Planning Bill

Point of order. I think you just said that it includes Schedule 1.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): No, Schedule 8.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: And then Schedule 11?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Schedule 11, “Amendments to other legislation”.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Thank you. That was just for clarification that it’s Schedule 11.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): OK. Thank you. The question is that Part 6 stand part.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll just start with a general first question about Part 6 itself rather than Schedule 11, and that is that there are many changes in this Amendment Paper regarding, in particular, the role of the Environmental Protection Authority. I was wondering if the member in the chair, Simon Court, could start us off with an explanation of those changes at the front of Part 6 in this Amendment Paper, please.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I will also start by asking some of the same questions—no, actually, I’m going to focus on clause 232(1)(g)(ii), and, again, I’m focusing on the changes that we see on Amendment Paper 709. So in here we’re seeing that a pecuniary penalty has been added as a package alongside an enforcement order and conviction. I want to check, as a starting point, why a pecuniary penalty has been added in that instance, as opposed to other things like an infringement order, etc. We’ve discussed some of that previously in terms of a package, but I want to check why it is a pecuniary penalty and not infringement.

Moving on, again, I’m looking specifically at changes on the Amendment Paper. In clause 234 “Application for enforcement order”, at subclause (2), we’re also seeing additional changes to the local authority. This is regarding clause 234(2)(c) specifically, which says, “a local authority or the EPA for an enforcement order of a kind”. I want to check with the Parliamentary Under-Secretary why that particular clause has been included as well, and I’ll leave it at those two questions for now.

In answer to the member the Hon Rachel Brooking’s question, most of the changes that the member has observed on the Minister’s Amendment Paper 709 are technical. They’re moving parts around so that they’re in the right order for implementation, and so I hope that helps.

With respect to Lawrence Xu-Nan’s question around clause 232(1)(g)(ii), there’s a lot of information here, so bear with me, please. Clause 232, “Scope of enforcement order”, sets out the scope of what an enforcement order may require or permit. In terms of subclause (1), the pecuniary penalty has been inserted to the reflect policy intent that revocation or suspension is restricted to situations that have had judicial oversight.

In terms of clause 234, which sets out who may apply for various types of enforcement orders, again, in subclause (2)(aa), it’s been moved to keep like clauses together, and so that’s a drafting improvement from the people responsible for the drafting. In subclause (3), there’s a reference to the Minister of Conservation and regional coastal plans having been deleted to reflect the fact that the Minister of Conservation has a reduced role in this scope and regional coastal plans are no longer present in the new system.

Tēnā koe, Madam Chair. I want to ask a pātai on Part 6, clause 272, which can be found on page 210. It refers to the fact that “A local authority must prepare and publish a compliance and enforcement strategy, in the prescribed manner and setting out the prescribed criteria, that takes into account … Treaty settlements, and voluntary or statutory agreements with local iwi, hapū, or Māori.”, and it’s deleted “Mana Whakahono ā Rohe agreements”.

In the original bill, there was the wording in clause 272(2): “When developing a compliance and enforcement strategy, local authorities must work with iwi authorities and groups that represent hapū within the region.” It’s interesting the way that that part was deleted from the original bill, and now we just have this prescribed way of dealing with this, or taking it into account, but how is it intended that a local authority is to prepare and publish these enforcement and compliance strategies without talking to the local iwi, hapū, or Māori? I’m wondering that if you do not write it into the bill, councils may not do it, and it just becomes optional.

When I read the clause, it says that they do take into account relevant Treaty settlements and voluntary statutory agreements with local iwi, hapū, and Māori.

Hūhana Lyndon: Madam Chair, may I reply and ask a further question?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): You can ask a further question. Hūhana Lyndon.

Yeah, so I can see that it’s written in there that they must take into account, but that doesn’t necessarily compel the council or local authority to actually work with; it could be just a desktop exercise. So how do we monitor local authorities to do a good job in the way that they do take into account these local hapū, iwi, and Māori agreements?

“Take into account” is a well-understood legal term. Councils need to follow the law.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m really interested in asking about the aquaculture provisions in Schedule 11, proposed on Amendment Paper 709. I’m particularly interested in that because aquaculture is one area where in this term of Government we’ve seen some really serious changes, particularly with the blanket rollover of consents to 2050—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Can you please direct me to the page that you’re currently on?

