair—Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Is this a follow-on question?

Hon Damien O'Connor: Yes, it is.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The Hon Damien O’Connor.

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Labour) (15:47): Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and I raise it while you’re in the Chair because you’re very familiar with this issue, and that is of outstanding biodiversity, significant natural areas, actually, that everyone discredited, said they were absolutely outrageous, laid down in the Resource Management Act (RMA). So dare I suggest, the challenge was that people on the West Coast saw significant natural areas, areas of significance in terms of biodiversity, as insignificant because they had lots of them.

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

SIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (15:48): If I could just briefly address that, I’ve been clear: we’re going to adopt standardised approaches through regulation and through development of national standards. It may well be that most of the West Coast, which appears, as the member pointed out, to be covered in “bush” is all significant, or it may be that, actually, when you apply a standardised methodology and you stand back a little bit, you discover that, actually, there are things that do need protection because of their significance or value. But potentially, a whole lot of stuff that’s protected now doesn’t need to be. But if the member would care to hold off any questions about indigenous biodiversity and so on until we get to the Natural Environment Bill, I’m sure we could come back to it.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (15:49): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll just remind the members opposite that we’ve not yet touched on the schedules. So it’s my intention to go now to the schedules, noting that one of the schedules does, again, deal with regulatory relief.

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

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

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

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (15:52): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m pleased to be able to take a call on Schedule 2. I’ve been looking at this. It’s not an area—unlike my colleague Rachel Brooking—that I am an expert in. My questions are technical questions and I’ll just refer to the specific clause number within Schedule 2 so the Minister is aware—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Sure, that would be very helpful.

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

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

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

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

SIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (15:55): Thank you. I thank the member for the question. In terms of participation, it’s quite clear what’s set out there. I just come to the member’s question around what local authorities must do. They must work together to prepare a document—in other words, a process agreement as described in clause 4 of Schedule 2. It sets out a bunch of matters that they must do. And if they don’t, there’s a ministerial intervention power in this bill to respond to that.

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

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

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

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai) (15:57): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I did want to speak to my colleague’s Amendment Paper to Schedule 2. Lan Pham has a published amendment to Schedule 2, which would have amended the bill that was reported back from the Environment Committee, but I feel that we are more debating the Minister responsible for RMA Reform’s Amendment Paper 709. What this refers to is clause 6 in Schedule 2, which is laying out the documents and other matters that must have regard held to when preparing draft regional spatial plans. There have just been some technical drafting changes, it looks like. It’s no longer Roman numerals, but letters in the subclauses.

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

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

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

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

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Can you come to the question for the Minister?

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

RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East) (16:01): I move, That debate on this question now close.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Madam Chair—we haven’t even discussed Schedule 3 yet.

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

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (16:01): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a small question also on Schedule 2. I know I said I thought I’d done my questions there, but then I saw a change to clause 4(1)(b), and that is that the word “unanimously” has been struck out, and it’s been replaced with “by consensus”. So this is clause 4, “Process agreement for preparing draft regional spatial plan”. I presume there might be some other changes like this. So my question to the member in the chair is: what does “consensus” mean? I presume in this context it does not mean being unanimous. Being unanimous means that everybody agrees, but some people think consensus means everybody needs to agree; some people say it’s just some sort of majority. If it is just some sort of majority, what sort of majority is it? So if the member could answer my question about consensus, that would be useful.

SIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (16:02): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll respond to the member Julie Anne Genter’s question and the member Rachel Brooking’s question. Rachel Brooking, consensus means what it means in the dictionary.

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

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

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (16:04): Thank you, Madam Chair. I just had a few more questions on Schedule 2 along similar lines to my previous questions—so just kind of technical questions. Apologies for not being a specialist in this area.

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

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

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

Hon Rachel Brooking: He’ll be able to answer that question.

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

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

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

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

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

SIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (16:09): I’ll just try and address some of those questions. The member would grant me some grace, because there were many questions. I’ll try and do my best, but if I miss any, happy to come back to them. Firstly, when it comes to joint spatial plans, there’s no limit on how many regions might want to get together and make them, but I think it would be unlikely to be more than two, but there is provision for more if they decided that it was necessary. We’re comfortable we can trust councils around that.

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

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

Ryan Hamilton: Consensus.

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

Hon Rachel Brooking: That’s helpful.

SIMON COURT: Isn’t it? Thank you.

Hon Rachel Brooking: Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Is this a follow-on question?

Hon Rachel Brooking: No, I was going to move to—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): OK. Lan Pham.

LAN PHAM (Green) (16:10): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to pick up on Schedule 2, and I’ve got a number of amendments that I’ll just refer directly to and move through those.

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

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

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

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

SIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (16:13): Madam Chair, if the member would like, I can answer her first question while she recovers her paper trail.

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

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

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

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Honourable Camilla Belich. Sorry, Rachel Hunter—Rachel Brooking. Sorry.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (16:14): How many names—ha, ha!

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

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

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Sorry to interrupt. Could you just refer us to the Amendment Paper number?

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

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

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

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

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

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

SIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (16:19): We’ve been very clear: we can’t have every Tom, Dick, and Harry turning up objecting to stuff around the country. We are clear that—just referring to clause 20(1)—there is a limit, a qualifying criteria, on who can make decisions to people in a region or a district to who that plan provision applies. We have graciously accepted that there are some who have an interest greater than the public generally and they will also qualify.

I come back to the member’s question around when the local authority is required to consult. There is provision for targeted consultation about small plan changes—minor plan changes—and that means that the local authority is not burdened with carrying out an extensive consultation when it can either target the people directly affected for consultation or has sufficient information to make a plan change based on information that’s collected. As the bill states, they’ve consulted the person or group or their representative on the matter within the last 36 months before public notification of the plan, and they’ve advised them that information obtained from that consultation would also be used for that process. Thank you.

LAN PHAM (Green) (16:21): Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s a really good segue from the member’s comments into this Amendment Paper, which I’d like the member’s comments on, because he said we can’t have every Tom, Dick, or Harry getting involved with these planning processes, and I agree. I think there’s absolute merit in some of these changes that are proposed in these bills.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Is the member referring to the same Amendment Paper that Rachel Brooking was referring to, or is there another?

LAN PHAM: Sorry, my Amendment Paper that I’m referring to is No. 727.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): OK, thank you.

LAN PHAM: This is on clause 11 of Schedule 3, which is about justification reports. While I agree that, at the individual level there should be a higher bar when it comes to being able to change things and slow things down, and that kind of thing, what I am very conscious of, and I’m sure the Minister and members will appreciate, is that there are genuine—at a district, city, or regional level—local issues and bespoke things that we want to be able to protect. I know that the Minister is very committed to reducing bureaucracy in the system, but the justification report and where it must be put in place seems to me to be overly bureaucratic, because, once you’re at that planning level, councils will only be putting these in place where there is genuine community buy-in, genuine community push for bespoke rules.

My amendment would be that we would remove these more onerous requirements for councils to put in these justification reports when it comes to regional plans. This would allow councils to more readily be able to put in place local rules and provisions that, for example, might defend the character of streets or regions or environmental limits without in fact getting caught up in an unnecessary and time consuming and costly process where they’re having to justify their own local community needs. The Minister responded earlier when we brought this up specifically in terms of geological features like cast in Waitomo and what not, and he was very appreciative of those areas. This is simply about putting in place those requirements, being less onerous and the local councils being able to drive what makes sense for their local area. Would the Minister consider that?

SIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (16:24): Look, the member and I could talk about geology all day, no doubt, our appreciation of cast formations, as no doubt we could with the Chair; however, the reason the justification report process is onerous is intentional. In the new system, we intend there be far fewer bespoke provisions. Currently, we have 76 councils, 14 regions—last count—and over 1,100 bespoke zones around the country: urban and rural and commercial and residential. In the new system, we’re going to shift to standardised zones. Councils will be able to pick from far fewer zones and apply them in a standardised way for a standardised process to their plans, of which we intend there be far fewer.

Having an onerous justification process should they seek to depart from standardised zones is part of the tension of the new system. It is intentional, and while the member might wish to stick with 1,100 bespoke zones, the submissions we’ve received through the select committee process and the pleading from our constituents is that we relieve them of the burden of having to work their way through all of these different zones when they get around the country building things. So we won’t be accepting any further amendments.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (16:26): I’m going to move on to Part 2 of Schedule 3, noting of course that this Part 3 debate that we’re in now includes Schedules 2, 3, 4, and 5.

I’ve got two questions. One is a general conceptual question about Part 2 of Schedule 3, “Change requests and private plan changes”. My question to the member in the chair, Simon Court, is: why is there a need for private plan changes in the system if, as the member’s been saying over and over again, the system is set up to be so enabling and so permissive? Why does there even need to be a private plan change process? Noting that private plan changes cost councils, which this Government wants to reduce the spending of, an awful lot of money. Why is this mechanism needed? That is the first question.

My second question is just in relation to a change at clause 53 of Part 2 of Schedule 3, and then it comes across at clause 56 as well. This is that a request for that private plan change that I’ve just been discussing, rather than it going to the Environment Court—Environment Court is struck out and it now goes to the planning tribunal for review. That’s seen in clause 53 and over the page, and I’m wondering why the decision is going from the Environment Court to the planning tribunal for a review of a private plan change. I don’t remember where in the world the planning tribunal sits in this legislation, but given that the planning tribunal’s general approach—and it’s one that we haven’t opposed—has been for simpler issues, and plans generally tend to be complicated, I would have thought that the Environment Court was the more appropriate forum for hearing a review. If the member could explain why that change has been made, that would be useful.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Madam Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The Hon Julie Anne Genter. I’m sorry, I thought the member in the chair was going to stand, but you can ask your question first.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai) (16:28): I can see that the member is getting information from officials, but I did want to make sure I didn’t miss out on the opportunity to speak to my amendments to Schedule 3.

One is about the issue of—and we heard a lot about this at the select committee. In clause 24(2) of Schedule 3, it says, “The panel may choose not to hold a hearing …”—this is about independent hearings panels and their ability to not hold a hearing even if submitters request to be heard. I’d say overwhelmingly people thought that was not a good idea. We understand there might be some exceptional circumstances where they’re making very small changes, but, in the vast majority of changes, we think the panel should be holding hearings if submitters want to be heard in person. That’s my amendment—it’s a proposed amendment and it’s a tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 709.

Then there’s another one on Schedule 3, clause 26, about the Minister’s involvement in independent hearings panels. We’re proposing to remove clause 26(2). That’s on page 316 of Amendment Paper 709. The reason for this is that broadly there was concern about ministerial overreach in this whole approach, of it really taking away power from the regions, from local communities, and putting it very firmly in the control of the Minister of the day. Given the Minister is already responsible for setting national instruments and other system matters, we don’t believe that there should be direct ministerial appointments to independent hearing panels or to regional spatial planning committees. This is really important. The Minister already has a ton of power and ability to direct what’s happening through national directions. Those are two tabled amendments to Part 1 of Schedule 3, and I’m wondering if the member in the chair, Simon Court, can comment on both of these issues.

SIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (16:31): If I could just respond to a couple of questions. Firstly, why are private plan changes needed? Because a landowner might be ready to move to a new land use before council is ready to carry out a wider plan change. That’s why they need it. It’s simply a carry-over from the Resource Management Act. If we were not to provide for them in the new system, that would reduce the flexibility and the agileness and the ability of landowners to respond to the need for different land uses. The question around the planning tribunal: it’s an administrative decision on a process matter. It’s not a substantive decision.

I just want to come to Julie Anne Genter’s questions around a hearings panel and the Minister’s power to directly appoint Government officials on to a hearings panel. It’s important, if the Minister chooses specific matters in a region—say, Government might be a significant investor in transport infrastructure, for example, or have a significant interest in particular matters in the spatial plan process—there is a representative from the Minister in that process.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’m going to take a call from Rachel Brooking and just take some—you’ve moved on to Part 2 now? I’m just making sure that everybody’s happy that we’re now on Part 2. It just helps the process if we know the flow.

Hon Rachel Brooking: Yes. Well, I was going to move even further. I didn’t have anything on Part 3—yes, going to Part 4.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Can I just ask Arena Williams which part you are on.

Arena Williams: Part 2, but I’m happy to keep moving.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): OK. We’ll keep moving, then, if you’re happy to keep moving. We’ll take a call from Rachel Brooking.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (16:33): OK. Thank you. Mine is actually quite a simple call.

Catherine Wedd: Subpart.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: No, it’s Part 4 of Schedule 3, so it’s not the subparts. It’s different wording in the schedules, but we’re still on Schedule 3, and we still have Schedules 4 and 5 to go.

It’s actually quite a brief comment from me. I know other members will have more to say about Part 4, but I just want the member to—well, one, remember my Amendment Paper 667, which deletes this part. Also, if you look through these provisions in Part 4 of Schedule 3, it creates a complicated web of frameworks and systems and process. I just want to ask the member a very simple question. Does he think this will lead to a lot of work? It’s that simple.

SIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (16:34): We canvassed regulatory relief extensively. The committee can refer to my previous answers on this matter. There will be work required. We’re introducing a new system. It’s very clear what the intention is that, when councils seek to impose controls on private property to protect public values, there needs to be a conversation with the property owner about whether they will accept those controls voluntarily or whether council needs to offer some form of relief, which could be rates relief, it could be additional development rights on another part of the property, or it could be cash. In the absence of that tension, councils can apply—as they have done under the Resource Management Act—overlays that restrict the use of property without any tension or facing any costs of their own. That ends when this legislation passes.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (16:35): Thank you, Madam Chair. Here we are at the regulatory relief part, and it does not matter if the member in the chair, Simon Court, says he has addressed these questions, because this is one of the most significant parts of the most significant reforms that this Government will make in this term, so it is right that we discuss how each part of it will work when this might be referred to as the “kill your darlings” part of the bill.

Everything that we think of as a public good within the resource management system, whether it is significant natural areas, whether it is the viewshafts that members of Parliament around the country are campaigning to defend, whether it is areas significant to Māori or indigenous biodiversity or heritage—those are the things which are affected by this part. They are still operative in this law. It is still appropriate that some of these things are given effect, even in the most property rights - specific version of the world, because otherwise you would get weird and wacky outcomes. The member in the chair knows that, and so there is going to be a significant amount of work that needs to be done to make these parts operative.

My question, first, is around the Māori rights and interests that we’ve been having a discussion about, about the spinning top, where the weight is at the top for a Minister to set directions and that those are meant to be preserved in the system. The simple question at this point for the member in the chair is: given they have a sort of special place in the hierarchy of decision making, even though they’re not what we would have done, the Minister has arrived at a sort of compromised position where it’s quite unclear in the proposed framework, if they are given effect to at the top level, how then the framework is meant to apply to them. We have gone through the select committee process, we have gone through public consultation on this, and it is still very unclear, given the Minister’s answers earlier in the day and last night, how, say, sites of significance and wāhi tapu are meant to be protected at the top level of the system and the regulatory relief is meant to apply to them.

Also, given the member in the chair’s public comments around these things which suggest to the public that they are almost completely struck out, how is it that we are here now where we’re still considering an amended version which has been amended at the last minute and nobody understands how a wāhi tapu or how an urupā down at Mission Bay on the shores of Kohimārama is going to be given effect to in the new system? It is a real world problem, to the member in the chair, and I want him to take us through how the regulatory relief provisions are meant to apply in a situation like that.

SIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (16:38): Madam Chair, thank you. The member asked a number of questions. If we go back to the premise of the policy in the legislation, if a community agrees that it’s important to protect a public value—for example, a site of significance to Māori, which I understand she was referring to, and that’s on private property—that is available in the system to protect. Nothing changes about that, except that if the property owner does not accept that control voluntarily, the property owner may be, after an evaluation, entitled to regulatory relief if there are impacts on their ability to use their property. That’s clear in the legislation. That’s our intent, and I hope the member understands that.

STEVE ABEL (Green) (16:39): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I would like to run through a super practical example that we’re aware of, just to understand and get clarity from the member on the practical implementation. Earlier in the discussion, he clarified that the 6,000 scheduled trees in Tāmaki-makau-rau Auckland will not be scheduled any more but that about a third of them that have a heritage value, which is why they’re designated as of exceptional value and are scheduled, will have a status recognised in the legislation. My first question is about the other two-thirds that are now no longer protected under the tree schedule, so around 4,000 trees there or thereabouts in Tāmaki-makau-rau Auckland.

One of the ways that protection of environmental assets, like trees, works is that, because the starting point is a prohibition on you cutting down a 300-year-old Pōhutukawa tree on your land that is scheduled, the protection forces the conversation. So then, the landowners goes, “I want to build an apartment block here where that tree is. Can I get the schedule lifted?” The conversation happens and, under general tree protection, 90 percent of applications for removal of trees succeeded. So, usually, for reasonable use, the protection will be lifted. What happens when you don’t have protection is that the tree has no status, so, therefore, as of the passing of this legislation—and this is one of the clarifications I’m seeking—the 300-year-old pōhutukawa tree that was previously scheduled, is that now without any protection? That’s the first question.

The second question is: if the council of Auckland decides that they want to develop a plan to protect those 4,000 trees, and they decide they will apply regulatory relief to protection of those trees, and the landowner just cuts down the tree anyway, what is the recourse of the council to punish the landowner for doing that? I’m presuming there’s no recourse, because the regulatory relief is a privilege of the landowner. That’s the second question.

The third question is: if the council get wind of the fact that the tree is going to be cut down—well, the landowner wants to cut the tree down, which is usually—the way that that happens in practice, Mr Court, as you’ve alluded to, Parliamentary Under-Secretary— when someone goes to cut a tree down, Mana Rākau get wind of it through an arborist who’s given them a heads-up, and they go and sit in the tree until such time as a conversation can happen. Now, should the council get wind of the fact that a formerly protected tree—300 years old, a pōhutukawa tree—the landowner wants to cut it down, and the council contact that landowner and say, “You’re entitled to regulatory relief for the protection of this tree, for not cutting it down.”, who decides how much regulatory relief? Like, what is the amount of cash that that landowner will be offered? Let’s remember we’re talking about 4,000 exceptionally valuable trees that are currently on the schedule in Auckland. How much is one of those trees worth, to be protected. That’s my third question.

My fourth question is: when the landowner is offered those moneys, if the landowner says “It’s not worth it, whether you’re offering me 300 bucks or 3,000 bucks or $10,000 to protect that tree, I still don’t want to protect it, I don’t want the regulatory relief; I want the tree gone because I’m going to build a granny flat.”—or whatever it is they’re going to do—what happens then? The landowner, presumably, has a right to refuse the regulatory relief and just proceed with removing the tree. That’s my fourth question.

SIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (16:44): Firstly, the member Steve Abel is correct to note that trees that have a heritage status will still be eligible for protection in the new system and, when they are on private property, the private property owner may be eligible for regulatory relief, but that’s entirely dependent on whether the matters that are protected in the form of protection has an impact on the way they use their property.

I’m not going to speculate on the hypothetical situation that the member proposed, but I was very interested, in listening to the member’s assertion, that 90 percent of applications to remove tree protection proceed. Isn’t that the point of this legislation? Instead of using highlighters to protect things that turn out didn’t need protection, we’re actually going to have a system where councils that seek to protect these things are forced to justify it and confront the cost of that protection. If it turns out that 90 percent of the things they sought to protect didn’t need to be protected, then I think this Government’s on the right track and the regulatory relief provisions will fulfill our intention to actually provide some tension and give property owners a level playing field when it comes to having councils threaten them with a highlighter.

The member’s question around “How will regulatory relief be calculated?”—there are a number of criteria to be set out in regulations and subsequent standards.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I had called Lan Pham when Simon Court stood up, so I’m happy to take a call from Lan—is this a supplementary?

Steve Abel: Mine’s a supplementary, yeah.

Lan Pham: It’s OK. If he wants to reply, that’s fine.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yeah, you looked a bit hesitant. OK we’ll have a quick supplementary.

STEVE ABEL (Green) (16:46): There’s a very key question in my ranking questions that you didn’t answer. Just to clarify a point that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary made, I’m talking about not the heritage ones, but the other two-thirds that do not have heritage status—the 4,000 trees that are not protected for their heritage value but for their amenity or biological value. That would include the 300-year-old pōhutukawa tree. It’s not protected for heritage value. I’m talking about the ones that don’t have a status under this regime, if the council decided to apply that status.

Just to clarify, also, because you mentioned it: the 90 percent protection was because so few people applied to remove trees, except where they really wanted to, that, in most instances, it was a reasonable application, but, for the most part, the fact that there is blanket tree protection meant that most people regarded their trees as protected so didn’t seek to have them cut down. That’s the way that regime worked.

The question that wasn’t answered was: if the landowner chooses to not accept the cash money offered, they then are well within their rights to proceed with cutting down their tree. Is that correct?

SIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (16:47): In response to the member Steve Abel’s question, if the regulatory relief that’s proposed by local government is not accepted, then the property owner has the ability to appeal to the Planning Tribunal seeking determination.

LAN PHAM (Green) (16:47): Thank you, Madam Chair. I really appreciate the member Simon Court addressing these questions, because they are not theoretical; they are going to be the implementation challenges of these very bills. I think the fact that we’ve heard so overwhelmingly from submitters across the board—and I’m not going to relitigate how comprehensive that’s been—that’s why it’s so important to hear what is actually intended by these. So thank you to the Minister.

I’m just going to get specifically to questions. They really relate across—so this is Schedule 3, it’s really clause 65 and particularly 66A, which is about the councils’ duty to prepare these relief frameworks in their proposed plans and also the considerations that they have to undertake as part of that.

Now, the member has talked about the cost of these things. I think, what’s been coming up very clearly from submitters when questioning the regulatory relief is: why isn’t the Crown, if they’re compelling councils to protect certain things—so, like outstanding natural landscapes or like significant natural areas—why is it the councils that are having to pay the regulatory to landowners? As we’ve heard, time and time again, from the councils themselves, they are saying that this extremely demanding bureaucratic, complex exercise of the assessment on a property-by-property basis of the regulatory relief before they even get to the point where they can put in these rules, they’re saying that is going to have a chilling effect on them even being able to protect the things that they’re apparently compelled to protect.

So is the Crown considering meeting those costs at all, and what will happen in the situations, which, again, we know are likely to occur, because the councils have said this is what is going to happen in our local area if you put these regulatory relief provisions in—what happens when they cannot afford to pay the regulatory relief to the landowners, even though they will be legally obliged, particularly when it comes to protecting sites of significance for Māori? So how does that work? The Government has been really insistent that particularly the sites of significance for Māori will not be eroded under these Acts, and yet the councils are saying, “We will not be able to put this in place.” What is the member’s response to that?

When it comes to the cost, the one aspect of evidence that the select committee had in the development of these bills was an assessment from MartinJenkins, which put the cost of regulatory relief broadly in the scope of $2 billion. But they said, you know, “We really don’t know.” When is the point at which the Government is going to work with councils to help them understand what the implementation cost of this regulatory relief provision will actually be?

We’re really in the dark right now, and I think of all of those councils who are hanging on this and looking at the actual implementation, when they’ll be coming to their annual plans and long-term plans. What can the member provide to them to give them some comfort that there is going to be central government support—or not—to actually deal with this and the implications?

SIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (16:52): Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the member for that question. It’s a legitimate question. If the Crown seeks to impose rules and obligations, then should the Crown pay? But, on balance, it’s actually councils who develop plans that will propose rules and overlays that impact people’s properties for the specified or qualifying matters. They need to make determinations about how to implement the national standards that will provide direction methodologies about how to develop a regulatory framework and how to assess the impacts on people’s properties. They will have to be weighing community values, because if there are places that communities value very highly, then it should be easy to make the case to their communities as to why those communities should be prepared to pay for the reduction in private property owners’ ability to use their property.

Conversely, if communities say, “Hey, you know what? We think the council’s gone way overboard in the things they seek to protect.” If they want to protect the pin oak on my constituent’s property in Upper Hutt, which is leaning over his house and he’s been told it’s going to cost tens of thousands of dollars to get rid of, maybe the community will decide that they don’t want to pay for that. So there needs to be some tension in the system, and the best place to have that tension is at the local level.

We understand and accept a genuine concern about how the cost of relief is covered, and that is why it’s envisaged, and provided for in legislation, that relief doesn’t just need to be in cash; it can be in kind. It can be providing additional development rights on an impacted property owner’s property or on another property that they own. It can be providing assistance with consents, for example, that may be needed. There are a number of ways that councils can meet their obligations to provide relief where that is deemed necessary.

So while we absolutely accept the genuine concern that we’ve heard from local government and others about the costs, there are clear pathways for councils to make transparent decisions, and there are lots of options for them to choose from in how to offer relief.

Hon Members: Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Arena Williams has been waiting for a call, but I’m going to make it very specific. We’re at the pointy end of this part now. Lan Pham, was yours a supp?

Lan Pham: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): OK, I’ll take that continuation from Lan Pham, and then I’ll come to Arena Williams. We’re just keeping it very specific now.

Lan Pham: Very specific.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Thank you.

LAN PHAM (Green) (16:55): Look, thank you to the member for his responses. I’m particularly interested—because he’s saying cost is a very real issue—about what the proportion is, and what the member’s understanding is, of existing biodiversity protections, in particular, when it comes to the protections in place—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Is this in scope? Could you please point to the scope—which clause—

LAN PHAM: The scope is directly about considerations for developing relief of the framework in 66A. The scope is biodiversity protections that are in place now that will no longer be when these bills come into place. What proportion of those—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’ve just been told—actually, biodiversity is under the Natural Environment Bill, when we get to it. Is that what—

Simon Court: Correct.

LAN PHAM: No, sorry, Madam Chair. Thank you for clarifying this. We were told that the regulatory relief provisions would be open for both this bill and the next bill, and my concern, and why I’m raising a lot of these issues here, is that when we get to the Natural Environment Bill, the response will be, “We’ve already covered the regulatory relief provisions in the Planning Bill.” If that’s not the case, I’m happy to hold off on these, but if we could get clarity, that would be great.

Simon Court: If I may?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yes. Simon Court.

SIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (16:57): I’ll do the member a deal: cover it off here, and we’ll skip over it in the Natural Environment Bill (NEB).

Lan Pham: So, sorry, what direction does that mean, about doing a deal?

SIMON COURT: If the member has a question about indigenous biodiversity and regulatory relief provisions, and if the member thinks that that’s going to resolve all the questions that she might have had about it that might crop up under the NEB, we can deal with it here; otherwise, if the member wishes to raise regulatory relief under the Natural Environment Bill, in relation to indigenous biodiversity, feel free to raise it.

Lan Pham: OK, I’m happy to raise it more fulsomely—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): It sounds like a sensible question. We’ll leave that for the NEB.

Lan Pham: Thank you; I’ve got clarity.

Hon Members: Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’d already indicated that I would take a call from Arena Williams.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (16:58): I will roll up both of my questions in one.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Thank you.

ARENA WILLIAMS: My first question is about clause 71; it’s on page 339. To the member in the chair, I think he is one of the most vociferously critical members of cultural impact statements, and yet we have, basically, created cultural impact statements for capitalists here. So I want him to tell us how his new clause 71(2)(a)—what part in the legislative schema sets out what is included in those assessments? The assessments, that are cultural impact assessments, which are now no longer part of the system, did have a regulatory schema which set out what was meant to be in them, but these don’t. Effectively, they assess the same thing.

My colleague Lan Pham points out that the MartinJenkins report found a possible cost of $2 billion for this kind of relief. What’s being assessed there is not only the value of the public good of these arrangements, which are in place already, but also the potential costs to landowners. Both are the same sorts of assessment, so is he going to rely on the old cultural impact assessments to set out what is meant to be included in these assessments, or is he going to create, in another set of regulations which are not mentioned here, the kinds of things which will be included in those assessments? Are they intended to be desktop reviews, or are these intended to be things which council commissions from experts, who will probably be the same experts as those undertaking the cultural impact assessments?

