Planning Bill

Committee of the whole House

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.

Committee of the whole House

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.

Committee of the whole House

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.

Committee of the whole House

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.

Committee of the whole House

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.

Committee of the whole House

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?

Committee of the whole House

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?

Committee of the whole House

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.

Committee of the whole House

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.

Committee of the whole House

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.

Committee of the whole House

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.

Committee of the whole House

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).

Committee of the whole House

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.

Committee of the whole House

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.

Committee of the whole House

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.

Committee of the whole House

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.

Committee of the whole House

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.

Committee of the whole House

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.

Committee of the whole House

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.

Committee of the whole House

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.

Committee of the whole House

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?

Committee of the whole House

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.

Committee of the whole House

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.

Committee of the whole House

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.

Committee of the whole House

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.

Committee of the whole House

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).

Committee of the whole House

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.

Committee of the whole House

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.

Committee of the whole House

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.

Committee of the whole House

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.

Committee of the whole House

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.

Committee of the whole House

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.

Committee of the whole House

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.

Committee of the whole House

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.

Committee of the whole House

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.

Committee of the whole House

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.

Committee of the whole House

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 31 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.

Committee of the whole House

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.

Committee of the whole House

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.