LAN PHAM: Yes, so the page number—it starts at page 548—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Thank you.

LAN PHAM: —in Schedule 11, but it moves over to the following page, page 549, and these are direct amendments to the Resource Management Act (RMA) itself. These are part of the last-minute amendments that the Minister has just introduced on I think it was Friday. Like many of my colleagues and, I’m sure, interested parties out there across the country, we’re grappling with what these actually mean, and so I’m really interested in some fulsome answers from the member, where he can do that.

What I’m interested in specifically is that this is amending section 68A(2) of the RMA, and this is to allow an aquaculture activity as a permitted activity where the rule actually applies to space where in aquaculture activity is authorised by a current coastal permit. Now, what’s important to note about this is that all of these coastal permits have already had this blanket extension out to 2050. Is the intent of this—and we don’t know; we’ve had no information apart from the amendments just landing—to give councils discretion to roll over existing aquaculture activities, including discharges which come from these agriculture activities, without the need for a statutory assessment as to whether these activities actually continue to be appropriate, because this is the real concern about what’s being introduced here.

Has the member or his Government assessed the actual risks of this extremely wide discretion on councils? For example, as we know, consents for many of these activities were actually granted before the Resource Management Act was put in place in 1991. There are many outdated consents that are in serious need of some form of assessment, particularly when it comes to the risks with not only environmental impacts but biosecurity impacts. I’m really keen to hear about that because we know that with increasing climate change, this is going to be an increasing issue—and I’m noting that the member is ready to answer. I’ve got some more questions, but I’ll let him answer.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I understand the member Lan Pham was referring to the Resource Management Act (RMA) amendments in Part 1 of Schedule 11, which come into effect on the Royal assent. I understand that that has referenced clause 68A—I may have got that wrong, but I’m going to speak to it. It applies the natural and built environment’s approach to permitted aquaculture to the RMA. It’s a transitional rule and it authorises aquaculture in the coastal marine area “as a permitted activity … if the rule applies solely to a space where an aquaculture activity is authorised by a current coastal permit.”—that’s important. The activity is already authorised, by current permitting process under the RMA, and this change will help provide a more enabling consenting pathway for aquaculture in aquaculture settlement areas during the transition period.

Aquaculture settlement areas, I say for the benefit of the member and members of the House who are listening, are provided as part of a Treaty settlement. As far as I’m aware, no aquaculture has ever been initiated in a settlement are that was provided to Māori claimants, and that is because the RMA made it too hard. So if there’s one thing that this Government intends, it’s to enable Māori to make the greatest use of their economic and natural resource assets. This is one way this Government is delivering profit for Māori, amongst many others, and I’m sure the member will support it.

I thank the member for those responses. I’m really interested in where the justification for these changes came from.

As I’ve previously stated, since the aquaculture settlement was arrived at with iwi, which I understand is decades ago, no aquaculture has been established in these settlement areas. There are some who say, like Minister Bishop, that it could amount to a modern Treaty breach if we don’t enable aquaculture in these areas. This is one way this Government is delivering for Māori—those who have these aquaculture settlements. It’s clear and the legislation is clear.

So why did it not come through the select committee process? Why has it come in at this point? Why?

This is an improvement to the bill, and I’m sure the member will support it.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m going to go back to Part 6, and I just have two small questions on that and then I do have an amendment and questions on Schedule 11 but I will do those in a different call.

First of all, I’m going to clause 261, “Insurance against fines unlawful”, and it’s saying that insurance companies cannot indemnify, which is great. I was going to ask the member how long he thinks this will take to implement with the insurance companies, but I think that this is the same or similar wording to one of the amendments made in 2023. So if he could just confirm whether the insurance provisions—that you must insure—are already in force, or how they will be transitioned and how problematic it is.

This is a carry-over from amendments made to the Resource Management Act recently that I think the member is familiar with, with a couple of drafting corrections.

Thank you. I’m going then to clause 282, “Regulations relating to consent-processing time frames and procedures”, and to clause 282(1)(d), which is “proposed designations:”, and clause 282(1)(e), which is “construction management plans and waivers for construction management plans.”—so they relate to designations included in this regulation-making power. I was wondering if the member could comment on why it is that—well, why is this a new regulation-making power? Has that come from somewhere else, and why is there a need for regulations to be made about time frames for designations?