I also wanted to ask him this in relation to clause 71(3) of Schedule 3. Now that he’s made that a prescriptive approach and it’s not mandatory considerations, it’s just mandatory inclusions, my first question is this: in clause 71(3)(a) in his change, where he deletes “consider” and makes “treat” the operative verb, why is it now challengeable by judicial review—because that is the effect of his change. He has created a system where, if decision makers do not treat the impacts in a similar way, either their decisions are open to review under his clause 76, or they are open to review by the High Court. Firstly, which one is it?

Secondly, if he’s created this in the system, he will know that that will add on costs to councils because of the significant risk of review. That was something which cultural impact assessments were never open to, and yet they did proliferate paperwork in a way that he himself would be displeased with. So I want to understand just how much bureaucracy is in the system because of that seemingly meaningless change at paragraph (a).

I also want to ask him, then, at clause 71(4)(a), when these notices go out to the community, he’s made the case sound as if it will be very easy to notify the public why they are being considered for regulatory relief, but he knows that in many communities, this will cause an outraged and inflamed debate. It is one that many communities have had to go through with something like the debates on Māori wards, which, frankly, have been divisive in those communities in a way which is completely unacceptable for the use of public power, and yet this is embedding in the public system these kinds of debates, which make people mistrust their neighbours and dissolve some of those relationships which make our towns and our regions work well.

This is literally a notice which will say, “We are taking away something important to you, and the winner is the local hapū.” That is a really disappointing part of this legislation, and the Ministers that have made these decisions know exactly what those notices will have as their effect.

It punishes small councils, as Lan Pham has pointed out, but it also punishes the biggest councils, who will either need to send out lots and lots of these notices, or they will simply not be able to do that at all. We have the Auckland Council which, for instance, is making transport decisions at the rate of 160 every week, and—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Question?

ARENA WILLIAMS: —I’m told this as the chair of the Regulations Review Committee. How will it make those decisions?

Now, to clause 76, “Review of decisions granting regulatory relief”. When the “Review of decisions granting regulatory relief” panel is engaged, what is the scope of its review? Is it just the scope that’s within his provisions at clause 71, or is it the full scope of the decision-making spinning tops that we’ve been discussing? Are they able to consider the goals back in clause 10?

SIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (17:03): Let’s be clear: it’s the plan-making process where councils identify the matters that they seek to protect, whether they’re sites of significance to Māori and heritage, or outstanding natural features in landscapes, for example. In clause 71 of Schedule 3, which the member Arena Williams began her question by referring to, it’s very specific that a local authority must “carry out a relief assessment [to identify] land in respect of which any specified rule or rules have a significant adverse impact;” in assessing the impacts on a site-specific level, and if the member cares to read clause 71, all of the answers to her questions will be provided.

Remember, this is an assessment. Clause 71 is a duty to implement relief, and it sets out how they carry out a relief assessment. It also refers to clause 66(2), which says what the local authority must consider: “the extent to which [a] rule restricts or removes development potential; … imposes obligations for the protection, restoration, or non-use of land; … creates compliance costs or regulatory constraints that affect the reasonable use of land; … affects land value; and [prescribes] criteria that apply when assessing the impact of 2 or more specified rules on the same land;”—heaven forbid—“and any other matters required by national instruments or regulations.”

It’s all there. It’s in black and white, and it will become black-letter law when this legislation is passed.

CATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki) (17:04): I move, That debate on this question now close.

A party vote was called for on the question, That debate on this question now close.

Ayes 67

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

Noes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Minister’s tabled amendments to Amendment Paper 709 amending clause 80 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 67

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

Noes 55

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

Amendments to the amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 3 set out on Amendment Paper 709 as amended be agreed to.

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

Ayes 67

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

Noes 55

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

Amendments as amended agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking’s amendment to clause 63C set out on Amendment Paper 740 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 67

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, Steve Abel’s three tabled amendments to Part 3 relating to protection of urban trees and urban tree canopy lend themselves to being grouped. I will put a single question on them, unless members indicate that they wish to vote differently on a specific amendment.

The question is that Steve Abel’s tabled amendments to clause 63C and inserting clause 67B(2)(d) and (e), and 81(1)(aa), be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 67

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

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, Steve Abel’s two tabled amendments to Part 3 relating to the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Act 2008 lend themselves to being grouped. I will put a single question on them unless members indicate that they wish to vote differently on a specific amendment.

The question is that Steve Abel’s tabled amendments to clause 63C and inserting clause 81(3) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 67

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

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Lan Pham’s amendment to clause 67B set out on Amendment Paper 678 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 67

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Lan Pham’s amendment to clause 67B set out on Amendment Paper 715 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 67

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Lan Pham’s amendment to clause 67B set out on Amendment Paper 716 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 67

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking’s amendment to clause 67B set out on Amendment Paper 692 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 67

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I know there’s excitement building in the Chamber, but we need quiet during voting, please. The question is that Steve Abel’s amendment to clause 67B set out on Amendment Paper 718 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 67

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, in accordance with the Business Committee determination that valedictories will begin at 5.20 p.m., voting will pause here. The committee is suspended and will resume at 7 p.m. Now, we’ll just wait for Mr Speaker.

House resumed.

Valedictory Statements

Mark Cameron

SPEAKER: The House is resumed. Members, I’ll indicate now that at the conclusion of the valedictory statements, the House will suspend for the dinner break and resume in committee at 7 p.m. Mark Cameron will be joining us online, so we’ll just wait for a moment while that connection is established.

Hello, Mark. Have you got us?

Mark Cameron: Hello, sir. How are you?

SPEAKER: Very well. That’s not how you call. [Laughter] You’ve forgotten.

Mark Cameron: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: No worries. Good to see you. I call on Mark Cameron to make his valedictory statement to the House.

MARK CAMERON (ACT) (17:18): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thank you very much for your kindness, sir—and all of you, for that matter—for allowing this brief amount of time to talk about my time there.

I didn’t think I would have the wherewithal to write this speech. My illness attached to my certain frankness a brevity—sorry, brevity; I mean frankness and candour I thought would be unappetising. Dialysis is a hell of a thing. I’ve come to learn life humbles us all in the end. None here are exempt, me included. We all have our shit—as we say in rural New Zealand—and I have certainly had my fill.

One does, on these occasions, I think, thank the few people that have got them to this place, and I will do exactly that.

David: you’re a bloody legend, mate, and a great mate. And I wish you all the best.

To the team, it has been awesome working with you; I love you. Nicole, you’re an awesome sister—the one I wish I’d always had. To the rest of you, you’re a fantastic group of Kiwis. Simon, brother, always be cautious of savings to be found in future lady products.

To Jodie, thank you, you are my best friend, my confidante, and the most driven, hardest worker I have ever known. Jodie, you make the world turn that little bit faster, and for so many reasons, I owe our success to you. My parliamentary career would not have existed without you.

The story of our providence, how we got here, our uniqueness, our place in the word, I would like to speak of. I was going to start my contributions with positive affirmations. What of the stoics, their influence—Marcus Aurelius, Seneca, perhaps Aristotle. Great minds of philosophy and polymaths. How these great minds moulded our world, our future, allowing us to look back to the past to understand, in fact, our future.

Or more recent influences like John Adams and others, the culmination of the 13 colonies, and their formation of the constitution and creation, ultimately, of the United State. A true marvel of recent history.

Perhaps of the modern age: Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman, perhaps Thomas Sowell—the minds that understood the relationship between parties, buyers, sellers, and the dynamics of free markets, small government, less interference.

All of these great minds have shaped our future, shaped Western democracy, and freed our minds to pursue intrigue, debate, and, ultimately, compromise. Democracy works, in large part, because of these great minds and what they brought to the table for our inquiring minds.

I, ultimately, thought of these things, but I think it’s more important I talk about us: why we are here, the now. All of us, who we are, the 123 of us, and what we mean to this place. Mark Twain noted the most important moment in one’s life is the day of your birth and the moment you understand why.

After all, as I say, we are an odd bunch: mostly civil, a group of people that bicker, argue sometimes, all the while trying to mount a debate and find compromise. Periodically, behaving like petulant children. But that’s politics, I suppose. This is democracy in action, and it’s ours to embrace, to be grateful for, to celebrate, for it is a fragile thing.

Few dare to venture to this place. I’m sure we’re all well aware and understand why. Equally, few get the opportunity to help change the direction of travel, where we go, where we choose to take our country, where we choose to take our people. Truly, I say how lucky are we to be here. We are the travellers for a better tomorrow than today.

This political arena is our home. From Roman Senate to the birthplace of democracy to now, our freedoms and liberties are because of this place and because of you. Democracy needs New Zealand to work with the fortunate few who get to work in this place. You make it work because of your time and energy.

My friends, I started my speech by saying life humbles us all. My recent experience can attest to that. I was the kid of five or six who knew what he wanted to be: become farmer, walk with giants, great Kiwi blokes like my mentor Neil Sidwell and the likes. I was going to be that kind of man. I was going to carry the world on my shoulders; be all I could be.

I remember, fairly recently, sitting in the Chamber, House duty, nauseous, kidneys at 8 percent—most of you wouldn’t have known this—bugger all left, and I conceded that I was stuffed. How had this come to pass? People—a lot of the people I came to represent. I protested, reluctantly went home, dialysis commenced—it was May 2025. Man, I was pissed off. I had lost my boy to suicide and now this crap. Parliament is a people place, and it gave me purpose. I pined to be part of it. I needed to carry on. So I did dialysis in my flat and I went back to bloody work.

In December, I suffered acute heart failure. Boot hill had become all too real. I was out. I was done. My transplant operation vanished and hope of returning evaporated. I prayed for context, understanding—shit, hell, anything.

My friends here, all of you—and I mean all of you—the debate, the challenge, the ideas, what it meant to be part of such a special group slowly disappeared. I had to gravitate home. My dream of farming, my community, my love, and my country and country folk to become my motivation. At 20 percent heart function, I was told I might die. I affectionately told the people looking after me to bugger off, that there was too much to do.

I picked up my 6-kilo oxygen bottle, walking frame, and set off. Hot laps around the ward, two, three, then whatever I could muster—inches, after all, become miles. Unbeknownst to me, I was bare-arsed, which passers-by noted, “and into the flurry”, I responded and said, rather embarrassingly, after this was pointed out.

Context for all of us is everything. You know that you’re in a fight when there’s pressure, resistance—and I was in a fight. Yes, I had become very humble, very quickly. I tell you this because I want to show what drives this. Why we believe—why we in what we are doing. I look around the Chamber when I can and I know what I see: how humbling, privileged we are all to be there.

If I might, farmers don’t quit easily. We’re built out of the belief, trust, hope, and a passion to make tomorrow better than today. True desire starts in the heart with a single spark, and farmers have a belly full of fire. We know why this place has to work to find compromise: because our dreams depend on it to become a reality.

My heart is now 30 percent, and I’ll be back. I have to. I have debts to pay to those that believe, as I do, that our way of life is worth preserving.

When I started this journey I knew my time would be limited. Our caucus, like family, counted down the numbers like a concerned family would. Each month the kidneys declined further. We all knew where this was going, and it was getting harder for me. I battled on. Farmers needed me, and I needed the purpose of being needed.

We agreed farmers needed to be kept out of the emissions trading scheme, methane limits reduced, private freshwater assets managed better and in the hands of owners, and stupid winter grazing rules fixed. We came and we fixed those things. We had to. Our self-belief had been destroyed, and we’d fought back. It was our fight to lose, and it wasn’t going to happen without effort.

Any notion that feels good that taxes on food production is fantastical. “Greenwashing” hurts the poorest end of town first, and in a world where domestic prices compete with critical international trade and our essential export market, it is imperative cool heads prevail before we sign up to dumb crap that hurts our people—the poorest people in our country. We can’t have that. We’ve got to grow. We must not be emotively biased.

So many rules have affected farmers. Hope and belief was dying because of it. At 8 percent kidney function, I could be a passenger in this reality or a proponent for better outcomes and change—so here I am. Bugger off to the naysayers, I say. We challenge the nonsense, and we will restore pride in rural New Zealand. My battleground might have changed, but the farmers are grateful and passion is returning. We are remembering how much fun farming can be when we win.

In 1945, my grandfather returned back from the war a different man from years earlier, like so many, hurt in places so many of us did not see. Context won the argument. Those that lived it understood this. He was shot down in his third sortie, and, as far as I can understand, he did 30 more. What compels us—people, humans; gracious, what compelled them, pining for home, their sovereignty, their peace? One can only imagine what they went through to preserve these things, our way of life, their bravery beyond measure.

Our world is very different now, life vastly different. Our wars and struggles are different, but the fight to preserve our way of life has a parallel: that we fight for what we believe in, the things that bring context to our lives, meaning family and all of the above. For rural folk, I say the top four inches: our land, our animals, nature. My war is very different. I search for bravery, belief, hope, my way of life, home. I am determined that I will see those things again, as they were, in large part, everything to me.

And all of you—the people that make these types of realities happen for all of us—I ask: please believe, as I do, in rural people. They are worth fighting for. They are the economic spine of this country. And remember this: it is always hard to argue that fact when your mouth is full of their food.

To my country kin: stay farming, you bloody legends. I love you. You all go well and remember: don’t head home and hunt for tucker until a good day’s work is done, and never ever forget how important you all are, because this country would be on its knees without you.

Signing off and God speed to you all. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

[Applause]

Thank you, team. Thank you very much. Hugs to you all, and go well.

SPEAKER: Thank you, Mark. Those words are received by us all with our very best wishes to you.

Hon Dr Shane Reti

SPEAKER: I now call on the Hon Dr Shane Reti to make his valedictory statement.

Hon Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangārei) (17:33):

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

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

I rise today to present my valedictory address by way of reflection and by way of thanks.

I want to start by acknowledging all the party leaders I have worked under: John, Bill, Simon, Todd, Judith, myself for a week, and Chris Luxon. We come to Parliament to make a difference, and I hope, in some small way, that I’ve achieved this.

Today, I will talk to a few highlights over a decade, some stories, some lighter moments that few will know, and hopes and aspirations still to be completed.

Starting in my first term, then, as a backbencher in a John Key - Bill English Government, there are a few moments that stick out as one gathers experience and learns a new role.

My first moment in that term was getting rid of Wicked Campers rental vans, with their disgusting, foul-mouth, misogynistic slogans. After the Brisbane-based company failed to turn up to Advertising Standards Authority hearings and failed my request to visit them in Brisbane, I commenced a campaign initiated by writing to all councils and persuading them that vehicle signage was actually a sign, and, therefore, their signage by-laws applied. They agreed. I followed this up by writing to Visa and MasterCard, suggesting that they really didn’t want their cards being used. By the time we had Z Energy banning them from filling up at their forecourts, they were done. This presented a new backbench experience and a first taste of a national issue and national media attention.

The second reflection in that term is Hundertwasser Whangārei, a multi-party project that, after 20 years of delays, just as the gift was about to be taken back by Vienna, was finally able to be built. I’ve always considered this project a relay race, and, for a brief period of time, I had the privilege of being the relay runner. I acknowledge the many, many people who brought this to fruition—including Helen, Clive, Bill, Sue, and David Wilson, who are here today. Now, Hundertwasser was a different sort of advocacy for me, more towards my parliamentary colleagues. Every week, the Hundertwasser strategic funding team would meet to plan what the next step was.

At that time, regional economic development had passed from Steven Joyce to Simon Bridges. At one of our weekly meetings, I mentioned that Simon was in Dubai, looking to advance our Gulf Cooperation Council ambitions, and that I could look to activate one of my colleagues from my years in Boston, a high family Emirati in Dubai who would likely be meeting with him. This was agreed, and so I placed a call to him in Dubai. The call went something like this: “Bu Yusef, may the sun shine on you. Bu Justin, may the sun shine on you too. Can you tell me, are you part of the high-delegation meeting with Minister Bridges this week?” “I am.” “I want you to do something for me. I want you to tell him how the people of Dubai can’t wait for Hundertwasser to be built and that Emirates airlines will land at Whangārei Airport.” The next caucus meeting, Simon makes a beeline for me. “Shane, unbelievable, I was lobbied for Hundertwasser while I was in Dubai.” “Were you, Simon? How unusual!”

Now, this was not the only time that a senior Cabinet Minister in that term said to me, “Shane, unbelievable.” In 2016, the Telecommunications Act was being amended to resolve the broadband roll-out over contested driveways and over existing power poles on private farmland. For us, this was very dependent on the Northpower roll-out. Amy Adams was the Minister for Communications, and I got a call to go to her office. Me and Nathan Guy were there, and Amy says, “Next week, we’re bringing the Telecommunications Bill to the House. We’ve fixed the shared-driveways problem, but we won’t be advancing fibre over existing infrastructure on private farmland. The feds are completely against it and we won’t win that fight.” I said to Amy, “So, to be clear, the Northpower model for rural communities won’t proceed?” She said, “No, it’s done.” I got back to my room and thought, “No, there must be a solution.”

So I called Anders, the lead at Federated Farmers and said, “Anders, it’s Dr Shane MP for Whangārei. I do understand the feds’ fibre reservations. I get that. But if I can get every Northland farmer to consent, will you give us a carve-out for fibre?” He said, “Well, that will be quite a body of work but we will agree if you do that.” I then called Northpower and met with them and legal counsel urgently on site in Whangārei the next day. I outlined the issues and listed their advocacy and we set up a plan that, over the next three months, would become known as the Northpower Proposal.

That weekend, though, I needed to let formidable Minister Amy Adams know what I had done. So I bolstered my courage and texted her: “Amy, the feds have said that if I get consent from every farmer in Northland, they will carve out fibre access.” Amy immediately texted back: “Shane, unbelievable. I told you this was done and to leave it alone. You have the feds and Northpower in my office first thing on Monday morning.”

Over the next three months, the bill was recommitted back to the select committee, consultations were re-opened, and, after further negotiations with the feds, we got unanimous party agreement for the nationwide roll-out of fibre over existing rural infrastructure, with wide-ranging impact for rural communities. I want to acknowledge the select committee chair at the time, Melissa Lee, along with deputy Kanwaljit Bakshi, and members David Cunliffe, David Clark, Clare Curran, Gareth Hughes, Ria Bond, Alfred Ngaro, Simon O’Connor, and Brett Hudson. You opened the path for rural communities to receive fibre, and rural communities thank you.

I then had two terms in Opposition, further honing one’s craft and learning a new set of skills. It was the first time I had encountered written parliamentary questions, for example, and found them a particularly powerful tool to challenge the Government of the day. I want to acknowledge here my friend and colleague the Hon Peeni Henare. We came in at the same time, and, many years beforehand, I was the GP for his first baby. So I’ve always had a soft spot for Peeni. Ngā mihi ki a koe e hoa.

To come back to written parliamentary questions, from trial and error, it turns out that if you make a mistake and send your written parliamentary questions to the wrong Minister, that office then redirects them to the correct Minister. There were occasional times in Opposition when I needed to send challenging questions to Peeni, but I couldn’t attack Peeni, so I’d deliberately send my questions to Andrew Little, and his office would transfer them! Then, at the end of the day, you know how it is when you critique how you’ve done—“Was I effective today? Did I make a difference?”—and you have that conversation with your inner voice, and if I had sent parliamentary questions, I’d raise that question “And did you attack your mate Peeni?”, and my inner voice would say, “Nah, not me; Andrew Little.”

It was in Opposition that I heard some of the most amusing things that I have heard in this House, not often picked up by the cameras. We were doing the final reading of the Te Pūkenga bill, I was the tertiary spokesperson in Opposition, and New Zealand First MP Tracey Martin was the last Government speaker. I had the call, and I said to Tracey, “Tracey, imagine if we owned the polytechnics, you and I—I’ll go you halves. If we owned the polytechnics, would we be doing this tonight? The answer is no.”

Now, what I’d done a few days earlier was actually to secure a company name, the Shane Reti and Tracey Martin New Zealand Polytechs Ltd. So I said to Tracey, “Tracey, I’ve even registered a company name, ‘Shane Reti and Tracey Martin New Zealand Polytechs Ltd’.” She shouted back at me, “No, it’s ‘Tracey Martin and Shane Reti New Zealand Polytechs Ltd’”. “Whatever! Would we be doing this tonight?” And just at that point, Chlöe Swarbrick shouted out, “Typical. When the Greens want to protest, they march on Parliament; the Nats register a company.”

Then, in this, my fourth term, I had the privilege of being a Cabinet Minister in Government, taking the policies one has worked on for years and actually deploying them. The Parliamentary Library told me that completing the very first coalition agreement policy of this 54^th Parliament was in my hands—namely the International Health Regulations reservation, which needed to be in Geneva within 48 hours of my being a Minister—and the second coalition policy as well, announcing $30 million a week later to urgently increase emergency department security for the upcoming summer season and out-years.

There are many highlights as Minister of Health: to develop a policy in Opposition for a third medical school and then bring it into Government and actually start building will change the landscape. It was a privilege to bring forward the biggest funding increase ever in cancer drugs. I want to thank Pharmac, Health New Zealand, the Ministry of Health, and the many clinicians who operationalised it, and the PM, and Minister of Finance, who at the time simply said to me, “Shane, you do the policy and we’ll find the money.”

A real highlight was extending the breast cancer screening age group from 70 to 74. I acknowledge the advocacy of colleagues Nicola, Louise, and a senior BreastScreen Aotearoa expert in this room tonight. This was a policy worked on for many years—a policy formed in Opposition, then having it drawn from the ballot box, then to first reading, and then implemented within a year of coming into Government.

I will share with you here what very few know and that probably led to the most lives I have ever saved in my career in the six hours before I made the formal breast-screening announcement in Nelson. Over many meetings with Health New Zealand, we worked up the operational detail and implementation plan. The night before the announcement, I was in Whangārei reviewing the run sheet and there was something nagging at me. Something was missing and I couldn’t quite put my finger on it. The next day, with the big announcement that afternoon in Nelson, I caught the 6 a.m. flight from Whangārei.

On the same flight—indeed, the seat beside me—was a medical colleague who I’d known for decades, who was also the Health New Zealand lead on the programme. He was going down to the big announcement also. I said to him, “There’s something missing. We’re increasing the breast cancer screening age for everyone from 70 to 74.” “That’s right,” he said. “Every year we will increase the age of eligibility by one year, so that in four years’ time, the extension will be complete.” “What about those who are already between 70 to 74?”, I asked. “No, there is nothing for them. People will age in.” That was the hole. I had promised New Zealand women that there would be something for everyone between ages 70 to 74. I asked, “Did you model other options?” He said, “Yes, we also modelled a final screen at age 74.” “How much was that?”, I asked. He said, “$20 million.”

I landed in Auckland at 7 a.m. and called Lester Levy. “Lester, there’s a policy hole and we need to fix it and it will cost $20 million.” “I will get back to you,” he says. I landed in Wellington an hour later and I got a call from Margie Apa. “Minister, we have the modelling, we can deliver those extra screens, and we can look to do it within baseline.” I landed at Nelson a few hours later and made the announcement that breast cancer screening would be extended for all women. Three flights across six hours and the results to date have been success beyond any of our imagination.

Here is what has happened: the cancer detection rate—or CDR—internationally for a successful screening programme is about four per 1,000 screened. In the first year of the programme, we were seeing a CDR nearly triple that, at 11 per 1,000. Here’s the thing: it’s all happening in that last-year scan—that policy I added on late notice on announcement day. In this older age group, we are seeing screening numbers way beyond what was expected, especially for Māori women, especially in Northland and East Coast. What none of us anticipated and what the modelling didn’t take into account was the response to it being the last free scan. People are signing in because it’s the last one that is free. To return then to my lead statement, I may well have saved more people across six hours and three flights than at any other time in my career, and that is truly a privilege.

There is always unfinished business as a Minister, and I too have some. I will place just one on the table here now. To the fizzy drinks industry, I was coming for you, and you knew it. I had worked on sugar policy for years, and I met formally with industry representatives at the end of 2024 and outlined my plans. They said to me, “Could you wait until after the busy Christmas/New Year period?”, and I agreed. I told them I didn’t need to use words like “sugar levy” or “sugar tax”, because New Zealand consumers would force the change. Here’s why: the evidence put to me was that one of the most popular cans of fizzy drinks in New Zealand had 10 grams of sugar in it—several teaspoons—but that exact same can of fizzy drink from exactly the same company in Australia only had 7 grams of sugar.

Let me put it another way: some of our fizzy drinks look to be nearly 40 to 50 percent more sugared up here in New Zealand than exactly the same can of fizzy drink in Australia. This was also the case to varying degrees across other popular fizzy drinks in New Zealand. How is that possible? With high diabetes, obesity, and cardiovascular rates in New Zealand, how can we possibly explain that and, even more so, allow it? I say to the fizzy drink industry: please explain why you have been deliberately sugaring up New Zealanders, and then reformulate to at least the baseline in Australia.

I am the first Māori to win the Whangārei seat, and the 15^th Māori to win a general seat. Serving the people of Whangārei has been a privilege. Together, we have progressed the four lanes, the single-biggest economic driver in Northland. We have built a game-changing radiotherapy centre, saved vulnerable people’s lives at a remodelled Salesyard Road, and built the biggest Kāinga Ora housing facility in regional New Zealand.

Wellington can be tough, and the beltway can be narrow. When the rigours of Wellington has impacted, returning to the electorate each week has anchored me and reminded me of my purpose, especially with my squash mates: the Brown Brothers, Matty, Bondi, Jonny, Willie, and Steve. I thank you.

In closing, there are others I need to thank: my EAs and SPS’s over the years—Judy Morrissey, Andrea Harris, and Angela Bray—my senior adviser, Jonathan Franklin; and press secretaries Charlotte Gendall, Gabrielle Henderson, and Peter Thornbury. To all the private secretaries and agency executives, I thank you also. To my local electorate office team over the years—Vanessa, Paul, Lynn, Diana, Shannel, campaign chair Ken—and to the people of Whangārei, I came here to do something, not be something, and I gave it my all.

Finally, to my family—many of whom are here today—Mum; Dad; Michelle; children Justin, Melissa, Angela; grandchildren Maisie, Niko, Luke, Hayley, Connor, Charlotte, Christine; stepchildren George, Noelle, Michelle, and Amelia, thank you. And to my partner, Yvonne, who has been with me from the very beginning of this journey, thank you for helping me bring this to life. Thank you all for your understanding when “papa Shane” missed your birthdays, recitals, or sports events. I will do better.

To all my parliamentary colleagues across the House, both past and present, thank you for letting me be a part of the wider team. It is not clear to me that what we do here is still well described as the politics of the left and right, but maybe it is better described as the politics of top and bottom. To that end, I wish everyone in this House the wisdom we pray for at the start of each day. Tēnā koutou. Tēnā koutou. Kia ora mai tātou katoa.

[Applause]

Waiata

Sitting suspended from 5.49 p.m. to 7.00 p.m.

Bills

Planning Bill

Committee of the whole House

Debate resumed.

Part 3 Combined plan, and Schedules 2 to 5 (continued)

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Good evening, members. I hope you dined well. The Committee is resumed on the Planning Bill. When we suspended before the dinner break, voting on Part 3 was in progress.

The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking’s amendment to clause 67B set out on Amendment Paper 741 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 67

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking’s tabled amendments to clauses 67D and 81 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 67

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

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Oriini Kaipara’s tabled amendment replacing clause 70 is out of order as being not in the correct form of legislation.

The question is that Oriini Kaipara’s tabled amendment replacing clause 71(4) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 67

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The Hon Rachel Brooking’s amendment deleting clause 92 set out on Amendment Paper 667 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

Steve Abel’s tabled amendment deleting clause 92 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

Oriini Kaipara’s tabled amendments deleting clause 92 and proposing consequential amendments are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that Lan Pham’s amendments to clause 105 set out on Amendment Paper 717 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 67

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

Amendments not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 3 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 67

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

Noes 55

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

Part 3 as amended agreed to.

