Planning Bill

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oriini Kaipara: And me.

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

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Par for the course.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arena Williams: I’m not getting many calls.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: What’s that?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Steve Abel: Oil and water don’t mix.

Hon Chris Bishop: What’s that?

Steve Abel: Oil and water don’t mix, mate.

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

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

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

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): There’s a lot of members seeking the call here. I’m quite happy to give members the opportunity for the back and forth, and then move on to another member. Rachel Brooking.

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

Hon Chris Bishop: Mention number four!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hon Chris Bishop: Put a finger on the pip dial.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hon Phil Twyford: Maybe that’s a bad example.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Sure.

Hon Phil Twyford: It could be a smaller, more specific example that they could explain away.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arena Williams: Ha, ha!

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Why are you laughing? Do you want me to get started on that?

Arena Williams: Yeah, get started on it!

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: No, no, no. Time is against me.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Don’t get the Minister started on other stuff.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: No, don’t do that.

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

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

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

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): It’s the jumping around that’s making it a little bit awkward, so I think we need to keep moving forward.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I move, That debate on this question now close.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Optimistic.

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

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

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Going backwards without new points won’t help.

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

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

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

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Actually, no, I’m anticipating the member may take some time. We’re very near the cut-off for lunch, so save yourself for afterwards. I’ll go to the Minister.

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

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The time has come for me to leave the Chair for the lunch break. The committee will resume following question time. Thank you.

Debate interrupted.

Sitting suspended from 12.59 p.m. to 2 p.m.

House resumed.