This is a regulation-making power for consented permit processing time frames and procedures. It adds a general regulation power for designation time frames and procedures, including for the waiver of construction project plans. It’s intended to provide appropriate guard rails, time frames, and standardised process for applicants and for those assessing applications.

I want to bring the member in the chair to clause 256, which is about the penalties regime. It’s important context for the committee that these penalties in the Resource Management Act were last updated in 2025, so quite recently, and there are some changes I want to ask him about. The first is, at clause 256(2)(b) there is a new category of offending for businesses, and it's a five-fold increase from the old penalty which would have applied. So I want to ask him about the justification for that new penalty.

I guess this is a related question: the old resource management system had old section 339B, which was an additional penalty added on top for offending which was for the purpose of commercial gain, and under that old system the ability was for the court to levy a penalty, which was, I think, up to three times the amount of commercial gain, and that seems to have been lost in this regime. So I want to ask the member in the chair if that is right. Is that gone or is it provided for elsewhere in the Act—that sort of increasing penalty to do with the commercial gain—or has it been replaced by this $50,000 a day fine?

I also want to ask the member in the chair about clause 256(3). This has gone up from $10,000 to $15,000. It’s only gone up in the last year, so really the question is a broader point about whether the deterrent in that sort of fine regime is working. Does the member in the chair have any insight into whether prosecutions have been brought and whether the penalties do get up to the 2025 maximum. That is the question really—whether this kind of fining regime is being used. That is relevant because earlier in this debate we’ve had discussions about how to both punish and deter serial-offending developers. There are real cases where the Court of Appeal has considered that kind of development, but we also had a very firm assurance from the Minister responsible for this bill that the 2018 case which the Court of Appeal considered would be dealt with by his legislation. I think that what we’re seeing here is an upping of the penalties which is meant to deter that as well as those harder provisions. But I want to make sure with the member in charge if this is what’s doing it or if it’s elsewhere.

Just to be clear, the major penalties which appear here include clause 256(1)(b), a fine not exceeding $10 million. That was provided for in changes to the Resource Management Act recently. The changes in this legislation are only adjusting the minor penalties, but in response to the member’s question around commercial gain, a provision that provides for monetary benefit orders—in other words, those who get a monetary benefit from offending—is provided for in Schedule 8, and it replaces the commercial gain that was previously three times the penalty.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to ask the member a straightforward question first. We see that there is movement regarding the enforcement officer section from clauses 217 to 226 to now clause 246(a) to (j). Can I just check—are they just wholesale listed and then moving to a new section? OK, cool. I got a nod—thank you so much. I’m going to move on to the next clause.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): We’ll just put a quick answer on the Hansard, if that’s OK.

Simon Court: If you got a nod from me, that means yes.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Great—amazing. Thank you. I’ll move on clauses 250 and 251, and these are to do with the power of entry for inspection. The first question is when we’re looking at clauses 250 and 251, can a person take other enforcement agencies along with them as part of that inspection or entry for survey. That’s my first question.

My second question is: when they are entering for survey, we are seeing that subclause (1)(d) has been removed regarding entering or re-entering land. I don’t see any provision in terms of the number of times that someone can enter a land for survey. Does that mean they need to notify every time they enter a particular piece of land, with that provision removed, clause 251(1)(d)? Can a person—in this case, an enforcement officer—enter for the purpose of serving an inspection at the same time, noting that surveys, based on the reading of clause 251, require prior notification, whereas inspection does not? So I want to check with the under-secretary on those questions first, and I have follow-up questions depending on the response.

In terms of clause 250, the wording has been changed to simply reflect policy intent—that an officer does not need individual authority for every individual inspection. In terms of clause 251, “Power of entry for survey”, it better reflects the policy intent—as I mentioned, the officer does not need authority for every individual inspection. There was another question around—

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Can they take someone else with them?

SIMON COURT: Can they can take someone else with them—thank you for clarifying, Mr Lawrence Xu-Nan—yes.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Lan Pham.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Madam Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Sorry, I’ve just called Lan Pham. Was that a clarification?

Lan Pham: Did you want to clarify?

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: No, you can—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’ll take Lan Pham’s question; we can come back to you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to get to one of the Minister’s amendments in Schedule 11. This is an amendment to the Minister’s Amendment Paper (AP) that was just introduced last night. It’s a really disappointing AP.

Simon Court: Aren’t we supposed to clarify—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yeah, the number?