Committee of the whole House

Part 4 Planning consents, and Schedules 6 and 7

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Members, we come now to Part 4, the debate on clauses 107 to 181, on “Planning consents”, and including Schedule 6, “Information required in applications for consent”; and Schedule 7, “Subdivision and reclamation”. The question is that Part 4 stand part.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) (19:05): Thank you, Mr Chair. Of course, the committee stage is that stage where any member—no matter how ignorant—can I ask some questions on bills, so I intend to take advantage of that. This isn’t a specialist area of mine, but I do appreciate the importance of the bill. I’m keen to interrogate some of the aspects, and this “Planning consents” part is a part that is of particular interest to me. I haven’t been in the Chamber for all of the debate, but it’s traditional to go through it fairly methodically, so I thought I’d start with clause 107.

I was just interested if the member would be able to explain the rationale in having two types of consent—a land use consent and a subdivision consent. Now, I can see that they’re distinct things, but it just strikes me that if you’re trying to streamline the consenting procedure, there’s a risk here—I may have this wrong—where, as under the existing regime, one consent would do but, now, you’ve actually got to get two consents, and that would seem to be quite duplicative. Of course, if you’ve got these two overlapping consents—perhaps they’re not overlapping; perhaps they’re entirely distinct—essentially, for one piece of land, which is both being subdivided and also having a particular use put to it. I don’t know what it might be, but you can imagine a large rural subdivision, a lifestyle block, and also having to ensure that the use to which that’s going to be put—perhaps there’s going to be a quarry over in the corner; I don’t know. Previously, it strikes me, that would’ve been able to be done with one consent, so the question is if he could explain how this regime will prevent duplication where a land use consent and a subdivision consent are needed.

SIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (19:07): Thank you, Mr Chair. Well, for the member’s benefit, it’s always been that way, including under the Resource Management Act. The reason there’s two different types of consents—there’s a land use consent that is required for the activities that are required to have a consent on a piece of land; the subdivision consent is required when creating new titles.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (19:07): Thank you, Mr Chair. I, too, have a question around clause 107, and this is to do with the Minister’s Amendment Paper 709 and the new addition in here where, in clause 107(a), it has inserted the land use consent. I do thank the under-secretary for the explanation around the two types of consent. That’s very helpful. Over here, “or to carry out an activity in, on, under, or over the coastal marine area” has been added, and I want to check why that particular part has been added. Now, of course, we’re not going to go backwards looking at the details of sections 17 and 17A, but, obviously, 17A relates to our coastal marine areas, and it does have specific provisions for the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act. But I want to check, over here, what happens in the circumstances when it comes, specifically, to land use consent and when you have an area that was not settled under the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act? That’s my first question.

My second question is: in here, it does specify “in, on, under, or over”, and those are very specific prepositions that are being used there, so I wonder if the Minister in some ways wouldn’t mind elucidating on, for example, what is the difference—“in” and “under” and “on” all make sense—between “on” and “over” coastal marine areas? Those are my two questions for the time being.

SIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (19:09): Thanks for giving me the call, Mr Chair. This is a technical amendment that reflects the fact that clause 17(a) provides for activities in the coastal marine area, and it allows for consents to be obtained for uses like ports or wharfs, which are on the land or attached to the land but also stick out into the sea.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (19:10): Thank you, Mr Chair. Just a brief follow-up on that. The member the chair, Simon Court, knows that I have an interest in wharves and those are mostly dealt with in the next bill, but I want to ask him about this. This is a slightly different way of recognising those existing use rights in the Resource Management Act (RMA). It does look like a much more permissive power, which might be useful, but I don’t think it’s what he said. The way that it’s drafted here looks like it’s possible to give a consent for a marine and coastal area as if it were a land-based consent, which wasn’t the old system. Does that also apply not only to aquaculture but also to uses of that marine and sea area which haven’t been contemplated in our planning system in that way before—like, say, a consent for a tunnel to be built in Auckland under the harbour? That would have been a different sort of consent under the old system than it, I think, will be under the new system.

SIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (19:11): I’m not going to go into hypotheticals about this consent. Just to be clear, the reason that we have provided for activities in the coastal marine area is because activities such as port operations or cargo handling on wharves have effects that are in scope of the Planning Bill, such as noise. It’s very specifically targeted to those kinds of effects. There are environmental effects which need to be managed under the Natural Environment Bill as it’s envisaged, which are separate to the effects that are intended to be managed under the Planning Bill.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) (19:11): Thank you, Mr Chair. I know the section mentioning Schedule 6 comes up a little later, but there’s a couple of questions I’d be keen to ask the Minister in respect of that—in fact, it’s Schedule 7, because this is the schedule that deals with the consenting process itself and what has to go into some of the material there.

The first question I have is about Schedule 7, clause 3, which talks about allotments. There’s just one—and this might be a bit arcane. It tells you what an allotment is, which is a section of land, and it has carve-outs and so on, but it has one which is quite hard to understand, which is “(d) any parcel of land that is not subject to the Land Transfer Act 2017”. I’d be keen for the Minister to explain if there is any land which isn’t subject to the Land Transfer Act 2017 and where that is and how that is managed in terms of consenting.

Then, in clause 6 of Schedule 7, it’s about conditions and just about natural hazards. It’s about when a consenting authority determines that a natural hazard exists, and it says that the consent—“A subdivision consent may include a condition requiring that provision be made, to the satisfaction of the consent authority … to protect land”, and so on. I’m just curious as to whether the Minister considered a “must” in there, because we’re talking about some pretty significant natural hazards, and I’ve heard other members talking about flooding risk, coastal inundation, and so on. It does seem to give a mere discretion. There have been instances where steps clearly should have been taken but weren’t, and that’s had real consequences down the road.

I’ll put three questions in one here, and my third question is about clause 10 of Schedule 7, and it’s actually where the consenting authority has required an easement to be granted or reserved. I can understand that if you’ve got this easement to cross or to carry water or whatever it might be, you don’t want it to be extinguished, but one of the extinguishments which is prohibited is automatic, so it’s a really difficult one, right? “(2) After the easement is granted or reserved, it must not, except with the written consent of the territorial authority … (b) be merged by transfer to the owner of the benefited land or the burdened land;”. That’s when you’ve got two pieces of land, one which gets the benefit and one which gets the burden of the easement. If those two pieces of land are merged into one ownership, there is no benefit-burden relationship; you have both the benefit and burden, and what the law of easements says is at that point, the easement is extinguished by operation of law. If you’ve got something that happens if you just happen to purchase that adjacent parcel of land, I’m not sure how you can be prohibited from the law operating.

If the Minister could explain those three questions—so that was the merger of easements, whether there should be a “must include a condition requiring the addressing of natural hazards risk”, and land which is not subject to the Land Transfer Act.

SIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (19:15): To the member Duncan Webb, the provisions he’s speaking about will carry over directly from the Resource Management Act. Officials have advised that no submissions were received by the select committee on these matters because they’re non-contentious and they carry over existing provisions relating to easements.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Well, this was your big chance to fix it.

SIMON COURT: Mr Webb suggests this is our big chance to fix it; we do not believe anything needs to be fixed.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (19:16): I’m not sure that I understand the tone there. Anyway, I would like to go to clause 146 of Part 4, and this is “Land use consent may be refused or granted with conditions if risk from natural hazards”. This is a good clause, but then what happens at subclause (4) is that there is an exception. It says, “This section does not apply to a land use consent for—(a) constructing, upgrading, maintaining, or operating infrastructure, except to the extent that national standards provide that this section applies; or (b) a primary production activity, except to the extent that national standards provide that this section applies.”

That’s quite convoluted language anyway for an exceptions clause, but what that means is that the “no” that would be said to a consent application because there’s a natural hazard—that “no” doesn’t apply for constructing infrastructure and for primary production. We’ve discussed earlier that the definition of “infrastructure” is very wide, and by my interpretation could include a shop, because that definition only requires one of the criteria to be met for infrastructure, and one of those criteria is economic—hence the shop.

What is the point of having this good clause 146 that says you can say no if there’s a natural hazard when there are so many exceptions to it, given that everything is now infrastructure, and if it’s not infrastructure, then it’s likely to be primary production? Given that definition of “infrastructure”, all primary production is infrastructure anyway. But if the member in the chair, Simon Court, could comment on the breadth of this exception to 146 and if he can explain how it doesn’t undermine that whole point of 146 and the rhetoric that this Government has given time and time again about responding to hazards—we hear the Prime Minister say there’s not going to be building in flood plains. I know the member in the chair has a different because he’s an engineer, but that is what we have heard from the Government time and time again. [Interruption] I can’t hear what’s being said there.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): You’re not missing anything.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Right. The point is: why are they undermining this exception and what will that do, given the wide definition of “infrastructure” and that it includes construction—so it’s not just upgrading and maintaining infrastructure that is already there; it’s putting in new infrastructure to a hazard area. Is that not going to cause a whole lot of problems that are going to have to be undone and cost everyone a whole lot of money and be very inefficient?

SIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (19:19): Look, I think it’s really important that we address this thoroughly, so if the Chair would give me some leniency to explain this in detail.

The member raises a very, very important question: given how important it is that we recognise the risks of natural hazards, why is it that infrastructure should be allowed in areas exposed to natural hazards, and why are primary production activities allowed in areas exposed to natural hazards? I’m going to give the member a fulsome answer, and I trust that this will help progress the discussion.

Infrastructure activities have been excluded from the natural hazards consenting and permitting provision because they are often needed to be located in areas exposed to natural hazards, for functional or operational reasons. A port needs to be on the coast; a stormwater outfall needs to be on the coast. They are exposed to natural hazards. As the member rightly pointed out, I spent nearly 25 years as a civil engineer designing and constructing infrastructure so that it could be resistant or resilient against natural hazards. It is possible, and this legislation provides for it.

This exclusion does not mean that infrastructure can be developed without consideration of risk or that consents and permits cannot be refused or conditioned on natural hazards grounds. Consent authorities can still consider risk and decline or condition applications where the relevant plan provides for those matters to be considered. Infrastructure providers are also generally well placed because many of them include engineers in their staff to identify managed natural hazards risks through site selection, design, and mitigation measures, and have strong incentives to do so to avoid service disruption and costly damage. National standards can still provide for the provision to apply to particular infrastructure activities where that is justified.

On the matter of primary production: in many cases, risks associated with primary production activities can be managed by mitigation measures and by locating activities appropriately. The potential consequences for people and property are also generally lower than in a more densely developed urban area. For example, a paddock with a fence in it that might be occasionally flooded might still be an appropriate place to carry out primary production activity, like letting the sheep eat grass when it’s not flooded. The exclusion doesn’t mean that primary production activities can be developed without consideration of risk or that consents permits cannot be refused or conditioned on natural hazards grounds, as for infrastructure.

Again, as for infrastructure, authorities can still consider risks, decline or condition applications where the relevant plan provisions allow for it, and the bills will allow national standards to apply the provision to particular primary production activities where that is justified. I hope that satisfies the member about this very important matter.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (19:22): Absolutely not. The member Simon Court doesn’t address the wide definition of infrastructure, and the member also said, “Well, there are functional and operational reasons for putting some infrastructure in some places.” I do not disagree with that. In fact, I agree with the member in the chair, but why, then, does it not say “if there is a functional and operational need for it to be in that area.” It does not include that caveat, and that would be a very useful caveat to have here, noting that the infrastructure here goes far beyond the type of engineering work that the member has been doing for the past 25 years—which is what most people would consider infrastructure—but it’s not how it is defined in this bill.

Secondly, we did not get—and I note that Government members shut down the debate on two schedules that we did not have an opportunity to ask questions to before the dinner break. I think that is appalling when there has been some promise to go through the process here properly, and we have been trying to very diligently go through it piece by piece. Then we got shut off, and shame on those members across there who shut down that debate; it’s appalling.

One of the questions I would have asked in that, which I’m now going to try and relate to this point, is: infrastructure often relates to what can be designated, and some of the list which we would have gone through for designations in the schedule, that we were not able to debate, includes things like early childhood centres. I think it may even include private early childhood centres. Given the definition of infrastructure, does the member think that there is a functional and operational need for a private early childhood educator to have a facility newly constructed in a hazard area?

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (19:24): Thank you, Mr Chair. I do want to hear the response from the Under-Secretary regarding that particular question. Also, in those cases, I want to further understand—if the Under-Secretary wouldn’t mind elucidating—the interaction of, for example, this particular bill when it comes to new early childhood education (ECE) centres in a hazardous zone, and that’s relating to the requirements of ECEs under the Education and Training Act, section 4(b) specifically. I do have a separate question, but keeping a note that that’s a very important question by the Hon Rachel Brooking.

I want to start with clause 110 and move on, very briefly, to clause 113, noting that others may have other questions as well. I want to check with the Under-Secretary regarding clause 110(1)(b)(i), which is also an additional change that has been added in Amendment Paper 709. In this case, land use makes sense, but it’s specifies a rule in a proposed land-use plan as opposed to previously just a proposed plan provision that is being notified. Can I check with the Under-Secretary on why the rule has been specifically defined here, in this particular amendment?

My other question, for the time being, is on clause 113(1) and (2). I just had a look in terms of Maritime New Zealand’s jurisdiction, because I was curious as to the jurisdiction of Maritime New Zealand when it comes to navigable lakes or rivers. It does look like that maritime covers all waterways, including oceans and coasts, etc. Can I check—unless another area already includes it—why, then, would an application affecting navigation in a lake or river need to have the consent authority sending a copy of the application to Maritime New Zealand, but when it comes to coastal marine areas, which will presumably also be under Maritime New Zealand’s jurisdiction, there isn’t, at least in this clause, a mention of marine coastal areas, where for any application to the consent authority, the consent authority also needs to send a copy of that application to Maritime New Zealand?

Those are my three questions: one on the interaction with the Education and Training Act; one around the changes to clause 110(1)(b)(i), and around the copy of the application to Maritime New Zealand when it involves the coastal marine area.

SIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (19:28): Just responding, firstly, to the questions from the Hon Rachel Brooking. The caveat is around when new information is available, and there needs to be a backstop for when a plan is not yet updated but there’s new information available about natural hazards.

The member raised a number of hypotheticals. Look, it’s very clear what infrastructure means; it’s defined in the legislation. We covered that extensively in Part 1, and the member should be satisfied that councils can still make rules and plans which clarify how those two concepts are applied. I doubt very, very much whether a council is going to permit early childhood education (ECE) centres to be built in an area exposed to significant risks from natural hazards.

In response to the member Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan, clause 110 that he referred to: that’s a drafting update. The change that he referred to is a minor and technical amendment to specify the rule and the plan; it’s the rule in the plan that has changed. With respect to clause 113, “Application affecting navigation to be referred to Maritime New Zealand”, that’s a direct carry-over from the Resource Management Act. Maritime New Zealand would be interested if somebody wants to build something in the way of a ship.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (19:29): Thank you, Mr Chair. A brief question on clause 109 and then I’ll take the Minister very quickly through clauses 123 to 130. On clause 109, I understand that the regime at the applying for the consent stage now requires just proportionate information. That’s a key concept that we understand from the public documents on this, but one might expect that there is some safeguard that’s not in this clause—so where is it—against that proportionate information then becoming inadequate information in cases where the effects are uncertain or particularly cumulative. A second follow-up question to that is: how does he expect councils to act when they are receiving information about unknown effects, particularly for Māori, given that that has a special place in the decision-making hierarchy?

Then to clause 123 to 130. These are the provisions which are about planning consent notification and submissions. It’s a targeted notification regime, we get that, but the first question I have for the member in the chair is around this “more than minor” designation that councils are able to make. Now, given that that’s not just a sort of on/off button that the councils had under the Resource Management Act where it was either publicly notified or not, “more than minor” now has the effect that people who are adversely affected, but in a minor way, now can’t have a say. To the member: is that the right interpretation? Is the effect that somebody who has, say, been in an area—it’s very common, for instance, in Auckland for the council to decide that there is not a more than minor impact on residents when a cell tower is being consented in their area, but they still have the ability to have a say if they want to have a say. But now it reads as if they will not be able to have a say because of those targeted consultation provisions being much narrower.

I’ll also then take him specifically to clause 128, and I want to ask about the definition of the person who is affected. This is now much, much narrower. For members who have not been following on closely, the effect of this is much more similar to, say, alcohol licensing, where somebody who has a say at a hearings panel will need to be a resident in the area that is affected. That is much more restrictive, so I want to ask—sorry, was that feedback on the mic? I want to ask the Minister: what is the impact of this determination given that it’s not something that’s been tested in New Zealand law and we don’t have any regulations for standing? Standing in those sorts of cases, where people have restricted access to the panels, is often the first thing which is litigated, so who is an affected person will be probably the number one thing off the block when these types of decisions are being made. It would be really helpful if—the member in the chair doesn’t need to solve it tonight; he just needs to say what this regime is most like so that when these issues are first determined about who has standing to make an application to be heard, what kind of person that is if they’re not a resident.

SIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (19:33): I’ll just come to the member’s first question on clause 109. It’s the Government’s intention. I see overwhelming desire of those who seek to see the resource management system reformed to make it more permissible, more responsive, and more proportionate to the risks that need to be managed. Clause 109(3) reflects that, which is: “An applicant must ensure that information required … is provided a level of detail that is proportionate to the scale and significance of the effects of the activity to which the application relates.” The member raised the point that there may be unknown information, new information—

Arena Williams: Yeah, what if it changes over time?

SIMON COURT: —changes over time. An activity that has that level of uncertainty or lack of information is likely to be regarded as having a higher need for condition when consents are issued. But as an example, discretionary consents in the new system—I urge the member to return to clause 31(2)(c) to verify this—are required where there is significant variability in adverse effects. We have provided for some of that uncertainty that arises.

The member’s subsequent question was around notification. In the resource management system, notification is wide, and the requirements for notification are often onerous. The proposed approach in the bills departs from the Resource Management Act in the following ways: it requires targeted notification over public notification where affected persons can be identified; it raises the threshold for targeted notification from “minor” to “more than minor”; and it raises the public notification threshold for “more than minor” to “significant” in the separate Natural Environment Bill. We’ve been quite specific about those choices. It’s our intention that the number of people who are notified, and the number of people who subsequently have standing, is much reduced to those who are directly affected by applications for development and activities.

DAN ROSEWARNE (Labour) (19:36): Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you, Minister. Just touching on what Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan highlighted in clause 110, and I thought you were actually going to answer my question to clause 110, but I’ll ask it again just so you can round that out a little bit better. In particular, clause 110(1)(b), and it’s “the activity classification of the activity (being restricted discretionary or discretionary)”, and it’s got “altered” crossed out and “change” underlined, which, in my mind, is a significant amendment. “Change” is a broad word for making anything different or replacing one thing with another, whereas “alter” means to make a small or partial adjustment or keeping the core identity of the object the same. As an engineer, and I wasn’t actually aware that you had an engineer background, Minister, but “change” and “alter”, in an engineering sense, are two very different words. We want to change the Government; altering the Government is not enough. They’re two very different words, and I just wanted to get your clarification on why that amendment is within clause 110.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) (19:37): Thank you, Mr Chair. Just a couple of questions. Just the nuts and bolts of this interests me, and Schedule 6 deals with information required in applications for the planning consent. One of the things about the bill that strikes me is that it introduces a whole lot of judgments, which are essentially proportionality judgments, and if they’re made by the person seeking the consent, or even by the consenting authority, there’s a risk of a lack of consistency, because they are essentially a subjective assessment of what is required. One of those assessments is found in clause 3 of Schedule 6, which is: “if the application is affected by section 164 … an assessment of the value of the investment of the existing consent holder (for the purposes of section 139(1)(f)):”. I’m just interested—are there going to be regulations as to how we go about that? Assessments of value can be very varied, and even a valuer would say to you that there’s three or five ways you can value any particular investment depending on the cost of it, market value, best alternative use value, and off you go. I’m interested in that.

Also, clause 6 of Schedule 6, the information required in the assessment of—and it’s got “environmental” crossed out; it just says “effects”. In particular, for the information on the effects, you’ve removed from what has to go into the consenting documents, it appears—“environmental effects”—and rather you’ve just got “effects on the built environment”. Now, that seems very strange to me, because even if it is an urban setting, there are still wider environmental effects which aren’t necessarily effects on the built environment—that is to say, I’m assuming, bits of the environment that have been constructed. Then, again, you’ve got in clause 6(1)(b), “must include detail proportionate to the scale and significance”.

Again, whilst it’s buried right in the detail here, I’d be interested in the Minister’s views on who determines what is proportionate to scale and significance, because the person seeking the consent will have one view, the consenting authority will have another view, different consenting authorities may have different views, and the affected communities will have a different view again. I think that’s actually quite a significant question.

Further down again, I’m just interested in clause 6(2)(d) of Schedule 6, where it had, previously—and I’m imagining it was reported back from select committee—a description of how any adverse effects on the built environment will be avoided, and it did say “minimised”, but now it says “mitigated”. I’m interested as to why there is the weaker term of “mitigation”, which is addressing it in some way, whereas “minimised” seems to be reducing it as far as is practicable.

So there’s a handful of questions. One is about what is an assessment of value, one is around why environmental effects were removed, and one is why “minimised” was swapped out for “mitigated”.

SIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (19:41): I start with Schedule 6 and why “environmental” was removed. It’s because environmental effects are covered under the Natural Environment Bill. Schedule 6, to be clear, is complemented by national standards or plan requirements, so there will be more detail on how these things are done in the system. If I could return to the question from Dan Rosewarne, what that clause means is that if somebody makes the consent application and, in the meantime, the council changes the plan, their consent can continue under the rules that were enforced at the time they made their consent application. Again, that’s a carryover from the Resource Management Act; it’s a natural justice - type revision.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (19:42): Moving on, I’m going to go to clause 149, which is “Consent authority may grant application with adaptive management approach”. Then there’s a whole lot about how you decide if you’re going to do an adaptive management approach. My question relates to this being in the Planning Bill rather than the Natural Environment Bill, and it might be a crossover issue. But if this is for land use, what sort of adaptive management is used for land use? The circumstances that spring to mind about adaptive management are normally things that would be happening in the ocean—you have that test in the offshore legislation. I’m just wondering if he can explain if this adaptive management approach is for land use or if there is some connection between how the two bills work, and if it is for land use, can he give some examples of how it would be used?

Another question is on 149A, and I’m just wondering how this relates, if it relates at all, to the new 10A—I think it was 10A—that’s been inserted by agreement at the start of the bill, after agreement with the Waikato iwi involved in the river management.

Then I’ll go on to a third question. This is from clause 168, and these are very important provisions and they look to be similar to the Resource Management Act as well, and that is the review of consent conditions by the consent authority. There’s a process, we have to give notice, there’s some submissions, things have to be considered, and then at clause 172, there is a decision on the review of consent conditions, and that’s at subclause (3)—172(3) and (4). Subclause (3) says, “A consent authority may cancel a planning consent”—so it’s discretionary—“if—(a) it reviews the consent under” the relevant section, and “(c) there are significant adverse effects on the built environment resulting from the use of the consent.”

Again, I’m just wondering, for some colour in this, if there are some examples of what the member in the chair imagines “significant adverse effects on the built environment” might be that could result in the cancellation of a land-use consent. Again, most of the reviews that I’ve seen of consent conditions have been more around those relating to water pollution or soil contamination or those sorts of things. This refers to “significant adverse effects on the built environment”, so some colour there as well would be very useful.

So that’s three questions: one on clause 172, about what a review would be; one was on the adaptive management provision, which is back at clause 149; and then clause 149A and how it relates to new 10A.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (19:47): Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you to the under-secretary for his reasons so far. I do want to focus specifically on some of the changes in this bill that have been made in Amendment Paper 709. I’m now on new clause 114A, which is the application relating to offshore renewable energy (ORE) generation infrastructure activities. Obviously, this part has been inserted since the ORE bill became an Act, quite recently. But one of the things that jumped out at me in this particular section is it talks about applying for planning consent if they have a current feasibility permit or a commercial permit. Now, under the Offshore Renewable Energy Act, this is a two-tier process. There are two permits that are referred to here. But what I’m not seeing in clause 114A is whether, if an applicant holds a feasibility permit, they got the consent, they again transitioned to a commercial permit as a result of that feasibility test—would the consent automatically transfer over to a commercial permit or would the applicant need to apply again using their commercial permit to apply for a new consent? I think that part is just a little bit unclear in how this new addition has been drafted.

I now want to move on to clause 131, and I’m just wanting to seek the under-secretary’s engagement on my colleague Lan Pham’s Amendment Paper 730, which is to replace subclause (1) to allow for any person to make a submission about the consenting authority rather than simply the qualifying people as detailed in paragraphs (a) and (b) of clause 131(1)—i.e., a qualifying person of the district or a person who is not a qualified resident but is related to the affected person under clause 128. This is to ensure that the clause is in line with the view of a number of the submitters that have been heard in the select committee process who are opposed to the narrowing of the situation for public notification and limiting public submissions just to qualifying residents. So I wanted to seek the under-secretary’s engagement on Amendment Paper 730 regarding clause 131.

My next question is on the new insertion, which is clause 131(1A). I wonder if the under-secretary wouldn’t mind also elaborating on why this particular part has been added in and how this is sufficiently different from one that requires its own particular section.

My last question at this stage is about clause 133, “Striking out submissions”. It states, “(1) A consent authority may, in the manner prescribed in regulations, strike out a submission, or part of a submission,”. We understand from the select committee there are submissions that may potentially not be relevant to the bill we’re discussing, but those submissions are never really struck out; they are returned to the submitter. I want to check with the Minister two things. Number one is whether struck out would imply returning to the applicant, or, without letting the submitter know, just simply reject it. When it comes to regulations, normally regulations make a specific reference to which clause the regulation will fall under. Can I just check that in this case, in regulations, we’re referring to secondary legislation and there’s a particular empowering clause that the secondary legislation would fall under.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (19:51): Thank you, Mr Chair. This point about clause 131 through to clause 133 is about who is able to make a submission. Acknowledging that the member in the chair has made a change to change “resident” to “person”—I assume that’s because the new definition now includes a body corporate. Is that right? That is the first question.

The next question I have is about the public notification requirements only applying to those qualifying persons, and this is a new insertion, and this is where the rubber really hits the road, I guess, for these applications. This is the knocking out of the Forest & Bird provision and it’s knocking out groups who have traditionally organised around these issues. I just want to ask some clarifying questions of the member in the chair, because it seems that this provision, which has been added in without any consultation on it, goes too far and further than what the policy intention is. We’re going to end up with some silly outcomes here.

I want the member to consider the examples where people do want to make submissions, and those submissions might be out of area—say, the extension of the Waitematā wharves out into the harbour, where recreational fishers have an interest in using the harbour and they would not be able to make an application, and under the old system they would have been able to make an application. Then there is the situation of the gun club where I was the general counsel working for an iwi in West Auckland, where there was a funny outcome and one that had not been anticipated but was essentially an application to build a gun club in an area for the iwi where 30 women and children had lost their lives in the Land Wars with gun violence. That would have been a silly outcome for the community, and one which offended not only the sensibilities of the iwi but the local residents and the people who bore the name of the town in the area—Helensville.

These silly outcomes will arise if we don’t have a way for people who are outside of an immediate area to be able to make representations about their interests, whether they are cultural or customary—for anyone. These are the recreational participation rights and that is why we have public participation rights at the planning consent level. Things like extensions of discharge; things like the enjoyment of a particular community in an area where the nature of the community has changed over the last 10 years, where they had a factory but now there are thousands of residents there—this is going to happen increasingly with more development. We want that more development, but we also want local residents to be able to update and change the way that planning consents in the area are given, and this is the mechanism to do it, but they may not be able to do that because of the new rule where, now, bodies corporate are allowed to make submissions, but anyone who is not in the immediate area—say, MPs or groups that are organisers of groups of submissions—are not able to apply in that way. That seems to be a problem that doesn’t reach the policy intent and just makes it very, very narrow representations from immediately affected residents who can demonstrate an adverse impact.

I do want to ask about the striking out of submissions. I read in regulations—the regulations apply to tribunals. Is that right? The alcohol tribunals operate under those rules as well. They are natural justice rules that apply to all tribunals, or do you intend to create new rules that apply to this tribunal only?

SIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (19:55): Well, there have been quite a few questions asked from some of the members over the previous few minutes. I will attempt to respond to them individually.

The member the Hon Rachel Brooking asked questions about clause 149, which deals with adaptive management. In a land-use planning context, adaptive management could be expected to be applied, say, for an activity which might generate noise and vibration and where monitoring of that activity after it commenced would tell the applicant and the regulator whether additional improvements need to be made to mitigate any effects or whether the activity can continue based on the consent granted.

With respect to Rachel Brooking’s questions about the relevance of clause 149A, “Planning consent giving effect to Te Ture Whaimana o Te Awa o Waikato may be contrary to water services standard”, it is intended, as Mr Bishop and I have explained a number of times, to give effect to the Waikato River Treaty settlement and to acknowledge the vision strategy for the Waikato River.

The member asked a question about clause 172, “Decisions on review of consent conditions”. This is a carry-over from the Resource Management Act (RMA), and essentially it provides for, say, situations where there’s a structure, a home, in an area or an activity exposed to natural hazards. If a council has issued consent and then gets new information—where I live in Auckland, we get new information about landslide risk, and that means that consents for some sorts of activities and occupations have had to be reviewed, and in some cases the decision is that people can’t live there anymore. So, again, the legislation provides for that. It’s quite practical.

Now, there were a number of other questions that I’m going to now get to. Clause 114A—forgive me; I can’t remember which member asked that question. It was subclause 1(a) about application for offshore renewable energy. The member Lawrence Xu-Nan’s question was around if an energy applicant has either a feasibility or a commercial permit and they obtain a consent based on, say, feasibility, will they have to reconsent once they get to commercial. One of the challenges we do have in the current RMA is that when anything changes from the time that somebody produces a concept, preliminary design, detailed design to when they get a consent and they go to issue for construction drawings—I’m just drawing on my experience as an engineer—having to go back and reconsent any changes between submitting the application with a design proposal and then finalising it for construction is onerous, time-consuming, costly, and often doesn’t really do anything to manage risk.

Without wanting to cast forward or provide a legal opinion, I imagine that if the risks are dealt with at the time a feasibility permit is established, then if it’s acceptable to the consenting authority that it’s all been dealt with in the round and any changes between feasibility and commercial are minor and technical, I’m assuming that consent would carry over. Again, that is a cut and paste, essentially, from the RMA, because when this bill was being drafted, that offshore renewable energy hadn’t been passed yet, and when it did pass, it referred to the Resource Management Act. So, again, we’re just bringing in a number of matters.

Now, clause 133—striking out. Now this is an interesting question; I appreciate the question from Lawrence Xu-Nan, and also Arena Williams who raised it. Striking out—so if a consent authority strikes out a submission or part of a submission if it’s not reasonable or relevant to the case, the reason for the striking out that’s been provided to me is it means that the struck-out part cannot form part of a subsequent appeal on any matter. It does provide significant—[Bell rung] Mr Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Simon Court.

SIMON COURT: Thank you. It does provide some significant protection to the consenting authority if there’s matters that are just not related to the activity, the application, and that could provide for appeals on matters that just aren’t relevant.

Now, we continue. I’ve run out of pages—hold on. Thank you. Regulation-making power for striking out submissions is under clause 281(1)(a). It’s not about the planning tribunal; it’s for councils. I hope that satisfies members that the questions they posed have been responded to.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (20:01): Thank you. I’ve got a question here on clause 138, although I do remember asking the member a question about why planning tribunals were being used for some things in a different part that was not answered. Now that he’s talking about planning tribunals, he might want to refer to it. But clause 138: “Matters that consent authority must disregard”. It goes to scope, section 14, that we’ve traversed; “any effect on a person who has given written approval”; and then what I’m interested in is paragraph (c), which is: “any adverse effect of the activity on the built environment if the land use plan or a national rule permits an activity with that effect.” This is the permitted baseline. That’s a concept developed by courts that has been useful for a system that focuses on consents rather than plans and national direction.

My question is: if we are reshaping the system away from by consent, why do we need to codify the permitted baseline when so much is already permitted? There shouldn’t be that many things that this would apply to, and it could add a whole lot of complexity to the decision making around the consent, because it’s supposed to be simplifying consents and it’s more binary in terms of consents. We’ve got rid of the non-complying activity status; we’ve got rid of the controlled activity status here. So why do we need that permitted baseline?

SIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (20:03): Look, for the member’s benefit and just harking back to some of the great work she did in developing resource management law in New Zealand, I’ve been advised that the Natural and Built Environment Act—RIP, since repealed—also provided for that same function. But let’s be clear: the Government intends that common activities for which we know how to manage the risks and the impacts are provided for in national standards or rules in a plan. Therefore, we’ve acknowledged there are some activities associated with the effects of those activities, and it’s our intention that they not be litigated again during the consenting process.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (20:04): Just a little—sorry for knees and things from people who jumped up there. I just have a little question for the member. When he referred to the great Natural and Built Environment Act—that his Government cruelly repealed in December 2023 and brought back the Resource Management Act—is he saying that this legislation before us is not different from that Natural and Built Environment Act, and that this legislation isn’t far more enabling than that Natural and Built Environment Act, as he has been telling us in previous contributions?

SIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (20:05): It’s very clear that the permitted baseline approach that the member referred to in her previous question is a good concept. It’s been carried through; it’s established, I understand, through case law, through consenting. It’s been carried through a number of iterations of resource management reform. It’s one of the good things that if activities and their effects are well understood, and a rule and a plan can specify how those effects are managed, or a national rules and a national standard, then they don’t need to be relitigated at each and every consent.

That is the Government’s intent. We want to reduce, as far as practical, the real implication of activities and effects that are well understood at consenting level. We want to lift up the difficult decisions and trade-offs to plan making, to the development of national standards—I’m going up the funnel now to national policy direction—and not have stuff relitigated. So it’s a good clause, I’m sure the member would agree, and we’re going to keep it.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (20:06): Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you to the under-secretary for your responses before. That was very helpful and very fulsome, so I really appreciate that.

I have a question regarding clause 136, which is “Decision by commissioner”, noting that it was also quite helpful that there is at least a reference to the original Resource Management Act (RMA) regarding comparable clauses. But what jumped out at me for this particular section is in the original RMA, section 100A. It also allows not just simply if the applicant is asking for a hearing by commissioners, but it also allows someone who makes a submission to also ask for a hearing by commissioners. I’m just curious as to why that part, where someone who makes a submission requesting a hearing by commissioner, has been removed from this particular part.

Now I’m going to move on to clause 139 and just following on from what the Hon Rachel Brooking is asking regarding this section as well. Again, you know, I’m trying to focus on changes that Amendment Paper 709 is making, and I want to specifically focus on clause 139(1)(c) and (d). Now, clause 139 says, “The consent authority must have regard to the following: … (c) any measures proposed or agreed to by the applicant to avoid, remedy, mitigate,”—this has changed from “minimise”, and I do wonder why, because “mitigate” and “avoid” are synonyms, whereas “minimise” is not. I want to check: why is “mitigate” used in that particular section? It doesn’t look like, at a glance, it’s a carry-over from the original Act, so I think that would be helpful to seek some clarification on.

In terms of paragraph (d), we’re looking at water service standards, so presumably clause 139(1)(d)(iii), where the water services standard has now been captured—any relevant provisions of a water services standard. But would the Minister, on a second review, be able to clarify on why “(i) the land use plan or proposed land use plan:” and “(ii) a national rule in national standards:” have been removed from that particular paragraph? Those are my two questions.

SIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (20:09): Just in response to the question about the hearings, the applicant under the Resource Management Act was required to bear the cost of the application; in the new system, they’re not. So we’re not providing for them to access a hearing as of right.

The member asked a question about “minimise” versus “mitigate”. That’s been covered off in previous parts, but, again, “mitigate” is a well-understood term, and in terms of consenting, issuing conditions to mitigate are well-understood. “Minimise” is far more onerous, and, again, it’s not a well-understood term; it’s not commonly used. It’s not part of the resource management system right now.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) (20:10): I just want to have a discussion around clause 140—it’s a really important issue, and, in particular, it’s a really important issue in Canterbury—“Matters relevant to activities affecting drinking water supply source water”. I guess the global question is the degree of importance of this, and, obviously, we know we haven’t got bottom lines in this legislation, but “have regard to” seems to be a very light degree of consideration when we’re talking about drinking water. I’m interested in why stronger words weren’t used, such as “preserve the integrity of” or something along those lines.

The other really important and difficult question here is “the actual or potential effect of the proposed activity on the source of a drinking water supply”. Now, Canterbury, as you may be aware, has artesian water supply, where the water travels over time, and it can travel actually quite slowly, but one of the real challenges is that drinking water, close to Christchurch, essentially comes from the bottom of the Alps and all of the land in between. When you’re talking about the source of drinking water, it’s actually a very large area.

Obviously, there’s a question in Canterbury about consenting dairy farms, and I think it’s established that nitrates leach off dairy farms, and it is recorded—the Environment Canterbury evidence is there—that it is in the drinking-water supply. Now, we have an issue that you’ve got a “must have regard to”, but also, if you’re seeking to consent a farm in Springfield, about 50 kilometres from Christchurch, is that a farm where you need to take account of the fact that the rain that falls there is part of the source of the water that is being used in Christchurch and other areas close by? This is actually a really critical part of this piece of legislation.

I guess the other thing that strikes me is that it doesn’t seem to be backed up by further legislation which is going to provide the guidance as to exactly what this means in terms of catchments and in terms of artesian wells versus river water, and so on and so forth. I’m interested in: why just have “regard to”, and on the “source of a drinking water supply”, is that a term that you just going to leave, essentially, to, I guess, hydrologists to determine in expert reports, or does that have a particular meaning?

SIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (20:13): The clause the member the Hon Dr Duncan Webb refers to, clause 140, is a direct carry-over from the Resource Management Act. If the member had cared to inspect the clause further, it would be clear that the source water is covered under the Water Services Act and the “source of a drinking water supply” is identified in a source water risk management plan prepared under that Act. It is right and proper that a consenting authority has regard to that. Thank you for bringing that to the committee’s attention and to the attention of all those watching and listening this evening.

I just want to come back to an answer I gave previously in response to a question from Lawrence Xu-Nan. I just want to clarify that, in relation to submitters seeking to have a hearing, it’s submitters that don’t bear the cost of an independent hearings panel; the applicant does.

Hon Rachel Brooking: OK. Thank you. I was having palpitations over here.

SIMON COURT: Also, for the member Rachel Brooking, who apparently was having palpitations at my answer, I’m clarifying it, and that is why the submitters cannot require a hearing. Apologies to members present; I just needed to clarify that.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (20:14): Thank you. I’m still alive, and thank you to the member in the chair Simon Court. I’m interested in his comments around “minimise” being an unusual term that people weren’t familiar with—and, therefore, not using it—and how that relates to the use of the term “pragmatic” that we were discussing earlier.

Anyway, I will also come to Schedule 7, and this is a very simple question for the member in the chair, and that is if he can confirm, or point to, differences in Schedule 7 from the equivalent clauses in the Resource Management Act. Is it largely the same, with some wording changes to work for this new legislation, or are there major policy deviations from the Resource Management Act in Schedule 7, which is “Subdivision and reclamation”? Thank you.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (20:15): Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to take the Minister responsible for RMA Reform to clause 145, which I’m very happy about.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Oh!

ARENA WILLIAMS: I’m very happy about this clause, and so is Dr Xu-Nan, and I beat him there.

Minister, I would like to talk to you about this. This was included in your regulatory impact statement as well, and officials drew attention to this because serial non-compliance is something that should be dealt with, and this clause attempts to do it. My first question is: why is the formulation of clause 145(1) a “may” and not a “must”, when it seems to be within the public interest and well supported around the Parliament—I can hear on my left—that regulators at all levels of the funnel should be able to take serial non-compliance into account?

The second question is: you can understand the look-back provision being seven years for an ordinary person, a natural person, but why, for a body corporate, is it only seven years? That doesn’t seem to make sense or have the same justifications when a body corporate, a company, a trust, or whatever it is will have a changing round of directors and should be held to account for having a higher standard of, say, documentation and compliance over that time.

My next question is about clause 145(3)(a). I think we have got the policy wrong here: “ongoing” and “repeated” are important, but one has been excluded—one big bad one is excluded—and that is often the case of bodies corporate, say, making big errors in environmental degradation, dumping waste, and polluting ground. Those are also things that it seems relevant for the regulator to be able to consider, especially if that has happened recently and is of direct relationship to the consent that they are also applying for.

I want to ask him about, then, the policy overall. In effect, all of these provisions working together means that the non-compliance has to be significant, it has to be ongoing, and it has to also be subject to an enforcement order—so abatement notices and infringement notices seem to not be enough to trigger this position. Is that the right impact for something like a wharf? The usual way of punishing that behaviour will be abatement notices over and over and over again, and then to receive a planning consent for another extension of a wharf just seems like something which you should be able to take into account.

My final question is: does this actually solve the problem which is set out in the regulatory impact statement? In the 2018 case, where the Court of Appeal upheld imprisonment for the developer, which I think the regulatory impact statement is alluding to, there were a huge number of unauthorised dwellings. There was waste-water discharge of raw sewage into streams. It was cynical and deliberate, and the court found not only that there was a regulatory compliance culture of head in the sand but that this was behaviour which would keep going. The cost to the ratepayer to clean up the first stage of remediation was over $1 million. Eventually, they got him on the trees. They got him on the destruction of the trees at the property, not on any of those regulations.

Have we dealt with the problem so that this natural person or body corporate wouldn’t get a consent in the future? Also have we tidied up the infringements regime so that someone who has been repeatedly and deliberately breaking the rules can also be held to account and it doesn’t take them cutting down, I think, six trees at their property to finally get there?

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (20:19): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m just following on from Arena Williams’ series of questions. I think they are exactly what I had in mind as well.

I think one of the things I wanted to ask the Minister responsible for RMA Reform about further, as a package of that question from clause 145, is that abatement notices, enforcement orders, infringement notices, and pecuniary penalties for convictions are very different, with a varying degree of severity. I even wondered whether the cases that Arena Williams mentioned are really important when it comes to serial offenders or repeat offenders. Convictions are quite serious, and I wondered if the convictions in particular should have been carved out from this particular section, even if the consenting authority may have regard to the rest—but “must have regard to” when it comes to convictions. I want to check with the Minister if that is something that has been considered as a part of this.

I do want to move on a little bit further to Subpart 5, noting that quite a few of the clauses may have been addressed by other members. This is to do with general requirements before conditions may be included. This is clause 150. I want to check clause 150(2), which says, “A consent authority must not include a condition unless—(aaa) the applicant has agreed to the condition;”. I want to check with the Minister: I’m assuming this particular case is when the applicant has been notified of the conditions that have been imposed, as opposed to there being some form of negotiation or compromise? I wondered if the condition was imposed as a result of certain potential or likely non-compliance within areas and that it’s not really up to whether there is any wiggle room for compromise with the applicant.

I do want to check, in that case, what does “agreed to the condition” actually mean? Does it mean that someone has signed it? I’ll leave it at that because the Minister looks like he’s ready to answer questions.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (20:22): I’ll deal with all these relatively quickly. The subdivision provisions are largely a carry-over from the Resource Management Act (RMA). In relation to Arena Williams’ points, it says “may” not “must”, which again is a carry-over from the RMA.

The seven years point: I’m advised that longer than seven years is hard to administer, and it comes from the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Act. In relation to whether or not it solves the problem, yes, I am confident it does, particularly in relation to some of the cases that she was talking about, which I’m unfamiliar with.

In relation to Lawrence Xu-Nan’s point just now around clause 150(2)(aaa), this is just a simple statement of reality, which is that a consent authority can impose conditions if the applicant agrees. That is frequently what happens. It’s happening at the moment in fast track, for example, in which people are applying and suggesting conditions to be imposed on them that avoid remedy, mitigate offset, and will provide compensation for adverse effects. Obviously, consent authorities can impose things if they agree to it, but you also need to read it in the light of the semicolon, after which it says “or (a) the condition contains measures … or (b) the condition is directly connected …”. It’s a scheme that provides the setting of consent conditions.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (20:23): Thank you, Mr Chair. Now, I note that others may have additional questions on the clauses, but I’m just checking with what was discussed previously, I believe, by the Chair: that we are going to now move on to the schedule. I would like to move on to some part of the schedule, noting that Schedule 6 has already been covered to a certain extent. I want to move on to Schedule 7 on subdivision and reclamation, which is quite significant, with, I believe, five parts to it.

I would like to start on Part 1 of Schedule 5, relating to conditions of subdivision consent, starting with clause 6, which is on conditions requiring protection against natural hazards, and clause 7. Noting that the Hon Rachel Brooking has had some questions previously on natural hazards but none which relates to a subdivision consent, and I think, in this case, it needs to be checked that when we are looking at certain—I guess for clarity to be in the Hansard and also to understand ministerial intent—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Is the member on Schedule 5?

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: I’m on Schedule 7.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Oh, Schedule 7.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Schedule 7, which is clause 181.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Sorry, my apologies. No, that’s fine. Thank you.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: This is page 398 of Amendment Paper 709.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): That’s fine.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: I want to check whether the Minister responsible for RMA Reform has any thoughts around when you are getting a land use consent—I want to get the terminology correct—when it comes to protection against natural hazards and the subdivision consent, in this case; whether they will need to meet the same threshold between the two. Or would subdivision consent, being something that already kind of exists, require less scrutiny by the consenting authority—when you’re looking at subdivision, I’m assuming? I just want to check with the Minister if that is something where there might be a difference between land use consent and subdivision consent.

In terms of, I guess, clauses 7 and 8—and this is to do with clause 8, “Conditions about vesting of bed of lake or river”—this may include conditions requiring that land that is a bed of a lake or river are to be vested in a territorial authority. Previously, we have seen that, when you’re looking at the land use consent, if the territorial authority or the consenting authority receives an application, that application must also be sent to Maritime New Zealand. I wonder, in this particular case—and I can give a reference for the other one, but in this particular case, it doesn’t necessarily specify. I want to check with the Minister if, when you’re applying for subdivision consent, the territorial authority or the consenting authority will also need to send that subdivision consent application to Maritime New Zealand.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (20:27): Schedule 7, in relation to subdivision: in fact, the subdivision provisions in the bill are largely a carry-over from the Resource Management Act (RMA). I’m advised that there were very few submissions at the Environment Committee in relation to this. It is largely a lift and shift, with a few tweaks on the way through, and the system works pretty well. The Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan has actually outlined some of the way the process works right now already in his own speech.

CATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki) (20:27): I move, That debate on this question now close.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): There’s a bit left in here, but we’re getting there.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (20:27): A fast pass through the conditions of planning consents questions—the first is at clause 150. I want to ask about—

Hon Chris Bishop: Which one?

ARENA WILLIAMS: Clause 150, on page 134, and I’ll also ask you about clause 151. The consent conditions are three categories. They have to be whether the applicant agrees, whether they directly connect to the adverse effect that has been created by the consent, or whether they’re only administrative. I’m asking about the requirement that they are directly connected to the adverse effect.

In a large housing development, you’ll have ones that are obviously connected to that, and those are provided for here—stormwater, roads—but I want to ask you about whether you can, at the local authority level, require through the directly connected requirement things like parks, playgrounds, and spaces for early childhood education.

In clause 151, a similar question about the conditions you can actually impose—I want to ask whether that is intended to provide an independent power to require environmental restoration or whether that’s out in this regime. It’s very common, for instance, to have a requirement in the consent where you would also be required to do planting or to do a restoration of wetland. The direct connection seems to take that out of the new regime.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (20:29): I’m advised that in relation to the parks point, the answer is yes—if it is in the plan, for example.

Arena Williams: So that’s directly connected.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, if it’s in the plan rule, yes, it is, because, following the funnel, you have to give effect to the plan rule. It might be, for example—I’m just making this up—in a large subdivision, say, 100 lots, that there needs to be a park in the subdivision or the land re-zoned or anything. Some councils will do that; some won’t. Some will set the threshold at different rates. There may be standardised zoning provisions which may assist with that.

So the short answer is yes, but the point of the “direct connection” point is to make sure that people are doing things that are directly connected to the adverse effects of what they’re doing. You can’t impose conditions that aren’t. The flipside is also true, which is that you could have conditions but they can’t just be because the council feels like it; they have to be directly connected to the effects. To be honest, that’s actually the status quo under the Resource Management Act, basically.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (20:30): Just to follow up, then, I think that the answer to the question about clause 151—is the power to require environmental restoration, say planting or restoration of a wetland, if it’s in the plan, directly connected enough to meet the requirements at clauses 150 and 151?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (20:31): Yes is the short answer.

RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East) (20:31): I move, That debate on this question now close.

A party vote was called for on the question, That debate on this question now close.

Ayes 67

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

Noes 55

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

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 4 set out on Amendment Paper 709 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 67

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

Noes 55

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

Amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Oriini Kaipara’s tabled amendments to clause 108 and 125 and inserting new clause 129A be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 67

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

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Lan Pham’s amendment to clause 131 set out on Amendment Paper 730 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The Hon Rachel Brooking’s tabled amendment to clause 139(1)(d) inserting subparagraph (i) is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that Oriini Kaipara’s tabled amendment to clause 149A to insert new subclauses (3) to (5) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 67

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

Amendment not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 4 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 67

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

Noes 55

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

Part 4 as amended agreed to.

Committee of the whole House

Part 5 Key roles, and Schedules 9, 10, and proposed new Schedule 10A

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Members, we come to Part 5, the debate on clauses 182 to 216, “Key roles”, including Schedule 9, “Environment Court”; Schedule 10, “Planning Tribunal”; and proposed new Schedule 10A, “Statutory officer”, in the Minister’s tabled amendments. The question is that Part 5 stand part.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (20:36): Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to start with clause 182 and clause 183, and I want to start with clause 182 first because, again, there have been numerous amendments in Amendment Paper 709.

I want to start by checking, in terms of clause 182(e), where the Minister’s function here has changed to a national instrument: can I just check, rather than having national policy direction or national standard, that’s just an update for consistency, I’m hoping—checking with the Minister responsible for RMA Reform on that.

I’m also noting that paragraph (g) has changed quite substantially from the existing version and changed to “considering and investigating the use of fees, levies, incentives, … other fiscal measures and economic instruments under this Act”. I want to check with the Minister: what’s the rationale behind updating the language for that—particularly when you’re looking at fees and levies and incentives, other fiscal measures. This is something that we have been very aware of in the Regulations Review Committee, regarding the use of those particular methods when it comes to fees and levies in particular, so I do want to check that with the Minister. That’s my second question.

I want to move on to clause 183, noting that this potentially is possibly largely a carry-over from the existing legislation. I wanted to check: in this case, what would then be the interaction between the responsible Minister and the Minister of Conservation in their roles and jurisdictions as listed out in subclause (1)(a) and (b) and subclause (2)—oh, here we go: “or imposed on that Minister by this Act.”, yeah. I wondered if the Minister wouldn’t mind just checking: what’s the interaction between the Minister of Conservation and the responsible Minister?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (20:38): I think these can be dealt with relatively quickly. Clause 182: “national instruments” in the Act refers to national policy direction and national standards—so, rather than say “national policy direction” and “national standards”, “national instruments” is a catch-all.

In relation to paragraph (g), it’s just a redraft. It’s just literally redrafting something—old (g) is basically the same as new (g); it’s just a drafting change from the Parliamentary Counsel Office.

Clause 183, as the member Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan, I think, notes, is just a reflection of the status quo from the Resource Management Act, which carries over into the new Act in relation to the Minister of Conservation.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) (20:39): Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to draw the Minister responsible for RMA Reform’s attention to my proposed amendments to the amendments tabled by himself at 7.26 p.m. last evening. There’s a number of amendments which address several linked problems—what I believe are problems—in the Government’s scheme, and let me run through them. The first is that there’s no common standard for council compliance and, looking at the Minister’s amendment from last night, which is clearly an improvement on the amendment that was there before—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Sorry, Mr Twyford, would I ask you to refer to the clause you’re speaking to in your amendment?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: In my amendment, I’m speaking to new clause 188B, which is the first of several in my amendment, and they’re amendments to the Minister’s Amendment Paper 738 of last night, which is an improvement on what was there before. It says that in the case of councils responding to a determination that a land market is not competitive, the local authority must decide how it will address the matter and implement the decision in a timely manner.

The problem with this is that the council is required to decide how it will address an act or omission that contributed to an uncompetitive land market, but it doesn’t specify or set any kind of standard for what an adequate response looks like. The problem with it, essentially, is that the council that contributed to the problem is, effectively, left to judge whether its own remedy is sufficient. So that’s the first problem.

The second, I think, is that there’s no objective or enforceable timetable. The Minister’s amendment requires implementation in—quote, unquote—“a timely manner”, but there’s no deadline or common test of timeliness. Councils could respond inconsistently or defer meaningful action through lengthy processes, and that’s easy to imagine. Simply tying the council’s duties under proposed new clause 118B to a future compliance network and national direction risks weakening the immediate duty, because that framework will take some time to prepare. I’m going to address that point by basically putting in interim obligations until the framework is there. The Minister’s amendment doesn’t require the national direction that’s put in place to contain a defined compliance framework by a fixed date, nor does it specify the framework’s minimum content or require it to be reviewed in the case of a negative determination, which would potentially expose the deficiency.

Finally, I think the other problem is that there’s no balanced independent check on the framework. You would expect that the land market officer responsible for assessing land market competitiveness would have some kind of role in testing the framework. Conversely, you wouldn’t want to give the land market officer unlimited approval power or, effectively, a veto.

What my amendment sets out to do is, in new clause 188B, say that the council must decide how it will address the matter if the competitive urban land market compliance framework under new clause 188C has been included in national policy direction in accordance with that framework. If the national direction is in place, the council must work out what it’s going to do in accordance with that national policy direction. If, however, the framework has not yet been included in the national policy direction, it must do so by having regard to the determination of the land market officer. So that’s proposed new clause 188B(2)(a).

Then, secondly, the council must implement the decision, if that framework specifies an applicable time frame, within that time frame. If the national direction includes a time frame, it must address that within the time frame or, if not—in any other case—in a timely manner. I really would be interested in the Minister’s view on this. It’s an attempt to preserve and put in place an effective duty—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The member’s time has expired.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (20:45): I appreciate what the member’s trying to do and, as I’ve indicated previously, last night, probably around this time, I have great sympathy for what he’s trying to do; agree with much of it. We won’t be supporting his amendment. There’s a few reasons. I mean, he says that the judge of the competitiveness of the land markets will become the council who created the problem in the first place. I don’t think, with respect, that is correct. The judge is the economic umpire, the statutory land market officer, and, as I said last night, we’ve got to get the balance right between—because there’s now essentially going to be three players in all of this: there’s going to be the council, the land market officer, and the Minister. The council and the community set the plan; the independent umpire—à la the Reserve Bank of New Zealand in relation to monetary policy, or the Commerce Commission in relation to price quality, regulation of water, and various different things—makes assessments; and there will be an assessment framework that has to be established. Then there’s national standards, and I referred the member last night to national policy direction.

The judge is not the council; the judge is the land market officer, and then the ongoing judgment about whether or not the response from the council meets the competitiveness tests is still the umpire, and the final kind of piece of the puzzle is the Minister, who has a more restrained role in the new system around intervention—and that’s actually by design. I hope we can agree: the last five or six years of Ministers battling with councils about land-use changes—and I had to go through it with Plan Change 120 in Wellington to a lesser extent, although people seem to care less about Wellington. Christchurch was another thing, where I just found myself in a statutory position of having to make these assessments, because that’s what the law said. Trying to try and explain it to the media was sometimes difficult, because that’s what the law said. Ministers find themselves having to make legal decisions all the time that they don’t necessarily even know they were required to make, but that’s OK.