LAN PHAM: Sorry, it doesn’t have one; it just has a timestamp—7.26 p.m., “Planning Bill”, “Proposed Amendments to AP No. 709”. Is that OK, Madam Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): We’ve got a copy of it now. So ask your question and then—

LAN PHAM: Thank you. The aspects that I really would like to hear from the member on are the really disappointing ones around not only Plan Change 2, which amends the One Plan when it comes to the Manawatū and the Horizons Regional Council, but also Plan Change 1, which was the plan change to the Waikato Regional Plan.

The thing that I’m really interested in hearing about is what the member’s and the Government’s understanding is of the processes and the people and the community and the iwi and hapū. For example, in Plan Change 1, in the Waikato, after14 years of work and consultation with iwi, farmers, growers, councils, industry, environmental groups, it was reaching its conclusion. Why was it not allowed to be part of this transition, when we know that plans are unlikely to be in place, at best, until the early 2030s? In the case of Plan Change 1, I understand it is 2032, and then consent requirements will be coming in in 2033. So that’s six or seven years from where we are now.

I’m really keen to hear about this, because we know it came in at the last minute. It wasn’t part of the select committee process, and we’ve heard really clear disappointment, particularly from iwi and hapū, about how dismayed they are about Government getting in the way of simply putting in place basic protections around freshwater, around biodiversity, around anything that would’ve helped address the very real issues which are going on in both of these areas.

The Government is, through this Amendment Paper, both council and Environment Court decisions—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): So the first question was why didn’t the Minister let this run its course—

LAN PHAM: Why can’t this be part of the transition—so let it run its course; let the transitional things happen for the next six or seven years with these in place. The next question is: why are the farming interests being prioritised over broader public iwi and hapū interests? How will the water quality targets that already exist in the planning framework be reached within sensible time frames? The entirety of this delay is not just for these areas but it’s across the country because of the planning stock provisions that the Government has as well. How is, for example, Horizons Regional Council and Waikato Regional Council supposed to meet not only public expectations but the expectations within their own planning framework about actually achieving environmental outcomes and improvement?

I thank the member for the question. I’ll start with Plan Change 1 (PC1) and then I will answer the member’s questions about Plan Change 2 (PC2). Where the matters are conflated or similar, I’ll respond to them as one.

The Government has taken the decision to suspend the implementation of some but not all of those plans, and that is because they would have been very expensive to implement, time-consuming to implement. It involved a lot of resources, both from local government, primary production, and, of course, many other technical experts are required, and it was judged, on balance, that it made more sense to defer some aspects of those plans so that they wouldn’t be implemented.

Now, let’s be clear: farmers and growers continuing to operate as permitted activities will still be required to comply with Schedule C, which sets out minimum farming standards, until 31 December 2032, and the intention is for PC1 that some aspects of the plans will continue.

The member asked about engagement. There’s been significant engagement with Waikato and Waipā River iwi on the proposed changes to PC1.

Hon Rachel Brooking: They don’t like it.

SIMON COURT: If the member wishes to ask a question, take a call.

On PC2, the member had similar questions: why is it being implemented? The answer: complex, time-consuming, expensive, and because the new system is going to establish new ways of working, including, under the Natural Environment Bill, providing for environmental limits—and we can get to that when we get to the Natural Environment Bill.

We considered it best to defer the progress of some aspects of Plan Change 2—the proposed Horizons Plan Change 2, which amends the One Plan—but on the basis that good management practice must still be identified through nutrient management plans and implemented, where consents are granted, within two years. Existing farms will still be able to obtain controlled activity consents, continue operating lawfully under the regional plan, but without being required to achieve quantified nitrogen reductions and undertake associated nutrient management modelling.

There is a new system coming in, under these reforms, which is going to provide a much simpler way, through environmental limits and other controls, to achieve the environmental objectives for both the Waikato and Waipā regions, and the Horizons Manawatū region. I know the member will have many questions about that when we get to that part of the reform, on the Natural Environment Bill. I look forward to engaging at that time.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Is the member Simon Court and his Government comfortable with the risk that water quality will go backwards? Because, as he’s just pointed out in his own words, existing intensive farming will be able to continue without demonstrating compliance with quantified nitrogen reduction requirements or associated nutrient modelling requirements. Now, all this would do is actually demonstrate and provide for farmers their own footprint about what these discharges actually are and enable them to reduce them, if that is required. So if that is not happening, what does the member perceive to be the outcome?