The Plan Change 120 debate is relatively bruising for everybody. The member Phil Twyford who’s moving the amendment put an intervention, as Associate Minister alongside David Parker, into the Christchurch Council at the time in relation to their plan. It’s an uncomfortable position for Ministers to be in, and I think getting Ministers out of being the primary intervener on this—they still have the power in some circumstances; you still need to have that, but we’re redressing the balance somewhat so there’s someone in the middle who is making the assessment and the councils are the ones doing the responses. I mean, there’s room for debate about whether or not we’ve got that balance right. There’s some fleshing out of the national policy direction to do, which I think is important.

In relation to time frames, I’m advised that they can be set through regulations. More generally, this goes, I suppose, to a fundamental—maybe—distinction between members as to where various provisions should be in the funnel between the primary legislation, the national policy direction, the standards, and the regulations. There is room for debate around what should be in what, and we’ve tried to adopt a principled approach, which is: keep the funnel structure in place, and national direction is a national direction. That sort of fleshing out of that, particularly around standards, comes below—we can have an argument about what should be in primary legislation and what isn’t. I think we’ve got the balance about right. We can always come back to it. I’m not completely ill-disposed to what the member is proposing.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) (20:48): Well, OK, but my amendment also proposes a new clause 188C, which would require a competitive urban land market compliance framework to be included in the national policy direction within 12 months after the commencement of that section. That currently doesn’t exist, and I’m a little baffled as to why the decision has been made not to put that kind of requirement into this bill. If the current Minister is in this particular role, I can see that this kind of thing would happen, but we’re trying to set up a durable legislative framework here that will effectively steward the development and the implementation of competitive labour markets a long time into the future.

I would have thought that the requirement as set out in new clause 188C that you do have a compliance framework in place means that within a period of time from commencement, there will be, effectively, a mandate and a context for the land market officer and for councils to operate. If that’s not a good idea, I’m interested to hear why the Minister thinks so. Thank you.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (20:50): Thank you, Madam Chair. I do want to continue focusing my contributions in this part mostly on the amendments that the Minister has made on Amendment Paper 709. The first one is new clause 183B, which is a new addition on the delegation of functions by the Minister to the Environmental Protection Authority. I do want to check in this case, when we’re looking at the delegation—and this may have been referred to, but it’s a new clause section here—on what would be the degree that the Minister may consider in terms of that particular delegation, because even though its function is to monitor the implementation of the effects of this bill, it is still reasonably broad. So I do want to check what the scope of that monitoring is in clause 183B.

I do want to check clause 184A, where there is the insertion of new subclauses (1A) and (3). I want to start with new subclause (1A), which is around “(b) may perform its functions to control aquaculture activities in the coastal marine area”, particularly when it comes to the “effects of aquaculture activities on fishing and fisheries resources.” Now, this can also be quite broad because, as we know, for certain intensive aquaculture areas, it has a broader impact on the fish stock in the general area, particularly when it comes to marine pollution, etc., and the way that aquaculture itself can be conducted. We’ve seen that both domestically and also in overseas jurisdictions. I do want to check, then, in terms of new subclause (1A)(b) of clause 184A, what would be the expected or, I guess, the reasonable scope for regional councils when they’re looking at that particular effect.

In new subclause (3), I just want to clarify this particular point: does it mean that a regional council in considering whether the proposed activity would give effect to public access “to and along the coastal marine area”, it does not need to technically comply with subclause (2) in that case? Would that be the correct reading of new subclause (3)?

Now, I want to leave section 18 of the Natural Environment Act to the next bill, but I just wanted to ask in this case whether it is the correct reading that if a regional authority considered that public access to or along coastal marine areas is of vital importance, they can disregard what is in subclause (2). That’s, I believe, three questions to the Minister.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (20:54): I’m not 100 percent sure it was three questions.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Oh, there were two before that.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yeah, I missed those, I’m sorry, but I’m sure other people were listening. While we work out the answer to new clause 184A(3)—I think the answer is yes, by the way, but we will clarify it in the interests of transparency—I just want to deal with Mr Twyford’s point.

As I understand it, he’s basically proposing we set a 12-month bar. His current tabled amendment, as I read it, is a lot deeper than that. I’m prepared to consider a tabled amendment that limits to just the 12 months, I think—I just want to take a bit of time on that. There’s a money issue. Times are tight, in case he hadn’t noticed, and so I just want to be reassured that we could do it within the resources available, because it creates a—we haven’t got the money for the statutory land market officer yet. That’s subject to a future October Baseline Update and March Baseline Update.

Hon Phil Twyford: That’s why it’s a movable feast.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, a little bit—a little bit. But it’s OK; we’ll get there. I mean, we’re not—you know, in the time I’ve been speaking, the New Zealand Government has spent tens of millions of dollars, and so I think we can make it work. We’ll get there, and so I’m prepared to contemplate a 12-month amendment. I just want to have a think about that and take a little bit of advice, and so I’m not committing to it. But if we don’t support the amendment, I will commit that we will have one in place within 12 months—that’s certainly my intention. It’s absolutely very important for the reasons the member has outlined, and so I’ll just contemplate that.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) (20:56): Can I ask the Minister, in that case, whether or not, alongside specifying a 12-month time frame, he would agree with some of the points made under new clause 188C(3), which set out some of the parameters? It doesn’t set actual content, but it does set out the parameters of what would be included in a land market compliance framework.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (20:56): Thank you, Madam Chair. Right, I think this is my first contribution on Part 5, “Key roles”, and I’m going to start at the start. On Amendment Paper 709, right up the front, in clause 182, “Functions of Minister”, it says that “The Minister has the following functions under this Act: (a) recommending the making of a national instrument”. Now the word “approval” has been struck out and replaced with “making”, but I think that is semantics. When you read through the rest of the bill, it’s to do with how the Minister gives the Governor-General a recommendation, and then she makes an Order in Council.

An important and fundamental point to the whole system is how important the role of the Minister is here with regard to the national instrument. Sure, the Governor-General has to make an Order in Council, but it is on the recommendation of the Minister, and I would just like to put to the Minister that in another part I had suggested a board of inquiry process for the Minister. I’m not sure if the Minister responsible for RMA Reform was in the chair for that, but I would be interested in his views on a board of inquiry where a recommendation was made by the board of inquiry, or the board of inquiry makes a recommendation to the Minister—which I think is what my amendment was—and then the Minister makes the recommendation to the Governor-General. That should give the Minister some cover against, one, being lobbied—that’s a real thing, and I’m not saying that about this Minister; just any Minister—and, two, against judicial review proceedings, as well. That’s one set of questions.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (20:58): Mr Twyford asked if I’d agree with his clause 188(3)(a), (b), and (c), or clause 188(c) amendment, actually—his points around the framework. The short answer is yes, and the national direction released on Monday contains much of that. I mean, it’s an illustrative draft, and so I will welcome his feedback, alongside other competitive urban land market legends, on the national policy direction.

There’s a small subset of people in this country who care about it. Phil Twyford is one of them, I’m the second, and I can probably name them.

Grant McCallum: Nick Smith—would he be one of them?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: No, Nick Smith is not a competitive land market legend. Benno Blaschke, Chris Parker—that’s Treasury—Dr Eric Crampton, Hannah Ouellet, who works for me. Who else?

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I think we’ve drifted off the bill.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: We have—we have. Kirdan Lees—I just wanted to give them a shout-out. They’ve done God’s work.

Righty-o. The short answer is, yes, I agree.

In relation to the key roles—yes, sorry, Rachel Brooking’s question. Yeah, so I wasn’t in the chair for that session, although I have been having an extended dialogue with the Rt Hon Simon Upton about this point.

Hon Rachel Brooking: I might have seen him today.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: What?

Hon Rachel Brooking: Who I saw today—he was in.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: You saw him today?

Hon Rachel Brooking: He was in at lunchtime.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Of course he was—yeah. So Simon Upton has been in dialogue.

Look, I’m not opposed to it. I think the point I would make is that some people seem to have discovered that the Government has powers of national direction, just in, like, the last kind of two months. People have suddenly woken up to the fact that the Government, via the Minister, can issue national direction. That’s always been in the Resource Management Act (RMA), and, actually, the failure of the RMA, arguably—in fact, many people say this from 1990 to 2007, really—was that we didn’t do any of that; we just left it over to the councils, and the Government was not didactic enough about the fact that renewable energy in a country blessed with abundant renewable resources should be easier to develop than it is, you know?

We didn’t get serious, frankly, about urban land markets until the National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity, which was a Nick—actually, that was a Nick Smith thing, so maybe he is a semi-legend on the competitive land market front—but then Mr Twyford supercharged things with the National Policy Statement on Urban Development 2020. That was central government recognising that land markets matter and urban density matters for our cities and productivity and growth and all the things mentioned in it.

So national direction is there now. What we are trying to do is create a much more coherent document so that you don’t have to go to the Ministry for the Environment—or the Ministry for Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport as it is now—website, and print off some ridiculous PDF, and the terms are different and they don’t match. It’s all in one place: it’s called New Zealand’s Planning System National Policy Direction.

Hon Rachel Brooking: Oh, like our National Planning Framework.

Hon Damien O'Connor: Ha, ha!

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: What’s that?

Hon Damien O'Connor: Come on!

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, that’s what it looks like.

Hon Damien O'Connor: Until the lawyers get hold of it.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: No, no, no—well, yeah, maybe you’re right. But there is a merit in being able to pick it up—pick it up—and say, “Righty-O, I’m a council, what am I required to do?” “Housing and development”. “The planning system plays a key role in allowing more people to live well in our … cities.” “Sub-themes”: “Competitive urban land markets”, “Well-functioning urban areas”, “Well-functioning rural areas”, and “Natural hazards”. Directives: “To enable competitive … land markets: a) spatial plans must identify an abundance of areas for urban development, so there is no expectation of scarce land supply for future development.” That is a draft directive to councils around spatial planning.

There is a natural hazard theme, which is on page 23. “land use plans must ensure natural hazard risks associated with housing and development are managed by: a) using an approach that is proportionate to the level of natural hazard risk”. Now, this actually is already the law. There is a National Policy Statement Natural Hazards. Much of the grunt work was done by the previous Government; we picked it up and put it in place, we made a few tweaks. The devil’s in the detail with this stuff.

Infrastructure—there is a “Policy intent”. There is a strategic infrastructure priority: “To enable the timely and efficient delivery of new infrastructure … land use plans … must: a) recognise and provide for the national, regional and local benefits of infrastructure”. Now, that picks up on the work that we did in the last year or so on the National Policy Statement for Infrastructure, which we didn’t have—central government did not send a clear message through the planning system architecture that infrastructure is not a nice-to-have; it’s a must-have. Yes, there’s obviously things you have to balance against that: you know, wind farms create—you know, birds die; and, you know, building the roads, you’ve got to manage the effects of building a road; and there’s frogs and lizards and skinks and all that stuff that you have to worry about.

Hon Rachel Brooking: Bats.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Bats, yes. I draw the line at the dolphin funnel that the Auckland Council is demanding for the building of the North West bus rapid transit.

Hon Member: Oh, wow.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I know, I kid you not—I kid you not. So you have to take account of all those things, but there’s been no way to take account of that in the system.

We already have national direction, and, actually, everybody agrees with national direction because everyone supports the idea of a renewable energy thing, everyone supports an infrastructure thing. Actually, one of the great untold success stories of the last three years is alongside fast track, and this series of bills, is the biggest series of changes to national direction ever in the RMA. I got pretty disgruntled when I saw The Dom editorial—oh, sorry, The Post, as it now is—The Post editorial saying, “Oh, well, the Government stopped focusing on fast track and took their eye off the ball.”, neglecting that we now have a National Policy Statement for Infrastructure, we now have a strengthened national policy statement renewable, we now, for the first time in New Zealand history, have national standards for papa kāinga housing, for example, which has been a dog’s breakfast up and down the country, where councils have made all sorts of weird and wacky random rules around the simple proposition that mana whenua should be able to use their own land to build papa kāinga housing, so we now have national standards in relation to that, and I acknowledge the Hon Tama Potaka—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Minister, can you remind me what question you’re answering?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I’m answering the question around the ministerial powers in relation to national direction and in relation to boards of inquiry.

We now have electric vehicle – charging standards, for example. I mean, why do you need to go and get a resource consent to put the same charge net, or Merdian charger in, in council car parks? It’s nuts! Well, now you don’t have to, because they’re permitted activities under the RMA and they’ll carry over with the new thing.

I’m not opposed to the idea of boards of inquiry and feeding into the power of the Minister, but I would just point out that there’s quite a bit of stuff in there already. The member referenced it herself in relation to—clause 61, isn’t it?—the making of national instruments. There has to be various different reports and, firstly, they’ve got to follow the goals and you’ve got to notify everybody.

Look, I’m not opposed to the idea that there should be some more separate processes, but I just reject this idea wholesale that national direction is new; it isn’t. I reject the idea that it is the arrogation of power to the Minister or central government. This is sort of like ill-informed commentary: this is like untrammelled power for the Minister to do all these various different things. It’s not accurate—it’s not accurate.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (21:06): Thank you. I might respond to that contribution from the Minister responsible for RMA Reform, given that he’s raised these issues. I’ve got just some little points to make. I’m very pleased to hear that the Minister would consider some additional mechanisms to be available for making national instruments. That is good. I don’t know where in the process he would put them now, given we have covered off that part, but I’m sure we could find a solution to that if he wanted to do that.

I would also note that I agree with the Minister that there has been national direction before, and I agree that it is mind-boggling—is that a word? I don’t think it is: mind-something—that that national direction was inconsistent with other national directions. Clearly a totally inefficient process. So it is good that it is being put in one instrument and that, of course, is what—and the Minister can count how many times I’ve said this now—the Natural and Built Environment Act was doing: a planning and national planning framework for that very reason. I would just remind the Minister of that and, of course, the work being done on that infrastructure national direction.

It is good that we can agree that it’s important, but what the Minister was reading out before—and I have not gone through his new draft document, because I’ve been in the Chamber—a lot of what he just read out then did sound like clauses that we’ve been traversing in this legislation, so I’m not sure how much meat it was putting on the bones. There may be many other parts of it that do put meat on the bones. It’s that meat on the bones that is important in terms of making sure there is—there is—some good mechanisms and some good process, because if the Minister is going to put dramatic meat on the bones—this is a very strange metaphor that I’m giving here, but I’m going to go with it anyway—then, the Minister might want some covering. So I’m glad that he has said that he would look at another mechanism to give some safeguards there.

Now, I will move on to some new questions on this part. One is just a general question about clause 186, which is “Monitoring and information gathering” and there’s also regulations can prescribe that monitoring and reporting. I’m not sure if there is any substantive difference in the change at new subclause (4).

My question to the Minister is: how does he see this relating to something that he’s mentioned in other contributions about the digitalisation of data, and where that data sits? He’s described it in the past as being a significant proportion of Vote Environment. How does that relate to this monitoring and information-gathering role? That’s one question.

I will go on, across to clause 193, which is “Transfer of Powers”. This reads to me that it’s very similar to section 33 of the Resource Management Act (RMA), but of course it doesn’t include iwi authorities. If the Minister can confirm that that is the difference—clause 193, similar to section 33, but sans, without, the iwi authorities.

That leads into—and I’ll stop at this one before we get into iwi participation agreements—clause 197, which is “Joint Management Agreements”—again, very similar to what is found in the RMA, but, again, it’s just public authorities and there’s no mention of iwi authorities. So the question is: is the main difference between section 33 of the RMA and clause 197, “Joint Management Agreements”, and the relevant section that’s fallen out of my head of the RMA that removal of iwi authorities?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) (21:11): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m keen to take up what was—if I heard correctly—an offer from the Minister to do some more work on this amendment. If I heard correctly, the Minister’s not up for our new clause 188B, which I think he thinks is a bit draconian. It would require councils to address the matter within the terms of the urban land market compliance framework and national direction, so we’ll put that to one side.

If I heard correctly, the Minister is agreeable with the idea of a requirement to ensure that the compliance framework is included in national policy direction no later than 12 months after commencement. What I’m keen to know is whether or not, alongside that 12 months’ provision, including some of the basic parameters of the compliance framework would assist the process in his view. Then there’s a couple of other matters of principle that I’m interested in the Minister’s view on.

Clearly, one wouldn’t want this framework to be a licence for central government to write every zoning map, and I know that’s not his intention. Clause 188C(5) in my amendment expressly prevents the compliance framework from requiring a land-use plan to include or exclude specific plan provisions. The national direction is intended, I think, to supply a kind of discipline here—a particular meaning of competitive land market goals, directions on how plans must avoid contributing to an uncompetitive market, required outcomes and time frames after an adverse determination by the land market officer, and so on. Does the Minister agree that national direction should set the outcome and time frames, while leaving the council to pursue the particular plan provisions that they want? Also, I’d be interested to know whether he accepts that the framework must be capable of addressing different degrees of competitiveness—or uncompetitiveness—rather than the three options that were included in his amendment.

The other issue of principle, I think, is the idea that the independent land market officer should have some say in the development of the national compliance network that he or she will be responsible for operating under. In my amendment, I’ve proposed a series of provisions on page 2 that are designed to set out a process by which the Minister can’t just impose the compliance framework. The Minister is required to get agreement in the first instance from the land market officer, who’s going to be the independent expert here, but while not giving the land market officer an indefinite veto. That process is there to try and put in place a kind of balance that respects the Minister’s overall governance and leadership role while respecting the independence expertise of the land market officer.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (21:15): The short answer is yes, and I accept that the new Schedule 10A in my Amendment Paper 709 looked binary, but in reality, I suspect they will not be. The statutory officer may make one of the following determinations: competitive or competitive. The truth is, there are obviously things in the middle of that, and my expectation will be that they say that, and at an appropriate juncture we may need to return to make that clear.

I think if you read it in the context of clause 3(4), a statutory officer must publish a determination with the following statement of reasons, factors contributing to that, why, etc., so I think it’ll become clear.

In relation to his tabled amendment, or Arena Williams’s tabled amendment, the problem with it is that, firstly, the competitive urban land market compliance framework is a new thing. My amendment talks about the assessment framework, which is a legal requirement for the statutory officer to establish. The question is that there’s no time frame for that, but certainly the intention is that be done quickly, because it’s part of the scheme that we’re developing. I think we could try and get it in place within 12 months.

In relation to Rachel Brooking’s questions, yes, clause 193 and clause 197, in relation to transfer of powers and joint management agreements, the iwi authorities are not included in that, on the basis that we wanted them to only be able to be included with public authorities with elected members. That is a deliberate change. In relation to her point around data, yes; this is a bit outside the scope of the bill but relevant to the extent around the compliance monitoring and the system data functions. The new digital system—for which we’re yet to invent a name, but I welcome suggestions, maybe not now—

Hon Rachel Brooking: “Bishop Start-Up”.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Bishop Start-Up?

Arena Williams: “Bishop Moves”.

Hon Rachel Brooking: No, no, we can do better than that.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: OK, well I welcome your feedback. The new digital system will provide rich data—

Hon Rachel Brooking: “Bishop’s Bits!”.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: What’s that? What’s that one? No, OK, you don’t want that one on the Hansard record? Let’s hope they didn’t catch that, because if I respond, it’s in the Hansard, so let’s hope they didn’t hear it.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I think you just responded.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Let’s look forward to that one. It will provide a rich vein of data for the system. That’s partly what we’re doing here. There’s big investment coming in, big investment, to be honest. There’s a lot of councils very worked up about the new planning system—which I understand up to a point—but what some of them seem to have neglected is that central government is making a sizeable investment—hundreds of millions of dollars over time—into standing up the back-end system that they will be able to use. It will take the take the pressure off them—going off and spending millions on IT upgrades for 78 different systems around the country. We’re entering the modern world here. It’s a Government IT project, so it’s got a wee way to go. There’s been some experiences on that, but I’ve got confidence in the team. We’re working hard—I covered all that off last night, so there’s no point going further into that.

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Labour) (21:19): Thank you, Madam Chair. For the Minister responsible for RMA Reform, for something completely different, I’ll just take him back to clause 184. This is just really a result of, I guess, a previous life and some work that was done in the House, and it’s around the duties of territorial authorities. It relates to clause 184(2) here—that, in undertaking its duties, the territorial authority must look at “(c) public access to and along the coastal marine area, lakes, and rivers:”. I guess my question for the Minister is: with the directives, is he going to offer more clarity than had been the case in legislation for quite some time? And I guess that that goes back to what’s been called the Queen’s Chain.

Public access, or the assumption of public access, to waterways and lakes hasn’t been a reality across much of the country, and so the previous Labour Government did set up the Walking Access Commission, but it’s actually now the Outdoor Access Commission, and it’s charged with trying to negotiate where there are blockages of access—as assumed by many of the public—to these waterways. My question to the Minister is: will we get a clearer outcome when there is subdivision and when we have territorial authorities overseeing what is rightfully identified in this piece of legislation as a responsibility, alongside outstanding natural features and landscapes—and I won’t get into that. But, for public access to and along coastal marine areas, lakes, and rivers, will that be an improved regime?

I’ve got to acknowledge that the Government is certainly being ambitious in this area. Although I think that with the Minister getting up and showing us that humble little document that he had in his hand there and saying, “This is going to solve everything.”—there are many things that the Minister has been called, but naive is not one of them, and when I look at the paper here in front of me, which forms the basis of the legislation we’re passing, things are not going to be simple. I’ve said before to the Minister that he doesn’t have to reply, but he can if he likes. Can he give us a guarantee that there’ll be less litigation over all of these things than we’ve seen through the Resource Management Act—or, indeed, more, as I predict?

I’ll come back to the key question, which, really, is the one around public access and whether the Government and the Minister are taking the opportunity to improve that and offer some clarity over what are changing waterways across the country. There’ll be some irrigation canals that, effectively, are privately owned but are public water, and then the question is: are they available now for fishing or other activities that the public would assume they are? Indeed, that’s a real dilemma in places like the Mackenzie. I’ll leave it to the Minister.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (21:22): I’m advised that this relates to the requirements for esplanade reserves when subdividing next to rivers and lakes. It has the same approach as in the Resource Management Act (RMA).

In relation to Damien O’Connor’s questions around litigation—well, firstly, just on the national policy direction, I’m not claiming for a moment that this is the answer to everything. If that were true, we would have solved the RMA problems 30 years ago. We haven’t, but it is a step forward, I hope, and you’ve got to start somewhere. It is complicated. As I said to some colleagues the other day, there are about eight people in the country who understand the RMA. I’m not sure I’m one of them and I’m the Minister, and so that probably tells you all you need to know.

We are trying to simplify things. It is complicated. Will there be litigation? Yes. Will it be a bit frustrating? Yes. I am sure there are environmental lawyers salivating at the prospect of getting involved in resource management law again, with a whole new statutory regime, national direction, and all the rest of it, but we are trying to make things as clear as possible through the funnel system, which has been widely discussed already.

RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East) (21:23): I move, That debate on this question now close.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): You’re a funny guy! Lawrence Xu-Nan.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (21:24): Thank you, Madam Chair. I do want to thank the Minister responsible for RMA Reform for his responses to my questions thus far; I think they’ve been very helpful. To the Minister’s final comment: in terms of people potentially watching, or in the future referring to the Hansard, having the ministerial intent is really handy, and potentially will provide further clarity.

I do have two other questions. Please correct me if I’m wrong, Minister, if this has already been answered, but the new subclause (4) that’s been added in clause 186 added specific requirements when you’re looking at “monitoring, reporting, and information gathering for the purposes of this section”, things like “(a) indicators or other matters” and “(b) standards and methods that apply to the monitoring.” Can I just check with the Minister on why the Amendment Paper 709 added specificity for that clause?

The next one I’m looking at is clause 197(4), and again this is a new insertion on Amendment Paper 709. This is page 160, and it’s to do with the definition of a joint management agreement (JMA). I’ve checked, and there’s been other times where joint management agreement has been used as well, but it says—in the context of this clause, i.e., clause 197 and clause 198, this will now be the definition for JMAs. There possibly is a definition for JMAs in other clauses, so I just want to check that any other use of JMA that’s not in clause 197 or clause 198 will be defined under whatever definition of JMA is in other areas, and this definition is specifically just for clause 197 and clause 198. If that is the case, will the Minister also explain what the difference is between this definition of JMA, specifically to clause 197 and clause 198, compared to other uses of JMA?

Finally, I just want to seek a clarification from you, Madam Chair. There have been previous discussions around the policy intent of statutory officers and the iwi participation agreements, but we haven’t actually gone into the specific details of the clause, which is under this part. Are we still able to discuss specific clauses relating to this part, on statutory officers and iwi participation agreements?

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): As long as we’re moving forward, that’s fine.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Cool, OK. I’ll leave it—

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (21:27): Very briefly—I’ll come back to the member Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan in relation to JMAs. I think he’s right, but I just want to double-check. Clause 186(4) is literally a provision to allow the Government to make regulations in relation to “monitoring, reporting, and information gathering for the purposes of this section” for territorial authorities. Essentially, it’s a vires thing. When you do regulations, you have to be able to point to an empowering provision, and that’s the one.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Is this a continuation of that line of questioning?

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Yeah, I now want to move on to—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): OK. Lawrence Xu-Nan.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (21:27): Thank you, Madam Chair. I do want to now move on to the Minister responsible for RMA Reform’s Amendment Paper on statutory officers. I want to look specifically at clause 188A(2). This is—and I’ve seen other instances—“The chief executive must be satisfied that the person has the knowledge, skills, and experience …”. I want to check if this is the standard drafting for the Minister, because the only other instance where I’ve seen such an independent officer is the Director of Regulation, which is one of the new individuals that’s been added in the Education and Training Act. However, in the Education and Training Act, with the Director of Regulation, there was a specific list of what some of those knowledge, skills, and experience would entail. It could, potentially, even include things like having understanding of te ao Māori, Te Tiriti o Waitangi, or local government, etc., but it isn’t listed here. Can I just check if the knowledge, skills, and experience listed here is something that is embedded, maybe under the document, under something within a particular ministry—what would be some of the criteria for clause 188A(2)?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (21:28): The answer is this: yes, it’s similar to other statutes—widely used across other statutes.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (21:29): I have a few questions about clauses 198A through 198C. These agreements seem to no longer create participation rights; they just codify the existing rights in the Act. That’s set out at clause 198C(1)(a), with the words “iwi authority participation provided for in this Act or the Natural Environment Act”. I just want to clarify with the Minister that any other agreements that are entered into by councils with iwi—that also codify other arrangements between them—are something separate and they’re not provided for in this, but they continue to exist.

I also want to ask: at clause 198A(4) of Amendment Paper 709, this provision allows—it’s not just silent to the timing that’s required; it’s specific that it can be any amount of time. Is it his intention that it would be legal and that there would be no right of challenge if a local authority was to receive a representation from an iwi authority to enter into one of these arrangements and they didn’t reply for 10 years? That seems to be what this means.

I also want to ask him whether we’re meant to read “local authorities”, in the context of Auckland, as meaning only the governing body or also the local boards. It is common for local boards in the Auckland context to enter into iwi participation arrangements at their local board level because they are the authority that appropriately has an arrangement with the local iwi. For example, when Cameron Brewer was the chair of his local board and I was general counsel for a local West Auckland iwi, I did make that representation to him and he did reply quicker than a decade, so that is good; there is precedent there for getting some of these things done quickly. We didn’t get to resolve that, though, because it is difficult to resolve those arrangements, and they should rightly be negotiated between both parties.

In that instance, I also want to ask the Minister: he specifically used the word “iwi”. That makes policy sense generally, but there are a few hapū who have arrangements which are much more like iwi, in the context that we find ourselves in, like Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei, which has several arrangements not only with the Crown directly but also over planning arrangements, say of Ōrākei board’s area at Takaparawhau, at Bastion Point. That is a hapū; it has settled more like an iwi. Do we just read “iwi” there to mean hapū? I think so.

Another question about new clause 198B(2); the notification to the Minister: why does the Minister need to know that a local authority is contemplating entering into an iwi participation agreement? There is an interest for the Crown, here, in ensuring that participation is working, but not necessarily in each arrangement between the iwi and local authorities, given that there may be far more of these than there are local authorities. Does that then relate to the clause 201 powers, where the Minister may make interventions and investigations along the way? Is that why it exists there?

At new clause 198C, I just wanted to clarify what’s in and what’s out of scope, and then, for those sorts of arrangements which are out of scope—which two bodies corporate can enter into, like covenants, like arrangements for services where representations are made by one body to the other in an advisory capacity—what are those?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (21:33): OK, I’ll take a few things there. In relation to Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s point around Joint Management Agreements (JMAs), I’m advised that clauses 197 and 198 apply only to these clauses, not to other JMAs—for example, in Treaty settlement clauses which are in the bills.

Let’s take Arena Williams’ various different points. I mean, yes, it is true that there will be other agreements that people may wish to enter into, as she said at length. In relation to the question about why there’s new clause 198B, the short answer is because we’re interested. One of the things that happened when there was an explosion in Mana Whakahono ā Rohe was that trying to find out exactly what was going on was a nightmare, because the system is extremely decentralised. Part of what we’re doing is creating more data and more information, so we just put a statutory hook in there in relation to that. And, yes, I do think the Crown needs to know what they say, so they can be monitored, although it’s mainly an information-gathering exercise.

In relation to new clause 198A(4), these are voluntary agreements, so there’s no obligation on local authorities to enter into them. They can be requested, but they’re not mandatory; they don’t have to be agreed.

Arena Williams: Yeah, but these are procedural rules.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yeah, sure, but the member asked the question around it; that’s the answer. There is a suffix clause there around having regard to recommended response times prescribed in regulation, so it may be that there are recommendations made that you’ve got to respond within three months or something. I don’t know. I’m not saying that’s what it will be, but we may well get there.

HŪHANA LYNDON (Green) (21:34): Tēnā koe, Madam Chair. I wanted to ask some pāti tāpiri to my colleague from Labour, Arena Williams, in relation to the iwi participation agreements and picking up on the uniqueness of Tai Tokerau; Tai Tokerau being unique, particularly in the Ngā hapū o Ngāpuhi space.

What is the definition of “iwi” for this legislation, because, in the North, we have large natural groupings with Crown mandate now entering into negotiations with the Crown? Therefore, would these hapū groupings—for example, Te Whakaaetanga tribal grouping in the Bay of Islands—then be deemed iwi enough to be able to enter into iwi participation agreements? Is this a Crown definition of what “iwi” is in 2026, or can we figure out ourselves as iwi Māori? What are the definitions of what Crown iwi is for the purposes of the bill?

Further, when we hear from the Minister responsible for RMA Reform that they just want to know for information-gathering purposes around who’s developing these iwi participation agreements—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): We’re a little bit out of scope of this part, here, because we actually discussed some of this in the “Interpretation” clause this morning, when I was here with Mr Court earlier today.

HŪHANA LYNDON: I’m picking up particularly from a Ngā hapū o Ngāpuhi perspective, which hasn’t been traversed in the committee yet. Nobody’s talked about the large natural grouping policy of Te Arawhiti or Te Tari Whakatau now and the way whereby the Crown is now mandating different types of groups, now, which are similar to our Ōrākei example. That’s a uniqueness that we haven’t traversed yet.

Further, I just wanted to ask: we’re going to information gather and we’re going to monitor in terms of what the agreements look like—ka pai—but what happens if the Minister doesn’t like the contents of an agreement, an iwi participation agreement? Is there a veto provision for the Minister—

Hon Chris Bishop: No.

HŪHANA LYNDON: —on what a local authority might be doing?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The answer to that is no; he’s just answered it.

HŪHANA LYNDON: OK, he’s just looking at it, ka pai. Then, new clause 198D, “Termination or renegotiation of iwi participation agreements”. This one could be the juicy part of it, eh, where there could be the iwi authority, including hapū, who may withdraw from an iwi participation agreement. In the breakage or a degrading of a relationship between iwi Māori and local authorities, or with the Crown—you know, there’s breaches happening right now—what happens if we have a degrading of the relationship and the iwi pulls out? How do we build that trust again to seek to renegotiate what the involvement of iwi is in that space? Just because they pull out of an iwi participation agreement does not mean that they forfeit their rights to have a voice and to be able to participate in the planning system. Kia ora.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (21:38): That, of course, is right: the iwi participation agreements are voluntary and they are mechanism for giving effect to the other things in the bills—so that, of course, is right. You don’t have to be part of an iwi participation agreement to exercise various different things in the bills, although, if you wish to enter into one with a local authority, you can. Some people will; the last few months demonstrate there is huge enthusiasm from some people for that, and I look forward to seeing those in due course. If people want to pull out, they can; that’s the point. Now we’ve made it voluntary, and if people want to do it, they will, and if they don’t, they won’t. It’s as simple as that.

I’m advised that the definition of “iwi authority” is actually in clause 3, which we dealt with yesterday afternoon, which means “the authority that represents an iwi—

Hon Rachel Brooking: We weren’t here in the afternoon.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: —and that is recognised by that iwi as having authority to do so”—what’s that?

Hon Rachel Brooking: We weren’t here in the afternoon; we were here in the early evening.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: OK, early evening.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): We did have an early evening.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Sorry, it’s been a long 24 hours. I’m also advised that groups of hapū can be iwi authorities for the purposes of these bills.

To the “large natural grouping” policy that the member mentions, I’m advised it’s irrelevant for the iwi authority definition here. So that deals with that, and that deals with the questions.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Now, given the answer that the Minister responsible for RMA Reform has just given, and since I’ve been back in the Chamber and I’ve been watching back in my office, we are getting repetitive of earlier parts. I see we’ve got up to the 190s—the high 190s—in terms of clauses. We still have a Subpart 2 in this piece, and there’s still some schedules, but I don’t want to go back over old ground, so I’m going to look for some new questions. I want specific clauses to be mentioned as the questions are asked, and I don’t want speeches. Hon Rachel Brooking, I’m going to take you first, as you are on your feet.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (21:40): Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for thinking of my knees. I’m going to pop over to Schedule 9, and I know this isn’t in the order, but last time I missed the schedules, and I do have some short questions on Schedule 9. That’s not to say that other people won’t go back to the 200s.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I like your methodical order, so I would say just ask your questions on Schedule 9, and we’ll just list them, and then the Minister can—

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Schedule 9, yes. I’ve just got three main questions, I think, on Schedule 9. The first one is just a general one that I’ve been asking about a number of these schedules, and that is: is this largely replicating what’s in the Resource Management Act (RMA)? I think it is, but it would be great if the Minister could confirm that.

Then I’m interested in the number of appointments of the members of the Environment Court. This is at Part 2, clause 9(1), which is on page 460 of the Amendment Paper. It says, “At any one time,—(a) no more than 10 Environment Judges may hold office; and (b) any number of alternate Environment Judges may hold office.” I’m just wondering if the Minister has given consideration if, with the new system, it will mean more churn in the Environment Court and if, in fact, there will need to be more Environment Court judges. He might have some answer in relation to the new Planning Tribunal and whether that will take off some of the load, but these questions will probably be about plans. What consideration has gone into that? That’s my second question.

Then I will just go over some pages to Part 3, which is on the powers of the Environment Court. I’m just interested in clause 45, which is on page 472. There’s an addition that “(5) This clause applies to the hearing of appeals on the merits, but does not apply to the hearing of appeals on a question of law.” If the Minister can just explain that insertion, that would be great. There’s a similar one over the page at clause 48, when the Environment Court may order change to proposed plans—“The power to order changes to a proposed plan does not apply if the court heard the appeal on a question of law.” Just if the Minister can explain what’s going on there with appeals on the points of law, that would be great. That’s his changes, number of judges, and generally if it’s fair to say that it’s fairly similar to the RMA.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (21:43): Question one: yes, in relation to similarity to the Resource Management Act (RMA). Question two: in relation to the number of Environment Court judges, the short answer is we would love there to be fewer cases. We don’t know exactly because it’s impossible to predict. Obviously, the Planning Tribunal, as member says, will make a difference there, we hope. Stuff that would ordinarily go up through the Environment Court pathway takes a long time and is very expensive for everybody and it will be—there’ll be less of that and more in the tribunal. As the member probably remembers from her time as a Minister, if we appoint more than 10 Environment Court judges, we’ve got to make a Budget bid, so the Minister of Finance has been relatively generous with me when it comes to resource management reform so far, but let’s not push our luck. We can come back to that. We can have a look at that in the future, depending on fiscal requirements at the time and the workload through the system. I will just say here and now that I’m surprised the member has not asked about it. We did contemplate a name change to the Environment Court. We were thinking about the Planning and Environment Court, which was going to be called PEC.

Hon Rachel Brooking: Excellent.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yeah, I know. It would be fair to say it did not meet with the approval of the court. What I wanted was a Planning and Environment Court and a Planning and Environment Tribunal, which is going to be PET. Anyway, we’ve decided—

Hon Damien O'Connor: Perfect for you.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: What was that?

Hon Damien O'Connor: Perfect for you.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, that’s right. I am the manager of the pet bonds through another tribunal, the tenancy tribunal. But we decided not to do it, so we’ve kept with the Environment Court name. It lives on, as we call it, in the Planning Tribunal and Environment Court. Anyway, I digress. I don’t know if the member was going to ask that, but I’ve answered it in case she was going to. Clause 45(5), I’m advised, reflects the split between merits and points of law on plan appeals in bills. Under the RMA, all the appeals are merits.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Lan Pham—no, I’m sorry, I’ve indicated that we’ve got some schedules to go through. I’m sure the public, for a lot of reasons—it’s the first time some of this has been clarified. The questions are sensible, and as long as we get no repetition—Lan Pham.

LAN PHAM (Green) (21:45): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m moving to Subpart 3, “System performance”. [Interruption]

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I can’t hear the member. Please start again.

LAN PHAM: Thanks, Madam Chair. I’m moving to Subpart 3, “System performance”, of Part 5, and I’m particularly interested in this beginning with clause 209B, because this is about the “Chief executive’s system performance function”. This is absolutely critical because it’s a new clause that is all about how we actually assess the success or otherwise of the entirety of these reforms. What I’m really interested in is the chief executive’s roles under this clause, which is about monitoring and reporting. Now, it talks about two—well, really three—parts of (a), the “monitoring and reporting”, first, about “the efficiency and effectiveness of [the] system” and then, “(ii) the extent to which the goals of the Acts are achieved;” and then, finally, “(b) identifying and responding to system-wide issues.”.

Now, why I would like the Minister to please comment on this is that we know that this new mega-ministry Ministry of Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport (MCERT) is the CE that is tasked with this assessment, and I’m interested as to what measures are contemplated here. It’s a genuine question because if you were coming from the perspective of, say, the previous Ministry for the Environment, it would be relatively clear cut—taken, of course, with the general challenges with assessing environmental outcomes and performance. It would be relatively clear cut as to what an efficient and effective system would be. When you have this entire system now at MCERT, where there are multiple functions of the CE, how is that individual and that performance function really able to be assessed?

I’d really like to hear the Minister’s comments on that, because it brings me to an Amendment Paper that I have. Again, I’ll just move directly on to clause 212, because this is the chief executive producing a system performance report every three years. What was really disappointing in the changes that were made at select committee is that in the original bill, which was introduced to Parliament here, they were really clear directives in this clause 212, which have been deleted. These were around councils actually assessing how they manage environmental limits, specifically in an efficient and effective way and around whether additional Government intervention is recommended. It also talked about whether there were interventions that regional councils themselves could actually implement to manage those environmental limits. Now, those provisions in clause 212 have been taken out. Why were they taken out, and why is it such that it cannot specify in these bills that that is the exact kind of thing that we would want the chief executive to be reporting on? Would the Minister consider, at this very late stage, returning these clauses, which is what I’m proposing in my Amendment Paper? It’s very cut and dry stuff. It actually just gives us really clear information about what might be happening specifically in the environmental space compared to MCERT having to juggle all of those roles, which we know the CE must do. I’m really interested in the Minister’s response to that. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (21:50): I’ll come back on the second one; I’ll just take some quick advice. But I think I can deal with it by saying the member Lan Pham’s point around limits is well made, and data to inform the limits clearly is going to be an important part of the ministry, alongside regional councils, in relation to their respective functions under the bill or Act. So I don’t think a lot turns on that. I didn’t really understand her point, to be honest. Chief executives (CEs) of Government departments have multiple different functions. That’s part of what being a CE is. Clearly, the CE himself, or herself, is not going to be the one doing it. This is part of legislation: the CE is given the responsibility to do it, but in reality, it’s actually the agency; it’s just that the law says the CE has to do it, but there’s delegation authorities in relation to that.

Clauses 209B through 212 are really important. I think the member herself—I think—would probably accept the absence of clear data and accountability frameworks in the current Resource Management Act (RMA) is a big part of the problem as to why the RMA failed. Now, in the age of modern data and digital systems and federated data infrastructure, and even before you think start thinking about artificial intelligence, the ability for central government to have much richer data and monitor how the system performs is critically important.

Just as an aside, the Ministry for Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport is not a mega-ministry, it is way smaller than most other Government agencies. It is a small-ish shop of people that brings together all of the things that the member claims to be concerned about, which is integrated management of transport, environment, local government, infrastructure, natural hazards, climate change—all in the same place. So it’s a bit weird that she says, you know, that the Government’s approach to the Planning Bill and the Natural Environment Bill is a disaster because it’s disaggregated all of these different things into separate bills that all have to be integrated, but then she wants to have a ministry of transport, environment, local government, and infrastructure all by itself, as if that was ever a particularly sensible idea. Her whole party’s point—

Lan Pham: Madam Chair, point of order.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: —is that you can’t disentangle the environment and everything else.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’ve got a point—

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I agree with her.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I—

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: That’s why we created a ministry to give effect to that.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Minister! I have a point of order from Lan Pham.

Lan Pham: I’m really not appreciating the Minister putting words in my mouth. That’s not what I think, and he’s speaking as if that’s what I’m saying. That’s not what I’m saying at all.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: OK, all right. I apologise. I thought I’d heard the member make those different points before, but if it’s not her view, I withdraw and apologise.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Thank you. I would also ask that—I thought we were moving into a different piece of legislation at that point, so can we—[Minister resumes seat]

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) (21:53): Madam Chair, I’m conscious that you said a little while ago you don’t want to go backwards to previous sections, but I have just tabled an amendment—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yes, I saw that, and I’m not up to speed. Has the Minister also—

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: It’s a direct response to the comment made earlier by the Minister responsible for RMA Reform. It proposes a new, after new clause 188B, inserted by the Minister’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 709—it’s a mechanism for the approval by both the Minister and the statutory officer of the urban land markets compliance framework. It requires the proposed framework to be provided by the Minister to the statutory officer, to the statutory officer being able to provide advice back; the Minister then being required to not approve it unless the statutory officer advises that it’s sufficient, or if the Minister wants to override the advice, the Minister can, but they have to publish the advice. So I put that on the Table for the Minister to consider.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): OK. I’ll let the Minister absorb that one for a moment.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (21:54): Thank you, Madam Chair. I also want to move on to a further section. I want to move on to Schedule 10, which is under clause 216 on the Planning Tribunal. I’m going off Amendment Paper 709 and I’m starting with clause 3 of Schedule 10, page 497. One of the first things that that has changed in this amendment is it changes the term “chairperson” to “Principal Adjudicator” and “Deputy Principal Adjudicator”. I want to check with the Minister responsible for RMA Reform on those adjustments in this particular schedule.

I also want to check with the Minister in terms of—I’m looking at the requirements, so I’m looking at clause 4(3). Now, this is interesting because we just had, a little while ago, the Regulatory Systems (Tribunals) Amendment Act where, as part of the update, the tribunal rules have changed to not simply allow the chief adjudicator for the tribunal in those instances to be—the person to be a barrister or solicitor of the High Court of New Zealand for at least seven years, because that has locked one particular person in as the principal adjudicator and they could not find a replacement for her. So in that particular bill, they changed it to anyone on the tribunal must have standing as a barrister or solicitor of the High Court of New Zealand for at least seven years. I want to check with the Minister whether, in this case, this would then align with some of the other changes we have just recently seen in our tribunals or in the legislation for tribunals. And if not, is there a sufficient enough pool of people that whoever is the Principal Adjudicator and Deputy Principal Adjudicator would—even though we’re looking at, I think, a future subclause talking about a five-year term—be able to step down because there is a sufficiently big enough pool of people to fill those spaces? I want to check with the Minister if that has been considered: rather than the Principal Adjudicator and the Deputy Principal Adjudicator being the person with that experience, to have anyone on the tribunal with that particular experience—if that has been considered.

One of the other questions I have is the insertion now—because we’ve got two additional roles in this amendment: we’ve got the Principal Adjudicator and Deputy Principal Adjudicator. But in clause 5(6)—this is on page 499—the “Deputy Principal Adjudicator has all of the functions, … of the Principal Adjudicator, subject to any directions”. Is there a situation—are we looking at, potentially, the Deputy Principal Adjudicator and Principal Adjudicator would not be presiding over the same dispute? Is that what we’re looking at here, or are they all going to be overseeing the same dispute process as part of the tribunal? That’s my second question.

My third question—I have four for this particular part—is on clause 7A, “Oath of Office”, on page 501. This looks like a new insertion, but I just want to check with the Minister that this insertion is simply something that has been left out and is being added back in.

This might be quite a niche question—again, this came up previously when we were looking at other adjudicators for other tribunals; in this case, the Disputes Tribunal that I’m referring to specifically. Clause 9, “Remuneration”—one of the tidy-ups when we were looking at the Disputes Tribunal a little while ago was the fact that the rate is determined by Remuneration Authority, but they are no longer considered an employee, but are considered self-employed in the context of being an adjudicator for the Disputes Tribunal, from memory. Part of that would also affect, for example—you know, it would have tangible material implications because it changes the amount of ACC, for example, that adjudicators will pay for Disputes Tribunal. I want to check, for clause 9, “Remuneration”, whether the Principal Adjudicator—

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Madam Chair.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Oh, sorry, Madam Chair—just, I’ll finish this—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): No, your time’s up, so I’m calling the Minister.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (21:59): You’re literally reading out things, saying, “How’s remuneration dealt with?” Parliament sets up tribunals all the time. There’s a Tenancy Tribunal; there’s heaps of them.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: But are they employees or are they self-employed?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: It doesn’t actually matter, Lawrence. There’s a standard form process for dealing with this stuff, which is clause 9 of Schedule 10: “(1) The Principal Adjudicator and each adjudicator—(a) must be paid a salary, fee, or allowance at the rate determined by the Remuneration Authority; and (b) must be paid” expenses, expenses, etc., etc.

Basically, all of your questions can be dealt with by the fact that we set up tribunals all the time and it’s largely standard-form stuff. The Principal Adjudicator role aligns with practice in other tribunals—for example, the Principal Disputes Referee and the Disputes Tribunal also reflects the fact they have an adjudicator role.

Proposed new clause 7A of Schedule 10 is the same point, which is the oath of office, which is added to be consistent with other tribunals, because anybody else who is in another tribunal—like the Disputes Tribunal for example; the Tenancy Tribunal—has to take an oath of office. It was probably left out from the original draft, and it’s one of these things that gets tidied up.

There will be a principal and deputy principal adjudicator. It’s the standard form. The Governor-General will do it on the recommendation of the Attorney-General—who, at the moment, happens to be me. They have to recommend it, and then the Attorney-General must consult the Minister or Ministers responsible for the administration of the Act and the Natural Environment Act. There are some requirements around who they need to be. They have to have been standing as a barrister and solicitor for at least seven years, and then have the knowledge and experience—again, this is all just standard-form establishment stuff for a tribunal. It’s not that complicated.

Hon Members: Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The Hon Rachel Brooking has indicated to me that she has just the last little tidy-up questions on this section.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (22:01): Yes, on Schedule 10—thank you—which I haven’t commented on before. Now, I promise not to ask the Minister responsible for RMA Reform about the establishment of tribunals in the new legislation, but I do have a couple of questions.

In Schedule 10, at clause 7, “Appointment of adjudicators”, there’s been a change at subclause (3) that somebody who is an Environment Commissioner or a Deputy Environment Commissioner for the Environment Court now may act as an adjudicator. I see this as an improvement, because it could be strange if they must be treated as an adjudicator if they were—in fact, that could mean that they could act on the same case when it was an appeal from the Planning Tribunal that went to the Environment Court. So if the Minister can confirm, when it comes time, that that’s the reason for the change as I’ve given it, that would be useful.

Then a little question on clause 12: there’s a new subclause (3) which is “Witnesses and counsel appearing before the tribunal to have the same privileges and immunities as they would if the hearings were proceedings in the District Court.” I presume that this is similar to other tribunals, but I was just wondering if the Minister can confirm that.

Now, going on to clause 14, “Review of decisions of local authorities”, I think I asked a question about a change that’s been made relating to the Planning Tribunal being able to have jurisdiction over a private plan change. I did ask about this in an earlier part of the bill, and I don’t think I got an answer. Clause 14 sets out some of the jurisdiction of the Planning Tribunal, and most of it is fairly discrete things that make sense, that it would go to a planning tribunal rather than needing to go to the full Environment Court, but they don’t relate to plan changes. However, there’s this insertion at paragraph (ba) that, now, it can be an application for a private plan change. Is it just an application—so is it quite a narrow jurisdiction here, and is that the change?

Then—oh yes, I’ve got a couple more comments. One is at paragraph (ka)—so, still on clause 14—and that’s relating to regulatory relief. So regulatory relief would be that if there are disputes, they can come to the tribunal, and, as the Minister knows, we think that this is going to be a very inefficient process. So does he think that those cases—this is going back into the other part of the bill in terms of systems performance and monitoring. Will they be monitored, how many cases relate to regulatory relief, and how much that costs everybody.

Moving on to clause 26A, which is about the online publication of final decisions, this is new, and I just want to commend the Minister for including it. It drives me crazy when I can’t find tribunal decisions because they’re not online. But at subclause (4), there is a good reason not to publish a decision, and that is if they are of “limited public value:”. Does the Minister have any comment on what “limited public value:” would be?

I understand the other criteria in terms of the interests of justice, name suppression, or various suppression orders or statutory requirements, but what would that be? I’m hoping that the Minister agrees with me that it’s very good for access to justice if, in fact, these decisions that are made by various institutions and tribunals are easily accessible. Those are my questions.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (22:05): I’ll try and deal with all those; some of them were good questions. In relation to clause 7 of Schedule 10 about the “may act”, which the the Hon Rachel Brooking seemed to meet with approval there, I’m advised it’s a more appropriate description for a judicial officer. “A person who holds office as an Environment Commissioner or … Deputy Environment Commissioner”—with which I have some familiarity—“may act as an adjudicator appointed under this clause.”, and so that’s the more appropriate description.

In relation to clause 14(ba), I think the member asked in relation to private plan changes, and the member answered her own question there. There’s an addition, but a relatively simple one.

In relation to regulatory relief, yes, I expect that to be monitored as part of the system performance monitoring functions, and I’m sure it will be. You will be as interested in that as I am.

In relation to clause 26A, there was a very good question in relation to what are decisions of limited public value. Without second-guessing exactly how this will be interpreted, I would’ve thought that neighbour X and neighbour Y having a dispute, some random dispute over a finial on a roof or a house, or a complaint about some council busybody getting in the way of people trying to do thing —I mean, is it of limited public value? Well, it’s certainly amusing to see what the local council busybodies get up to. Is it of public value? Probably not—I don’t know.

Hon Rachel Brooking: If you’re the member of Parliament for the area and you want to know what’s going on, it’s very helpful.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, that’s a good point. I don’t know—I don’t know. Well, I mean, we’ll just have to wait and see—we’ll just have to wait and see. I could tell you so many stories about complaints I’ve had from people up and down the country, but in the interests of time, I will not. I’ll not bore members with stories about finials, and the internal layout of living rooms is a classic—council officers who get very upset about the way in which people point their couches at doors. It’s of great public interest that we design well-functioning living rooms and TVs that face the right way!

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I think that’s a sufficient answer to that question.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: OK, I’m going to deal with Phil Twyford’s point, and all that stuff’s out of scope now, by the way. It’s fantastic to get rid of all this stuff. [Interruption] What’s that?

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Feng shui is important.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I can’t hear you.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): He says that feng shui is important.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Feng shui is not in scope of the Planning Bill. Lawrence, you can arrange your living room, and, in fact, your kitchen, how you like. The New Zealand central government has no interest in the way in which you design your living room, my friend. You’re one of many people who told The Spinoff that you would have me over for a beer, and so maybe I could enjoy it one day.

Anyway—[Interruption] Many people—I think I was No. 2. Who was the most popular? Grant McCallum was the most popular, I think.

Tom Rutherford: No, he wasn’t.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: It was you—it was you.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): OK, I think we’d better stop; otherwise, we’re going to have a massive scope here.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: My apologies—my apologies. I’ve considered Mr Twyford’s amendment seriously. I’m keen to take this offline with him, but the challenge is that the framework for competitive land markets is not in the national policy direction and it’s not the intention to have it in the national policy direction; it’s in the standards.

The second problem is the Minister doesn’t make the framework. We’ve deliberately left the framework for competitiveness assessment frameworks to the land market officer, and so we’re actually trying to get the Minister out of making these approvals. The statutory officer makes the framework in their independent capacity, and so—yeah, I mean, is it perfect? Probably not. Could it be better? Yes, but that’s probably true of every piece of legislation we pass through the Parliament. I’m keen to take it offline and get the balance right.

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty) (22:09): I move, That debate on this question now close.

A party vote was called for on the question, That debate on this question now close.

Ayes 67

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

Noes 55

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

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Phil Twyford’s tabled amendments to the Minister’s tabled amendments to Amendment Paper 709 replacing new clause 188B(2)(a) and (b) and inserting new clause 188C be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 67

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

Amendments to the amendments to the amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to the Minister’s tabled amendments to Amendment Paper 709 inserting new clause 188C be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 67

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

Amendment to the amendments to the amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Phil Twyford’s tabled amendment to the Minister’s tabled amendments to Amendment Paper 709 inserting new clause 188C be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 67

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

Amendment to the amendment to the amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Minister’s tabled amendments to Amendment Paper 709 inserting clauses 188A and 188B be agreed to.

Amendments to the amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The Hon Rachel Brooking’s amendments to clauses 182 and 183A in Amendment Paper 709, set out on Amendment Paper 751, are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

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

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

Ayes 67

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

Noes 55

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

Amendments as amended agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Steve Abel’s tabled amendment to clause 203(1) inserting new paragraph (c) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 67

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Hūhana Lyndon’s amendment to clause 210 set out on Amendment Paper 733 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 67

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Lan Pham’s amendments to clause 212 set out on Amendment Paper 728 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 67

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

Amendments not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 5 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 67

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

Noes 55

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

Part 5 as amended agreed to.