I will go over again the answer I gave the member Lan Pham to her previous question. The proposal was intended to defer some environment planning consenting requirements rather than removing existing safeguards—that’s for Plan Change 1 (PC1). Farmers and growers who continue to operate as permitted activities will still be required to comply with minimum farming standards set out in Schedule C. That’s PC1. That’s twice I’ve answered that. Plan Change 2 (PC2), Horizons Plan Change 2, otherwise known as the One Plan: existing farms will still be required to obtain controlled activity consents. Good management practice will still be identified through nutrient management plans and implemented within two years of consent being granted.

There is going to be progress towards improving water quality in both of these regions. It may not be in the way that the plans as they were submitted, notified, consulted on, spent years in court, might have played out, but, let’s be honest, no one knew how that was going to work in some cases, and that’s why we’ve stopped it and that’s why we’re creating a new system. It’s going to be much clearer for participants, including those who have a genuine interest in improving water quality, not just in those two regions but all around New Zealand. I look forward to getting into the detail of that when we get to the Natural Environment Bill, because I know that that member is very interested in how that system works.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Hūhana Lyndon.

Did you say me?

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Yes.

HŪHANA LYNDON: Oh, me! OK—cool. Kia ora. Kia ora to the member Simon Court. I wanted to ask questions around emergency response regulations, which can be found on page 214.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Have you got the page and clause?

HŪHANA LYNDON: Page 214—so Part 6, clause 279. It’s around emergency response regulations and the ability for the Governor-General, by Order in Council, to make regulations for the purposes of all the hazards, all the emergency-type responses, etc. Then, I want to bring the member over to clause 279A, and it’s great to see, in paragraph (f) of clause 279A(2), that “affected local authorities and the following groups, [where] relevant,” are invited to provide written comments about the proposed regulations. So this is feedback to the Minister on what’s proposed. There’s iwi authorities, there’s post-settlement governance entities (PSGEs), there’s ngā hapū o Ngāti Porou as per their own legislation; iwi or hapū who are party to the—crossed out—Mana Whakahono ā Rohe joint management agreements that apply to their region; even customary marine title groups; protected customary rights groups, which is great; and then applicants to the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011. That’s really cool. Awesome. High five. There’s provision there for the Māori groups to be consulted.

What I have pātai around is the next steps around these Māori groups to be consulted, because seeking comment from them is within 10 working days from the date on which the Minister invites comments, or it could be for a longer period specified by the Minister, in writing.

My question, particularly on this one, is how consultation and seeking input or comment from these Māori groups makes an assumption that they are resourced for this purpose, and then the time constraints of the turn-round time, whereby the Minister could require 10 working days, or other, for these Māori groups to respond. My pātai is really around the application of this legislation, the Planning Bill, and resource support for these Māori groups who have been outlined and listed to be able to—is there a cost recovery mechanism? What is the plan? Because, often times, even if they are a resourced PSGE or they are an iwi entity—it might be a mandated iwi organisation with a little bit of fish dollar here and there; by and large, if you’re a marine and coastal area takutai moana claimant, you’re working off reimbursements from time to time, and as hapū or others with agreements or relationships with local councils in this space, it’s going to be pretty limited resourcing. So how do we expect the Māori to respond in a timely fashion in this legislation without resource?

Addressing the member Hūhana Lyndon’s question about the time frame, first, the 10-working-day time frame is because it’s an emergency and 10 days is all we’ve allowed for. In response to the member’s questions about resourcing funding for organisations that may be consulted on, that’s not within the scope of this legislation.

Thank you, Mr Chair.

Hon Rachel Brooking: Oh.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): He was really quick to his feet—that’s the only reason.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Oh, I’m sorry—the Hon Rachel Brooking.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Do you want to go? OK, we’ll go with Rachel Brooking. You were enthusiastic, but he was faster, that’s all. All right, just go for it.