Committee of the whole House

Part 6 Enforcement and other matters, proposed new clause 295, and Schedules 8 and 11

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, we come now to Part 6. This is the debate on clauses 217 to 294—“Enforcement and other matters”—including proposed new clause 295; Schedule 8, “Enforcement matters”; and Schedule 1 “Amendments to other legislation”. The question is that Part 6 stand part.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (22:19): Point of order. I think you just said that it includes Schedule 1.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): No, Schedule 8.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: And then Schedule 11?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Schedule 11, “Amendments to other legislation”.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Thank you. That was just for clarification that it’s Schedule 11.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): OK. Thank you. The question is that Part 6 stand part.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (22:19): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll just start with a general first question about Part 6 itself rather than Schedule 11, and that is that there are many changes in this Amendment Paper regarding, in particular, the role of the Environmental Protection Authority. I was wondering if the member in the chair, Simon Court, could start us off with an explanation of those changes at the front of Part 6 in this Amendment Paper, please.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (22:20): Thank you, Madam Chair. I will also start by asking some of the same questions—no, actually, I’m going to focus on clause 232(1)(g)(ii), and, again, I’m focusing on the changes that we see on Amendment Paper 709. So in here we’re seeing that a pecuniary penalty has been added as a package alongside an enforcement order and conviction. I want to check, as a starting point, why a pecuniary penalty has been added in that instance, as opposed to other things like an infringement order, etc. We’ve discussed some of that previously in terms of a package, but I want to check why it is a pecuniary penalty and not infringement.

Moving on, again, I’m looking specifically at changes on the Amendment Paper. In clause 234 “Application for enforcement order”, at subclause (2), we’re also seeing additional changes to the local authority. This is regarding clause 234(2)(c) specifically, which says, “a local authority or the EPA for an enforcement order of a kind”. I want to check with the Parliamentary Under-Secretary why that particular clause has been included as well, and I’ll leave it at those two questions for now.

SIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (22:21): In answer to the member the Hon Rachel Brooking’s question, most of the changes that the member has observed on the Minister’s Amendment Paper 709 are technical. They’re moving parts around so that they’re in the right order for implementation, and so I hope that helps.

With respect to Lawrence Xu-Nan’s question around clause 232(1)(g)(ii), there’s a lot of information here, so bear with me, please. Clause 232, “Scope of enforcement order”, sets out the scope of what an enforcement order may require or permit. In terms of subclause (1), the pecuniary penalty has been inserted to the reflect policy intent that revocation or suspension is restricted to situations that have had judicial oversight.

In terms of clause 234, which sets out who may apply for various types of enforcement orders, again, in subclause (2)(aa), it’s been moved to keep like clauses together, and so that’s a drafting improvement from the people responsible for the drafting. In subclause (3), there’s a reference to the Minister of Conservation and regional coastal plans having been deleted to reflect the fact that the Minister of Conservation has a reduced role in this scope and regional coastal plans are no longer present in the new system.

HŪHANA LYNDON (Green) (22:23): Tēnā koe, Madam Chair. I want to ask a pātai on Part 6, clause 272, which can be found on page 210. It refers to the fact that “A local authority must prepare and publish a compliance and enforcement strategy, in the prescribed manner and setting out the prescribed criteria, that takes into account … Treaty settlements, and voluntary or statutory agreements with local iwi, hapū, or Māori.”, and it’s deleted “Mana Whakahono ā Rohe agreements”.

In the original bill, there was the wording in clause 272(2): “When developing a compliance and enforcement strategy, local authorities must work with iwi authorities and groups that represent hapū within the region.” It’s interesting the way that that part was deleted from the original bill, and now we just have this prescribed way of dealing with this, or taking it into account, but how is it intended that a local authority is to prepare and publish these enforcement and compliance strategies without talking to the local iwi, hapū, or Māori? I’m wondering that if you do not write it into the bill, councils may not do it, and it just becomes optional.

SIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (22:24): When I read the clause, it says that they do take into account relevant Treaty settlements and voluntary statutory agreements with local iwi, hapū, and Māori.

Hūhana Lyndon: Madam Chair, may I reply and ask a further question?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): You can ask a further question. Hūhana Lyndon.

HŪHANA LYNDON (Green) (22:25): Yeah, so I can see that it’s written in there that they must take into account, but that doesn’t necessarily compel the council or local authority to actually work with; it could be just a desktop exercise. So how do we monitor local authorities to do a good job in the way that they do take into account these local hapū, iwi, and Māori agreements?

SIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (22:25): “Take into account” is a well-understood legal term. Councils need to follow the law.

LAN PHAM (Green) (22:25): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m really interested in asking about the aquaculture provisions in Schedule 11, proposed on Amendment Paper 709. I’m particularly interested in that because aquaculture is one area where in this term of Government we’ve seen some really serious changes, particularly with the blanket rollover of consents to 2050—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Can you please direct me to the page that you’re currently on?

LAN PHAM: Yes, so the page number—it starts at page 548—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Thank you.

LAN PHAM: —in Schedule 11, but it moves over to the following page, page 549, and these are direct amendments to the Resource Management Act (RMA) itself. These are part of the last-minute amendments that the Minister has just introduced on I think it was Friday. Like many of my colleagues and, I’m sure, interested parties out there across the country, we’re grappling with what these actually mean, and so I’m really interested in some fulsome answers from the member, where he can do that.

What I’m interested in specifically is that this is amending section 68A(2) of the RMA, and this is to allow an aquaculture activity as a permitted activity where the rule actually applies to space where in aquaculture activity is authorised by a current coastal permit. Now, what’s important to note about this is that all of these coastal permits have already had this blanket extension out to 2050. Is the intent of this—and we don’t know; we’ve had no information apart from the amendments just landing—to give councils discretion to roll over existing aquaculture activities, including discharges which come from these agriculture activities, without the need for a statutory assessment as to whether these activities actually continue to be appropriate, because this is the real concern about what’s being introduced here.

Has the member or his Government assessed the actual risks of this extremely wide discretion on councils? For example, as we know, consents for many of these activities were actually granted before the Resource Management Act was put in place in 1991. There are many outdated consents that are in serious need of some form of assessment, particularly when it comes to the risks with not only environmental impacts but biosecurity impacts. I’m really keen to hear about that because we know that with increasing climate change, this is going to be an increasing issue—and I’m noting that the member is ready to answer. I’ve got some more questions, but I’ll let him answer.

SIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (22:29): Thank you, Madam Chair. I understand the member Lan Pham was referring to the Resource Management Act (RMA) amendments in Part 1 of Schedule 11, which come into effect on the Royal assent. I understand that that has referenced clause 68A—I may have got that wrong, but I’m going to speak to it. It applies the natural and built environment’s approach to permitted aquaculture to the RMA. It’s a transitional rule and it authorises aquaculture in the coastal marine area “as a permitted activity … if the rule applies solely to a space where an aquaculture activity is authorised by a current coastal permit.”—that’s important. The activity is already authorised, by current permitting process under the RMA, and this change will help provide a more enabling consenting pathway for aquaculture in aquaculture settlement areas during the transition period.

Aquaculture settlement areas, I say for the benefit of the member and members of the House who are listening, are provided as part of a Treaty settlement. As far as I’m aware, no aquaculture has ever been initiated in a settlement are that was provided to Māori claimants, and that is because the RMA made it too hard. So if there’s one thing that this Government intends, it’s to enable Māori to make the greatest use of their economic and natural resource assets. This is one way this Government is delivering profit for Māori, amongst many others, and I’m sure the member will support it.

LAN PHAM (Green) (22:30): I thank the member for those responses. I’m really interested in where the justification for these changes came from.

SIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (22:31): As I’ve previously stated, since the aquaculture settlement was arrived at with iwi, which I understand is decades ago, no aquaculture has been established in these settlement areas. There are some who say, like Minister Bishop, that it could amount to a modern Treaty breach if we don’t enable aquaculture in these areas. This is one way this Government is delivering for Māori—those who have these aquaculture settlements. It’s clear and the legislation is clear.

LAN PHAM (Green) (22:31): So why did it not come through the select committee process? Why has it come in at this point? Why?

SIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (22:32): This is an improvement to the bill, and I’m sure the member will support it.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (22:32): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m going to go back to Part 6, and I just have two small questions on that and then I do have an amendment and questions on Schedule 11 but I will do those in a different call.

First of all, I’m going to clause 261, “Insurance against fines unlawful”, and it’s saying that insurance companies cannot indemnify, which is great. I was going to ask the member how long he thinks this will take to implement with the insurance companies, but I think that this is the same or similar wording to one of the amendments made in 2023. So if he could just confirm whether the insurance provisions—that you must insure—are already in force, or how they will be transitioned and how problematic it is.

SIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (22:32): This is a carry-over from amendments made to the Resource Management Act recently that I think the member is familiar with, with a couple of drafting corrections.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (22:33): Thank you. I’m going then to clause 282, “Regulations relating to consent-processing time frames and procedures”, and to clause 282(1)(d), which is “proposed designations:”, and clause 282(1)(e), which is “construction management plans and waivers for construction management plans.”—so they relate to designations included in this regulation-making power. I was wondering if the member could comment on why it is that—well, why is this a new regulation-making power? Has that come from somewhere else, and why is there a need for regulations to be made about time frames for designations?

SIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (22:34): This is a regulation-making power for consented permit processing time frames and procedures. It adds a general regulation power for designation time frames and procedures, including for the waiver of construction project plans. It’s intended to provide appropriate guard rails, time frames, and standardised process for applicants and for those assessing applications.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (22:35): I want to bring the member in the chair to clause 256, which is about the penalties regime. It’s important context for the committee that these penalties in the Resource Management Act were last updated in 2025, so quite recently, and there are some changes I want to ask him about. The first is, at clause 256(2)(b) there is a new category of offending for businesses, and it's a five-fold increase from the old penalty which would have applied. So I want to ask him about the justification for that new penalty.

I guess this is a related question: the old resource management system had old section 339B, which was an additional penalty added on top for offending which was for the purpose of commercial gain, and under that old system the ability was for the court to levy a penalty, which was, I think, up to three times the amount of commercial gain, and that seems to have been lost in this regime. So I want to ask the member in the chair if that is right. Is that gone or is it provided for elsewhere in the Act—that sort of increasing penalty to do with the commercial gain—or has it been replaced by this $50,000 a day fine?

I also want to ask the member in the chair about clause 256(3). This has gone up from $10,000 to $15,000. It’s only gone up in the last year, so really the question is a broader point about whether the deterrent in that sort of fine regime is working. Does the member in the chair have any insight into whether prosecutions have been brought and whether the penalties do get up to the 2025 maximum. That is the question really—whether this kind of fining regime is being used. That is relevant because earlier in this debate we’ve had discussions about how to both punish and deter serial-offending developers. There are real cases where the Court of Appeal has considered that kind of development, but we also had a very firm assurance from the Minister responsible for this bill that the 2018 case which the Court of Appeal considered would be dealt with by his legislation. I think that what we’re seeing here is an upping of the penalties which is meant to deter that as well as those harder provisions. But I want to make sure with the member in charge if this is what’s doing it or if it’s elsewhere.

SIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (22:37): Just to be clear, the major penalties which appear here include clause 256(1)(b), a fine not exceeding $10 million. That was provided for in changes to the Resource Management Act recently. The changes in this legislation are only adjusting the minor penalties, but in response to the member’s question around commercial gain, a provision that provides for monetary benefit orders—in other words, those who get a monetary benefit from offending—is provided for in Schedule 8, and it replaces the commercial gain that was previously three times the penalty.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (22:38): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to ask the member a straightforward question first. We see that there is movement regarding the enforcement officer section from clauses 217 to 226 to now clause 246(a) to (j). Can I just check—are they just wholesale listed and then moving to a new section? OK, cool. I got a nod—thank you so much. I’m going to move on to the next clause.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): We’ll just put a quick answer on the Hansard, if that’s OK.

Simon Court: If you got a nod from me, that means yes.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Great—amazing. Thank you. I’ll move on clauses 250 and 251, and these are to do with the power of entry for inspection. The first question is when we’re looking at clauses 250 and 251, can a person take other enforcement agencies along with them as part of that inspection or entry for survey. That’s my first question.

My second question is: when they are entering for survey, we are seeing that subclause (1)(d) has been removed regarding entering or re-entering land. I don’t see any provision in terms of the number of times that someone can enter a land for survey. Does that mean they need to notify every time they enter a particular piece of land, with that provision removed, clause 251(1)(d)? Can a person—in this case, an enforcement officer—enter for the purpose of serving an inspection at the same time, noting that surveys, based on the reading of clause 251, require prior notification, whereas inspection does not? So I want to check with the under-secretary on those questions first, and I have follow-up questions depending on the response.

SIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (22:40): In terms of clause 250, the wording has been changed to simply reflect policy intent—that an officer does not need individual authority for every individual inspection. In terms of clause 251, “Power of entry for survey”, it better reflects the policy intent—as I mentioned, the officer does not need authority for every individual inspection. There was another question around—

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Can they take someone else with them?

SIMON COURT: Can they can take someone else with them—thank you for clarifying, Mr Lawrence Xu-Nan—yes.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Lan Pham.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Madam Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Sorry, I’ve just called Lan Pham. Was that a clarification?

Lan Pham: Did you want to clarify?

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: No, you can—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’ll take Lan Pham’s question; we can come back to you.

LAN PHAM (Green) (22:41): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to get to one of the Minister’s amendments in Schedule 11. This is an amendment to the Minister’s Amendment Paper (AP) that was just introduced last night. It’s a really disappointing AP.

Simon Court: Aren’t we supposed to clarify—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yeah, the number?

LAN PHAM: Sorry, it doesn’t have one; it just has a timestamp—7.26 p.m., “Planning Bill”, “Proposed Amendments to AP No. 709”. Is that OK, Madam Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): We’ve got a copy of it now. So ask your question and then—

LAN PHAM: Thank you. The aspects that I really would like to hear from the member on are the really disappointing ones around not only Plan Change 2, which amends the One Plan when it comes to the Manawatū and the Horizons Regional Council, but also Plan Change 1, which was the plan change to the Waikato Regional Plan.

The thing that I’m really interested in hearing about is what the member’s and the Government’s understanding is of the processes and the people and the community and the iwi and hapū. For example, in Plan Change 1, in the Waikato, after14 years of work and consultation with iwi, farmers, growers, councils, industry, environmental groups, it was reaching its conclusion. Why was it not allowed to be part of this transition, when we know that plans are unlikely to be in place, at best, until the early 2030s? In the case of Plan Change 1, I understand it is 2032, and then consent requirements will be coming in in 2033. So that’s six or seven years from where we are now.

I’m really keen to hear about this, because we know it came in at the last minute. It wasn’t part of the select committee process, and we’ve heard really clear disappointment, particularly from iwi and hapū, about how dismayed they are about Government getting in the way of simply putting in place basic protections around freshwater, around biodiversity, around anything that would’ve helped address the very real issues which are going on in both of these areas.

The Government is, through this Amendment Paper, both council and Environment Court decisions—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): So the first question was why didn’t the Minister let this run its course—

LAN PHAM: Why can’t this be part of the transition—so let it run its course; let the transitional things happen for the next six or seven years with these in place. The next question is: why are the farming interests being prioritised over broader public iwi and hapū interests? How will the water quality targets that already exist in the planning framework be reached within sensible time frames? The entirety of this delay is not just for these areas but it’s across the country because of the planning stock provisions that the Government has as well. How is, for example, Horizons Regional Council and Waikato Regional Council supposed to meet not only public expectations but the expectations within their own planning framework about actually achieving environmental outcomes and improvement?

SIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (22:46): I thank the member for the question. I’ll start with Plan Change 1 (PC1) and then I will answer the member’s questions about Plan Change 2 (PC2). Where the matters are conflated or similar, I’ll respond to them as one.

The Government has taken the decision to suspend the implementation of some but not all of those plans, and that is because they would have been very expensive to implement, time-consuming to implement. It involved a lot of resources, both from local government, primary production, and, of course, many other technical experts are required, and it was judged, on balance, that it made more sense to defer some aspects of those plans so that they wouldn’t be implemented.

Now, let’s be clear: farmers and growers continuing to operate as permitted activities will still be required to comply with Schedule C, which sets out minimum farming standards, until 31 December 2032, and the intention is for PC1 that some aspects of the plans will continue.

The member asked about engagement. There’s been significant engagement with Waikato and Waipā River iwi on the proposed changes to PC1.

Hon Rachel Brooking: They don’t like it.

SIMON COURT: If the member wishes to ask a question, take a call.

On PC2, the member had similar questions: why is it being implemented? The answer: complex, time-consuming, expensive, and because the new system is going to establish new ways of working, including, under the Natural Environment Bill, providing for environmental limits—and we can get to that when we get to the Natural Environment Bill.

We considered it best to defer the progress of some aspects of Plan Change 2—the proposed Horizons Plan Change 2, which amends the One Plan—but on the basis that good management practice must still be identified through nutrient management plans and implemented, where consents are granted, within two years. Existing farms will still be able to obtain controlled activity consents, continue operating lawfully under the regional plan, but without being required to achieve quantified nitrogen reductions and undertake associated nutrient management modelling.

There is a new system coming in, under these reforms, which is going to provide a much simpler way, through environmental limits and other controls, to achieve the environmental objectives for both the Waikato and Waipā regions, and the Horizons Manawatū region. I know the member will have many questions about that when we get to that part of the reform, on the Natural Environment Bill. I look forward to engaging at that time.

LAN PHAM (Green) (22:50): Thank you, Mr Chair. Is the member Simon Court and his Government comfortable with the risk that water quality will go backwards? Because, as he’s just pointed out in his own words, existing intensive farming will be able to continue without demonstrating compliance with quantified nitrogen reduction requirements or associated nutrient modelling requirements. Now, all this would do is actually demonstrate and provide for farmers their own footprint about what these discharges actually are and enable them to reduce them, if that is required. So if that is not happening, what does the member perceive to be the outcome?

SIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (22:51): I will go over again the answer I gave the member Lan Pham to her previous question. The proposal was intended to defer some environment planning consenting requirements rather than removing existing safeguards—that’s for Plan Change 1 (PC1). Farmers and growers who continue to operate as permitted activities will still be required to comply with minimum farming standards set out in Schedule C. That’s PC1. That’s twice I’ve answered that. Plan Change 2 (PC2), Horizons Plan Change 2, otherwise known as the One Plan: existing farms will still be required to obtain controlled activity consents. Good management practice will still be identified through nutrient management plans and implemented within two years of consent being granted.

There is going to be progress towards improving water quality in both of these regions. It may not be in the way that the plans as they were submitted, notified, consulted on, spent years in court, might have played out, but, let’s be honest, no one knew how that was going to work in some cases, and that’s why we’ve stopped it and that’s why we’re creating a new system. It’s going to be much clearer for participants, including those who have a genuine interest in improving water quality, not just in those two regions but all around New Zealand. I look forward to getting into the detail of that when we get to the Natural Environment Bill, because I know that that member is very interested in how that system works.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Hūhana Lyndon.

HŪHANA LYNDON (Green) (22:52): Did you say me?

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Yes.

HŪHANA LYNDON: Oh, me! OK—cool. Kia ora. Kia ora to the member Simon Court. I wanted to ask questions around emergency response regulations, which can be found on page 214.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Have you got the page and clause?

HŪHANA LYNDON: Page 214—so Part 6, clause 279. It’s around emergency response regulations and the ability for the Governor-General, by Order in Council, to make regulations for the purposes of all the hazards, all the emergency-type responses, etc. Then, I want to bring the member over to clause 279A, and it’s great to see, in paragraph (f) of clause 279A(2), that “affected local authorities and the following groups, [where] relevant,” are invited to provide written comments about the proposed regulations. So this is feedback to the Minister on what’s proposed. There’s iwi authorities, there’s post-settlement governance entities (PSGEs), there’s ngā hapū o Ngāti Porou as per their own legislation; iwi or hapū who are party to the—crossed out—Mana Whakahono ā Rohe joint management agreements that apply to their region; even customary marine title groups; protected customary rights groups, which is great; and then applicants to the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011. That’s really cool. Awesome. High five. There’s provision there for the Māori groups to be consulted.

What I have pātai around is the next steps around these Māori groups to be consulted, because seeking comment from them is within 10 working days from the date on which the Minister invites comments, or it could be for a longer period specified by the Minister, in writing.

My question, particularly on this one, is how consultation and seeking input or comment from these Māori groups makes an assumption that they are resourced for this purpose, and then the time constraints of the turn-round time, whereby the Minister could require 10 working days, or other, for these Māori groups to respond. My pātai is really around the application of this legislation, the Planning Bill, and resource support for these Māori groups who have been outlined and listed to be able to—is there a cost recovery mechanism? What is the plan? Because, often times, even if they are a resourced PSGE or they are an iwi entity—it might be a mandated iwi organisation with a little bit of fish dollar here and there; by and large, if you’re a marine and coastal area takutai moana claimant, you’re working off reimbursements from time to time, and as hapū or others with agreements or relationships with local councils in this space, it’s going to be pretty limited resourcing. So how do we expect the Māori to respond in a timely fashion in this legislation without resource?

SIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (22:56): Addressing the member Hūhana Lyndon’s question about the time frame, first, the 10-working-day time frame is because it’s an emergency and 10 days is all we’ve allowed for. In response to the member’s questions about resourcing funding for organisations that may be consulted on, that’s not within the scope of this legislation.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (22:56): Thank you, Mr Chair.

Hon Rachel Brooking: Oh.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): He was really quick to his feet—that’s the only reason.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Oh, I’m sorry—the Hon Rachel Brooking.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Do you want to go? OK, we’ll go with Rachel Brooking. You were enthusiastic, but he was faster, that’s all. All right, just go for it.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (22:56): Oh, I’ve been in the Chamber all day. I’ve been here since 9 a.m., Mr Chair. Now, I want to talk to Schedule 11, which I haven’t been on yet. It is important to note that there are a lot of changes that have been made to Schedule 11 through the Minister’s Amendment Paper 709, and then through the amendment to the amendment, and then the amendments to the amendment to the amendment, which I have an amendment on. Just to demonstrate this, if you look at Schedule 11—and something may have happened to my eyesight—page 516, you’ll see at the start of that page it says, “Part 1 Amendments to Acts that commence on day after this Act receives Royal assent”—so that’s soon; that’s Part 1. But then you turn the page over to 519 and there is “Part 3 Provisions relating to Planning Act 2025 and Natural Environment Act 2025”. This is all in tracked change, so it’s difficult to know what that Part 3 is referring to when there’s no Part 2. Then it also makes it very difficult to make amendments to this schedule as well because it jumps around with these various different parts and all of the lists of all of the different legislation.

I do have some amendments that I will speak to, and excuse me if some of the numbers are not quite right. One of them is my tabled amendment, my first one on Schedule 11, which was tabled on 25 August at 7.36.02 and it is to delete the proposed new 2A that is related to the Fast-track Approvals Act that commences one month after this Act Royal assent, and that is to all of those provisions. It might be that the member in the chair, Simon Court, wants to say what those provisions are about and why he doesn’t agree with my amendment.

Then, if we go to another amendment—and this is a tabled amendment—I’m now on page 532. That is Amendment Paper 741. In Part 1 of Schedule 11, on page 532, three-quarters of the way down the page, under Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000, at section 10(5), at the end of one of the coloured-in boxes, it says, “the national instrument prevails”, I would replace that with “sections 7 and 8 prevail”. That’s another change just trying to ramp up the status of the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act. Maybe the member can comment on that, as well.

I have some other amendments. I want to comment on the discussion that was had with Lan Pham before and some of the member’s comments about why those changes to Plan Change 1 were made. Waikato was the one that he was referring to. He said that there had been discussions with iwi and he made it sound as if the iwi were happy with the provisions relating to Waikato Regional Council’s Plan Change 1. I’m asking the member in the chair if he can confirm that I heard right and that he is, in fact, saying that those Waikato Regional Council Plan Change 1 changes are something that the Waikato River settlement iwi want. If he thinks about it some more and decides that that’s not the case, perhaps he would like to endorse and vote for my amendment that was tabled today at 6.31 p.m., and that is to delete the proposed additions (ba) and (bb) after clause 74B—because that is not what I have heard.

Mr Chair, if I can just go for a short period more on this, there’s also this issue with the Manawatū-Whanganui regional council One Plan. The member in the chair said about them, “Oh, we don’t know. We didn’t know how they were going to turn out at the Environment Court. They’ve turned out of the Environment Court now and we’re going to change the whole scheme of things at some point in the future and talk about it in a different bill, so we should just press pause.” That is what this Government has done time and time again to planning documents that protect the environment. These planning documents have gone through the court process over many years and at great expense, and just like this House did recently in the Smith v Fonterra case, they are taking away the result of that court process, and that is atrocious.

These amendments have just come in on 26 August at 7.26 p.m. We started on this bill on 25 August at 7.30 p.m., four minutes after this amendment to the amendment was tabled, and whilst Ministers might have said something about it, this is a terrible way to make laws. The member in the chair is not taking the time to talk through what this means, about the commercial vegetable growing being permitted. He’s made some hasty comments to Lan Pham—in a terse voice, may I add. I do wonder if the member can agree with me that this is a significant matter to be including: that people have gone to court, they’ve gotten a result, and now, in effect, what we are doing is overturning part of that result. Is that correct? That’s one question.

The second one was about whether the river authorities think that the amendment is fine regarding Plan Change 1, and if he will agree with my amendment to delete the Minister’s amendment to the amendment. Thank you.

SIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (23:04): Three great questions. Well, for those watching and present in the Chamber, if my tone was serious, that’s all it was. This is a serious matter. This Government intends to replace the Resource Management Act (RMA) with a system that—

Todd Stephenson: That works—it just works.

SIMON COURT: —provides for the enjoyment of property, and, as Todd Stephenson pointed out, works.

To the member the Hon Rachel Brooking’s question about the river iwi, they were consulted on, they provided feedback, and it is not for me to look into the minds of others to determine whether they’re happy or not. What we have done is provide for Te Ture Whaimana o te Awa o Waikato as the preeminent tool for managing the environment as set out in the bill and the Act. That’s what we intended to do. We intended to give, to the fullest extent possible, effect to the Treaty settlements and to give them the same effect as they have in the RMA. So, while the Government has put a stop to and deferred some aspects of Plan Change 1, what we would expect to see is, while that is deferred—and I’m just searching for a note—we have also included a requirement when new plans are made under the new system to have regard to Plan Change 1 when developing natural environment plans, to acknowledge the work done to date. It’s a serious matter—water quality in the Waikato and the Waipā—and we want to make sure that it’s addressed, but it won’t be through some of the provisions of Plan Change 1.

The member had a question about the Hauraki Gulf. The amendments made to the legislation uphold the existing relationship that the Hauraki Gulf has with respect to the Resource Management Act. I think that’s enough for now.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (23:06): Thank you, Mr Chair. I know that my colleagues will still have questions regarding the Minister responsible for RMA Reform’s last-minute amendment, but I do want to check a few things with the Parliamentary Under-Secretary Simon Court, starting with clause 270. Again, I’m looking at, specifically, amendments that were made in the Minister’s Amendment Paper 709. For clause 270, on page 208, a new provision has been added, which is clause 270(1)(b), around section 21 on the Summary Proceedings Act 1957.

Now, section 21 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 allows certain infringement notices to be given by the District Court. We have seen previously that, in this case, the Environment Court has the same power conferred to them as the District Court. Can I check with the Parliamentary Under-Secretary that, in this case, an infringement notice can also be issued by the Environment Court if it had the same power as the District Court? That’s my first question.

Clause 271(1) is what’s going to empower, I guess, Schedule 8, so I’m going to ask a question regarding Schedule 8. On pages 446 and 447—this is clause 20 of Schedule 8—I’m specifically looking at the changes that were made in clause 20(1)(c) and clause 28. This is Amendment Paper 709. In both cases, “enforceable undertaking” has been removed—

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Sorry, which Amendment Paper was that again?

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: This is the Minister’s Amendment Paper 709, pages 446 and 447, clause 20(1)(c) and clause 8. Both of them are serving the same purpose. Can I just check, when you’re talking about non-compliance in the case of an enforcement undertaking and offered as part of an enforcement undertaking, because I see that enforcement undertaking is still a tool that is being used, are they being removed? Because, in this case, enforceable undertaking as opposed to, I think, prosecution is no longer available in instances of non-compliance under adverse publicity orders. Can I check with the Parliamentary Under-Secretary on that particular reading, since both have been deleted?

Simon Court: Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): He’s still going.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Sorry. I can actually wait, if the member has—

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Do you want to go?

SIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (23:09): Yeah, let’s crack into it. Enforceable undertaking is provided for in clause 2, Schedule 28, page 447. It’s all set out there. I invite the member Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan to read it, familiarise himself with it—it’s very helpful.

Question No. 1: the Environment Court is a civil court; the District Court provides criminal penalties. They’re different. We’ll leave it at that.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (23:10): Thank you, Mr Chair. I will move on to proposed clause 217A. This particular section is also quite a substantial addition. I can’t see that part being transferred from other parts. This is “Proceedings against the Crown”. Correct me if that’s a move from another section. Can I check with the under-secretary what the rationale is for this particular clause, seeing as it also came to the House post - select committee stage.

I noticed that a number of my colleagues have moved on to Schedule 11. Now, one of the questions I have for Schedule 11 is, there has been a number of additions and changes, and one of the things we have seen throughout this bill is changes around—I can’t remember the specific section, but what I’ve found is there are a lot of mentions of particularly iwi settlements or changes in the legislation that, potentially, will have consequential amendments because of the removal and the repeal of the Resource Management Act (RMA). One of the bills that I have not seen there—considering this Amendment Paper 709 came to the House last Friday, I believe, as well as a new tabled amendment by the Minister just yesterday, I would like to ask the member why Te Here ā Nuku (Nelson Tenths) Act, which was given Royal assent last Thursday and which has significant mentions of the RMA as well, is not mentioned in any of the amendments by the Minister at all.

SIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (23:12): In response to the member’s question on how the Act applies to the Crown, for the member’s benefit, proposed clause 271A is a move from 9(5) to (12).

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) (23:12): Kia orana, Mr Chair. I’d like to ask the member a question in relation to clause 282A. This is relating to the “Regulations [for] hearings processes and hearings authorities”. Now, one proposed change here in subclause (1)(a) is, effectively, the removal of the word “efficient”. The first question is whether or not the Government’s intention is for those hearings to not be efficient but rather just be focused on control, as the removal of the word seems to indicate.

The second is in relation to subclause (1)(b). This is where the Governor-General may make regulations around the eligibility for appointment as hearing commissioners. Now, it says there, “including requirements that those persons must be accredited:”. Now, in this Chamber, we’ve heard from members about the nature of accreditation. I think Mr Arbuckle talked about the fact, previously, when this bill was before the House, that he himself had been an accredited hearings commissioner. I think that might have been when he was in his dual role as an MP and a district councillor at the same time. But, none the less, the question that I have for the Minister is: is it the intention of the Government that there is no accreditation as a possibility, or is it that there is still accreditation but that the type of accreditation might change? At the moment, it’s the making good decisions accreditation—that’s what it’s commonly known as. That’s what is required for people to be credited. So is it more that there is a possibility that regulations exist or could be made to not allow for accredited persons, or just that there is still accreditation, but the nature could change from making good decisions to some other sort of title?

SIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (23:14): We have taken the decision that the details around the accreditation of commissioners do not need to be in primary legislation. For all of those fascinated by the detail, the layout, and the processes in this legislation, this is an example of modern drafting, where matters such as the details about who can be a commissioner and their accreditation can be left to secondary legislation.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) (23:14): Thank you. I appreciate the response, but the response does not address the second part of the question that I posed—

Hon Simeon Brown: I think it did.

TANGI UTIKERE: Well, Mr Brown might think that it did, but he’s not in the chair. Is this seeking to allow for those appointed to hearings panels to not have any accreditation?

SIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (23:15): As I pointed out, the details about who is qualified or accredited and what the processes are for those to be appointed can sit quite safely and with the fullness of time can be developed in a way that, potentially, the member even wants to contribute to.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (23:15): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m still waiting on a response from the member in the chair regarding my question around Te Here ā Nuku (Nelson Tenths) Act. In that Act, it does mention the Resource Management Act (RMA), and if the RMA is repealed under this bill and that Act mentions that, what does it mean for that particular Act that was just passed last week? I think that would be helpful to note.

Since we’re talking about secondary legislation, I think, then, this is a good time to move on to clause 281 on “Regulations”. I want to focus on a couple of things here. Number one is the proposed addition of (1)(d), through Amendment Paper 709, which is around “prescribing the form … (i) for any application, notice, certificate or other document or information required under this Act:” I just want to check on the rationale for that particular addition.

One of the things that’s interesting, I think, from a Regulations Review Committee perspective, is (1)(g), which is around the prescription of fees under this section. I wondered if the chair of the Regulations Review Committee may also be interested in delving further into this as well. Part of that is to do with the fees that are going to be prescribed in this case and how one would be able to check that the fees are charged in a way that measures the kind of requirement—because the idea of fees is to offset the function of a particular board or particular registry agency, but I just want to check whether there are any provisions around the fees setting.

Now, I notice that there are other sections here as well, but I think one of the things that I can’t see at this stage is whether there is any formal requirement for a review process as well in terms of any regulations. Now, we’ve seen a large number of regulations that are mentioned throughout this particular bill. There’s a lot of secondary legislations involved, but that also, again, potentially means that there needs to be some sort of review mechanisms for that secondary legislation as well. That will be, I guess, in many ways, a sensible thing to do. But what I’m seeing is no mention, at this stage, of any sort of sunset clause or any particular review mechanisms. I do have additional questions because clauses 281 and 282 have some quite significant changes in Amendment Paper 709, but I’ll leave those questions for the time being.

SIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (23:18): Going back to the member’s question about the Nelson Tenths, despite the fact that the legislation was only passed last week, it does mention the Resource Management Act (RMA) replacement legislation too. It’s futureproofed, and it refers to subdivision under the RMA, which will remain under that legislation for the transition period until the new legislation fully transitions. We’ve got that.

As far as fee setting is concerned, that’s a carry-over from the RMA. If the member was familiar with the Resource Management Act, as I’m sure at least 1½ people in this Chamber are, that would not be new.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (23:19): I want to go back to the discussion I was having with the member in the chair about the Waikato River Authority and Plan Change 1. He said that we’ve negotiated the new 10A in the legislation and that, ostensibly, that’s enough. So even though the river authority might not be happy with the court case being paused or stopped—or whatever word you want to use—even though that decision from the Environment Court was made and there were outcomes of that court case that they liked that are now being overturned by this legislation, the member is saying, “Well, that doesn’t matter, because we have 10A.” Can he confirm that that’s the stated position?

SIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (23:20): Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, the member the Hon Rachel Brooking might wish to characterise it in any way that suits her world view, but the Government did engage with the river iwi, we got their feedback, and it’s very clear in clause 10A—which is, by the way, in Part 1, and we’re now on to Part 6—that we have provided for Te Ture Whaimana and the provisions of that Treaty settlement in the way that they were ascribed in the Resource Management Act (RMA), and there is a general Treaty clause preservation - type clause, which says that we will give “to the greatest extent possible” equivalent recognition or provision that was available under the RMA in the new system. This has been debated, questioned, and answered at length over the previous, essentially, two days, so I hope that satisfies the member.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (23:21): Thank you, Mr Chair. I wish to take a call on clause 281, “Regulations”, particularly subclause (1)(f) to (h), which set the fee-setting powers. I want to ask the member in the chair, Simon Court, about—we have had previous discussions about fee setting, but those are about councils who were able to recover costs in an administrative sense; this is a much broader power than that. It’s the broadest fee-setting power that I’ve seen. It is one that, essentially, says “Any excise of public power is something that you can charge for, and Cabinet, via Order in Council, can set any fee.” So there’s no parliamentary check. The first question to the member in the chair is: did he consider making these confirmable instruments, given just how broad they are, and, if they’re not confirmable instruments, what is the check and balance?

There are access-to-justice issues in setting high fees for something which is an excise of public power. We’re expressly contemplating, say, not only the Environment Court fees, which are set by the rules that are agreed by the Minister and the Chief Environment Court Judge, but then we got an answer earlier in this session from the Minister that it is clause 281 which sets entirely the rules of the tribunal. We’re deciding who gets to appear and how much they pay for that in these rules. There was also an earlier answer around how the cost recovery mechanisms were intended to work for the planning tribunals. We understand the policy perspective that the Minister has brought to the Chamber, which is that applicants are not meant to entirely shoulder the burden of those costs, but that’s still going to be determined entirely by the Order in Council mechanism, which sets a fee, and there’s no tension in the system to make sure that those fees are low and that people have the ability to participate in these processes.

We won’t come back through to paragraph (h), so I just want to make sure that the member in the chair is comfortable that these are very broad fees and that the only check on them is that offences are not going to exceed $2,000 and $4,000. Does he, then, intend that to be a ballpark figure for the fees themselves, so the fees are going to be under the offence numbers?

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (23:23): Going back to my discussion with the member in the chair, Simon Court, about Schedule 11 and the amendments to Schedule 11 at the very last minute—four minutes before we started debating this bill—no, I am not satisfied with his explanation, because we are talking about a court case decision being overturned. So we can put new clause 10A to one side, and I’ve heard his reasoning then—

Ryan Hamilton: It’s just paused.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Oh, it’s just paused—just paused for ever.

Dr Hamish Campbell: No, six years.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: No, clearly the intent that we’ve heard from the member in the chair is that that is the end of it, because the system is going to change everything and enable more pollution, which we’re going to talk about in the next bill. That is a disgrace. People have gone through the court process, and this House, and that Government is once again taking away their rights. The member in the chair is welcome to address that point, which he has not yet.

Going to Part 6—and clause 294 is “Amendments to other legislation”, then new clause 295 is “Repeal of Resource Management Act”, and this does go to section 2, and I’m sure we’ll discuss this in the title and commencement phase. I’m just wondering if the member in the chair sees some irony in the fact that his Government brought back the Resource Management Act and now he’s had to do an amendment, just last week, to repeal it again. That’s one question: does he see the irony there?

Camilla Belich: Here we are again.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: And here we are again: three years of delay.

Now, another question is on Schedule 8, which is the schedule that, I believe, Tangi Utikere was asking questions about before, which is “Enforcement matters.” It’s a question that goes to more than just this part of the bill, but at clause 20 of the schedule, there is “Adverse publicity orders”, and, at subclause (2), “An adverse publicity order may require the person to do 1 or more of the following: (a) take any specified action to publicise—(i) the non-compliance:”. Here is the bit that I am interested in: paragraph (ii), “any effects on the built environment, natural resources or people,”. My question around this is that there is a deletion of “impacts on human health or the environment”. That has been changed to “effects on the built environment, natural resources or people,”.

I think that why the change has happened is because of the definition of “built environment”, which is entirely non-sensical and unintuitive and will confuse everybody, but it seems to be, again, a slogan. I am here wearing my “built environment” dress and I am interested in the comments that the member might have—and “heritage” dress, as well—on why it is that the phrasing has changed to “built environment”, and if he agrees with me that this is not an intuitive phrasing and will cause a lot of confusion.

SIMON COURT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform) (23:27): The member has raised a number of important questions. I want to try to address a number of questions, including ones which were outstanding, about the fees. The question about the fees from the esteemed chair, I understand, of the Governance and Administration Committee—

Hon Members: Regs Review.

SIMON COURT: “Regs Review”—thank you; the Regulations Review Committee, which I have had the benefit of sitting on for a very limited time following Cyclone Gabrielle, passing emergency legislation. I appreciate how much work goes on in that committee. All fees would have to demonstrably relate to a function that is carried out under the Act. That is the tension. Fees can’t be created in a way that is not able to be related back.

I want to address the question that I think maybe Lawrence Xu-Nan had about clause 281(1)(f)(ii). That, on fees, is very similar to section 360F of the Resource Management Act (RMA). We tried as far as practical to preserve the process parts of the RMA, because we did not intend to try to recreate the whole world of resource management. We tried to keep—what did we say when it comes to infrastructure? Maintain and make the best use of what you’ve got before you start building new. There’s an example of that when it comes to legislation.

There were some other questions that the member had about Plan Change 1. I want to acknowledge that there may be a number of people who are not satisfied with what the Government has done around Plan Change 1, but I want to make the point that the Environment Court dutifully handled Plan Change 1, the application for plan change; provided a decision, which itself was litigated; and eventually, after what, I understand, was over a decade, Plan Change 1 was finally published. One of the important things when you’re in Government and when you’re at Parliament and you make laws is that you sometimes have to wait for other parts of the system to do their thing before you can react to it. I consider that the Government was patient, was attentive to the decision that came out from the Environment Court, and took deliberate, measured, and sensitive action in response.

I will explain again: we have deferred some aspects of Plan Change 1 because they did not fit into the new system and they’re going to be very expensive, time-consuming, a massive drag, most administratively in the implementation on the people affected by it. So we parked it, but we have provided for Te Ture Whaimana to come through into the new system—that’s provided for in legislation explicitly—and for plan makers in the Waikato and the Waipā region to have regard to Plan Change 1 when they create the new plan under the new system. I would not, again, say that I expect the member to be satisfied, but I hope the explanation is sufficient.

There was another matter—I’ve got a list here, and forgive me if I have so many lists that I may have missed something. The member identified clause 295, “Repeal of Resource Management Act 1991”. Well, we don’t have to go back too far to when a previous Government developed—with some consultants, over five years or so, led by an esteemed RMA lawyer Tony Randerson, some planners, and other lawyers—a prescription for the Natural and Built Environment Act, which took an entire term of the previous Government to develop and pass, and which I hear, from those tasked with implementing it, it would have been impossible to implement. Rather than trying to panel beat a wreck, rather than trying to refloat a boat that’s got holes punched in it, floated off a reef, we don’t believe in the sunk-cost fallacy on this side of the House. We don’t keep going with things that are not going to work and be inefficient and cost people money. So we stopped Parker’s—the previous Government’s—bill and we repealed it, and we were forced to bring the Resource Management Act back until we brought this into the House.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (23:32): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ll take the member Simon Court to the planning consent levy, which is at page 221. This is an issue which has been raised with the committee and with the Minister. In his own departmental disclosure statement for this bill prepared by the public servants, it recognised that this is a general levy-setting power which is more similar in nature to a tax than to the other fee-setting powers in the rest of the bill, so he will be able to speak to some of these issues.

First question is: how much will that be? And the second question is: it’s a reasonable question for people who are levied with this new charge, this new form of a tax, to ask why they’re paying a fee which is associated with the lodging of a consent that is not reasonably associated with the processing of that consent; that they’re being charged for something which is actually developing the national standards, which benefits all system users, but they are not all system users. This is not a levy which is being charged against everyone who benefits from the making of consents; it is a charge which has been levied against new consents only. Arguably, there are far more system users who are people who have existing consents, who are benefiting from those national plans and the making of those national instruments and regional instruments that the charge is paying for, and yet it is only levied against the much smaller number of new participants.

I also want to ask him specifically about clause 283(4)(b), at the bottom of page 221. You can either prescribe the amount of the levy—so answer the question: how much are we being taxed?—or you can have a methodology. The problem with allowing a regulator to set a methodology is that it will also then be impossible for people who are lodging a consent to know how much they are being charged. You can understand from the regulator’s perspective why they would want to see the methodology. If you are requiring a big consent, you will pay more. If you are this type of consent and it’s complicated, you will pay more. But the problem with that is that, if you end up with a methodology that, say, sets an hourly rate and does not give you any indication of how many hours will be spent on processing your consent, and that will be the fee, that will be the special magic number which is used to determine the levy that you’re paying for the national consenting programme.

The problem with that is that it becomes completely unknowable and then you’ve got a charge within the system which people can’t predict. This Government has spent a long time in this committee stage trying to tell us that it is trying to be enabling and to change the system to one which allows people to foresee the costs and to make informed decisions about that.

I also want to ask the Minister about subclause (4B). The exemption here—it’s good that there is an exemption under (a)(i) for existing customary rights, they will not pay the levy. But what about those consents that apply to Māori land? There are already special provisions which apply to not only the rating of Māori land but the payment for, say, changes in subdivisions associated with Māori land at the local authority level. Those are set on the basis of a case called Mangatū, which sets out how charges are meant to be set in relation to Māori land. There is no exemption here for Māori land consents, though. So how is it that the Order in Council is going to make allowances for the different charges that are appropriate to levy against Māori land because of the different commercial value of it?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (23:36): Just in relation to clause 283, I’m advised that it’s not a fee, it’s not cost recovery; it funds some system costs. It is not only for new consents.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (23:36): Thank you, Mr Chair. I do want to thank the member in the chair previously, Simon Court, on the responses to Te Here ā Nuku. That’s actually really, really helpful.

Just looking at the regulation clauses, I want to check with the Minister responsible for RMA Reform regarding new clause 282(1)(e). Again, in clause 282(1), there have been some significant changes in Amendment Paper 709—and this is on page 219. This particular one I was interested in because there are other instances where it talks about fees or waivers when it comes to something that the Environment Court may potentially direct, but what it doesn’t actually specify—I think this is the only instance in this bill—is a waiver for construction management plans as secondary legislation or as a regulation. I wondered—this clause doesn’t seem to be a carry-over, for example—if the Minister wouldn’t give some examples of what a waiver for construction management plans could potentially look like, considering this is a last-minute addition to this bill.

Following on—and I think the member Arena Williams had some excellent questions around levies and fees, and, indeed, this is something that we’ve been considering quite closely, as well—one of the things I want to check with the Minister is actually starting with clause 283(1), and this is subclause (2)(a). Again, I’m trying to focus on amendments in Amendment Paper 709. This is a really good example of where there is potentially certain limitations on secondary legislation and regulations, and, in this case, the time frame specified in clause 5 of Schedule 1. I wanted to check with the Minister, as well, that—you know, there are a lot of regulations in this that are supposed to be set as secondary legislation, but we don’t see a lot of limitations on what some of that could potentially look like, or the scope of some of that. I wonder whether there are going to be mechanisms that allow for the review of secondary legislation here.

My final question for the time being—and just signalling to you, Mr Chair, I don’t think I have a lot more on Part 6, but I’m going to be moving on to Schedule 11 in the subsequent calls. The last one I want to check at this stage is new clause 283B(1)(ea). This is to do with national standards, fees payable by a person, and when a national standard empowers a local authority to charge for that—

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): What was that again?

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Sorry?

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Oh, sorry, I’ve got it here.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: It’s clause 283B(1), new paragraph (ea).

And I just want to check, again, the addition for this particular section on what that would mean, and how local authorities would be able to interpret that. And whether this—I can’t see it immediately—if the Minister wouldn’t mind just saying what the limitation it is to charge some of those fees for monitoring.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (23:40): Very briefly, in relation to the outline—construction management plans, it’s a new word for “outline plans”. I’m advised it’s a carry-over from the Resource Management Act in relation to that.

In relation to the member Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s point around administrative fees in clause 283B(1)(ea), it is as laid out there. It’s “payable by a person carrying out a permitted activity for the local authority carrying out its monitoring functions in relation to that activity, if national standards empower the local authority to charge for the monitoring:”” it’s relatively straight forward.

In relation to oversight, I’d encourage the member to join the very hard-working and erstwhile Regulations Review Committee, which I started my parliamentary career on, and it’s a great learning ground for all members.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (23:41): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m proud to stand as the previous deputy chair of the great Regulations Review Committee in my first term. I do want to go back to—the previous member in the chair widened the scope somewhat of these arguments when we were talking about Part 6 and the repeal of the Resource Management Act, to tell me how terrible the Natural and Built Environment Act was and how it would not be implemented well. I need to get it on record to this Minister that I have talked to people up and down the country, including just on Monday, senior practitioners, but also a whole lot of other people as well, who just do not think that this legislation is workable. And I’ve offered up amendment after amendment to try and make it workable.

Even if you put all the policy things aside, if you say, “It’s fine to ruin the environment, it’s fine to shift all the focus in the economy from individuals who use things to the general public.”—even if you agree with all of that, it still doesn’t work, and that’s a real problem. I again offer the Minister our time and energy in terms of—we would like to see this legislation work—if it does two things. It’s more efficient and does better for our environment. Two simple things: it’s more efficient and does better for our environment. Two simple things.

Now, going to some more specific questions, at Schedule 11, I have a published amendment—741 I think, if I can read my handwriting—that is to the bit about the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act 2008. And after section 9, there is an insertion—

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): What page is that?

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: It’s at page 552. Sorry, this Schedule 11 is very difficult to work with. At new section 9B, “Regional Spatial plan”, at (2), “When adopting or amending a regional spatial plan, the Council must ensure that its provisions are not inconsistent with the purpose of this Act”—meaning the Waitakere Ranges—“or the objectives.” So rather than not “inconsistent with” my amendment is to “must give effect to” the purpose of that Waitakere Ranges Act. So I wonder if the Minister would consider that change.

Another published amendment I have on Schedule 11—and this is an important one, relates to section 104, which is at page 563.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Is this one of your amendments?

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: I have a published amendment on the Minister’s amendment—well, on the bill as reported back from the Environment Committee.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Have you got the time stamp?

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: My amendment is 691 and the page number of the Minister’s amendment is 563. On 563, there is a subheading two-thirds down the page, section 104. This is a very important one, because it goes to the effects that can be considered in the consent application and the time for when those commence.

I had an amendment relating to boundaries, so I’ll go through what section 104(1A) of Schedule 11 is. It is an insertion, and this is as amended by the Minister’s amendment, that states, “When considering the effects of the district land use activity, a consent authority must disregard any adverse effects arising from the following matters:”—so these are the things that can’t be considered. It’s changed from “the external layout of any building on a site if the effects of the external layout remain within the boundaries of the site:”.

I had an amendment around the boundaries, but the provision has been subsequently changed so that the list of things that are excluded are “(a) any of the following:”, and it includes something about windows in relation to outdoor living space, “the internal fit-out”—and we’ve talked about couches before—“the minimum unit size”, “the outlook space”, and “landscaped areas for the construction of a building (except in relation to permeability):”. Permeability is very important, so I’m glad that permeability is excluded from the exception.

The question I have here is really around urban design. Does the Minister interpret the section as meaning that there is no urban design, and, if so, given that this section will come into effect within a month of the bill getting its commencement, is that going to require a lot of work from councils to work out how to do that?

Then, in terms of permeability, this is very important for stormwater, so how does it relate in terms of that? Often, with landscaping, there’ll be a landscaping requirement. You might look at it at face value and say, “Oh, that’s annoying, considering what I should plant where.”, but, in fact, it might go to permeability. But it might not specify that it goes to permeability, so how are the councils supposed to work out what this permeability relates to? That is the first question, and then the urban design one is the other one on that.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (23:48): Yeah, OK.

Hon Rachel Brooking: And the boundaries; why the change to the boundaries?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yeah, yeah, I got the point. This has been covered extensively. There’s already special legislation in place for the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area—

Hon Rachel Brooking: I want to change the test.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, I don’t agree with you—you know what it does, and I don’t agree. I think we’ve covered that issue off.

In relation to clause 104 of Schedule 11, there’s actually a Government Amendment Paper on this, another one—some further changes. The member, I think, was talking about fit-out.

Arena Williams: Are you talking about 726?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: 709. It’s the statutory land market officer one.

Arena Williams: What time?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: 709; it’s right at the end, page 9. There are actually a few changes here—so the area of glazing; the presence or absence of balconies. Where it currently says—I’m not quite sure what it says about balconies, but that’s made it clear—outdoor living space, internal layout rather than fit-out, there was a view that fit-out of a building may mean that people would—

Arena Williams: What does “fit-out” mean?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, “fit-out” could go to appliances and furnishings, whereas the thing we’re trying to exclude from the system is layout. I feel like we’re kind of Lawrence Xu-Nan redux, because 90 minutes or so ago we had a long feng shui conversation. So layout’s out; the size of the landscaped areas—the member asked: does this get rid of urban design? I mean, it doesn’t eradicate it, but—

Hon Rachel Brooking: Low bar.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, the new system moves more towards getting rid of some of these urban design elements. This is the transitional stuff on the way through. The full list of excluded effects is in a different part of the bill, as the member knows. As I understand it, this is on the way through. We want to get these quick wins in place so that you don’t get, as I recounted to the committee of the whole House before, council planning officers saying, “I’m going to deliver your consent because I don’t like the size of your TV and the way it faces the street, or I don’t like—”

Hon Rachel Brooking: Have you got one example of that happening?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: There are multiple examples of that happening. It happens all over the place. For example, the council in Napier that decided the social housing development in the middle of Napier required Juliet balconies, which meant that the social housing developer built three fewer social homes for people because the cost of building the apartments with Juliet balconies went through the roof. We don’t need councils dictating to social housing suppliers that they need to have Juliet balconies. I didn’t even know what a Juliet balcony was. I know now.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): What is it? We all want to know now.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: A Juliet balcony is a tiny little balcony, and they’re pointless because you can’t really stand on them. You can smoke out them, but you can’t really stand on them, and so they’re pointless. They’re decorative. They look nice. Our view is that councils should not be able to dictate that houses, or apartments, actually, should have Juliet balconies. If you want a Juliet balcony, go for your life, but the council shouldn’t be able to tell that you should have one.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): That was a very Shakespearean answer, and I think we’re all illuminated. I’m going to go to Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (23:51): Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you to the Minister responsible for RMA Reform for the previous response on the construction management plan, but my question to the Minister was more on the waiver part. I guess another way of asking that question is, are there actually any existing secondary legislation waiving—what was the term?

Hon Chris Bishop: Yes. It’s the status quo.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: OK, great. Thank you. That’s all I wanted to check. I’m going to move on to schedule 11 now. My broader question to schedule 11, because schedule 11 is quite substantial, is that—I guess this is just a general question. There are a lot of changes to Amendment Paper 709. A lot of them are consequential amendments that have only been picked up in this amendment. I guess my question is, if the Parliamentary Counsel Office etc., found another legislation later on that should have been captured in here, what happens to it? Do they have to bring it under the bill, or are they able to be inserted through other means? Because, presumably, you can only make changes through a primary legislation. I do want to know what happens to consequential amendments if they get picked up later and that weren’t picked up here. That’s my first question, but I have additional questions.

Hon Rachel Brooking: Mr Chair.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Oh, OK.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Keep going.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: I’ll keep going with just a few more questions. The Minister mentioned before that lawyers who are watching, potentially, there might be things that they might be specifically looking at. I want to check with the Minister on—this is page 520 of Amendment Paper 709—and this is to do with this consequential amendments to the Fast-track Approvals Act, and I’m specifically looking at the new additions in clauses 18 and 20, which is when referral applications or substantive applications are lodged during the transition period. I do find it difficult to follow the particular drafting here, particularly when you’re looking at clauses 18(a) and 20(a), which says that “the application must continue to be processed and determined—(a) under this Act as in force immediately before it was amended…(b) in relation to the RMA.” So under the Fast-track Act, it is in force, I’m assuming. If the Minister wouldn’t mind just elaborating on that particular point.

My last call for this particular call is on the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987—this is on page 537—which has given a specific definition of “climate change”. Now, I went and had a look at the main legislation here—the Local Government Official Information Meeting Act—which has a reference to the previous Resource Management Act (RMA). I guess the question is then, in this particular case, if “climate change” has been redefined in that Act, why couldn’t it be defined now in the Planning Act so that other legislation could be referring to the definition under this Act as opposed to inserting his own new definition?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (23:55): The answer is, if you want to change the law, you have to legislate, so yes, they’re consequential amendments, yes. I mean, we’re going to—

Arena Williams: That’s not what you’ve done at clause 282A.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: In what way?

Arena Williams: Can I take a call?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: No, please don’t. In relation to page 520, schedule 11, the Fast-track insertions are transitional provisions to apply to the processing of RMA approvals sought via fast track when the system swaps over.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Members, the time has come for me to leave the Chair. The committee of the whole House will resume tomorrow at 9 a.m.

Debate interrupted.

Sitting suspended from 11.56 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Thursday)