Oh, I’ve been in the Chamber all day. I’ve been here since 9 a.m., Mr Chair. Now, I want to talk to Schedule 11, which I haven’t been on yet. It is important to note that there are a lot of changes that have been made to Schedule 11 through the Minister’s Amendment Paper 709, and then through the amendment to the amendment, and then the amendments to the amendment to the amendment, which I have an amendment on. Just to demonstrate this, if you look at Schedule 11—and something may have happened to my eyesight—page 516, you’ll see at the start of that page it says, “Part 1 Amendments to Acts that commence on day after this Act receives Royal assent”—so that’s soon; that’s Part 1. But then you turn the page over to 519 and there is “Part 3 Provisions relating to Planning Act 2025 and Natural Environment Act 2025”. This is all in tracked change, so it’s difficult to know what that Part 3 is referring to when there’s no Part 2. Then it also makes it very difficult to make amendments to this schedule as well because it jumps around with these various different parts and all of the lists of all of the different legislation.

I do have some amendments that I will speak to, and excuse me if some of the numbers are not quite right. One of them is my tabled amendment, my first one on Schedule 11, which was tabled on 25 August at 7.36.02 and it is to delete the proposed new 2A that is related to the Fast-track Approvals Act that commences one month after this Act Royal assent, and that is to all of those provisions. It might be that the member in the chair, Simon Court, wants to say what those provisions are about and why he doesn’t agree with my amendment.

Then, if we go to another amendment—and this is a tabled amendment—I’m now on page 532. That is Amendment Paper 741. In Part 1 of Schedule 11, on page 532, three-quarters of the way down the page, under Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000, at section 10(5), at the end of one of the coloured-in boxes, it says, “the national instrument prevails”, I would replace that with “sections 7 and 8 prevail”. That’s another change just trying to ramp up the status of the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act. Maybe the member can comment on that, as well.

I have some other amendments. I want to comment on the discussion that was had with Lan Pham before and some of the member’s comments about why those changes to Plan Change 1 were made. Waikato was the one that he was referring to. He said that there had been discussions with iwi and he made it sound as if the iwi were happy with the provisions relating to Waikato Regional Council’s Plan Change 1. I’m asking the member in the chair if he can confirm that I heard right and that he is, in fact, saying that those Waikato Regional Council Plan Change 1 changes are something that the Waikato River settlement iwi want. If he thinks about it some more and decides that that’s not the case, perhaps he would like to endorse and vote for my amendment that was tabled today at 6.31 p.m., and that is to delete the proposed additions (ba) and (bb) after clause 74B—because that is not what I have heard.

Mr Chair, if I can just go for a short period more on this, there’s also this issue with the Manawatū-Whanganui regional council One Plan. The member in the chair said about them, “Oh, we don’t know. We didn’t know how they were going to turn out at the Environment Court. They’ve turned out of the Environment Court now and we’re going to change the whole scheme of things at some point in the future and talk about it in a different bill, so we should just press pause.” That is what this Government has done time and time again to planning documents that protect the environment. These planning documents have gone through the court process over many years and at great expense, and just like this House did recently in the Smith v Fonterra case, they are taking away the result of that court process, and that is atrocious.

These amendments have just come in on 26 August at 7.26 p.m. We started on this bill on 25 August at 7.30 p.m., four minutes after this amendment to the amendment was tabled, and whilst Ministers might have said something about it, this is a terrible way to make laws. The member in the chair is not taking the time to talk through what this means, about the commercial vegetable growing being permitted. He’s made some hasty comments to Lan Pham—in a terse voice, may I add. I do wonder if the member can agree with me that this is a significant matter to be including: that people have gone to court, they’ve gotten a result, and now, in effect, what we are doing is overturning part of that result. Is that correct? That’s one question.

The second one was about whether the river authorities think that the amendment is fine regarding Plan Change 1, and if he will agree with my amendment to delete the Minister’s amendment to the amendment. Thank you.

Three great questions. Well, for those watching and present in the Chamber, if my tone was serious, that’s all it was. This is a serious matter. This Government intends to replace the Resource Management Act (RMA) with a system that—

Todd Stephenson: That works—it just works.

SIMON COURT: —provides for the enjoyment of property, and, as Todd Stephenson pointed out, works.

To the member the Hon Rachel Brooking’s question about the river iwi, they were consulted on, they provided feedback, and it is not for me to look into the minds of others to determine whether they’re happy or not. What we have done is provide for Te Ture Whaimana o te Awa o Waikato as the preeminent tool for managing the environment as set out in the bill and the Act. That’s what we intended to do. We intended to give, to the fullest extent possible, effect to the Treaty settlements and to give them the same effect as they have in the RMA. So, while the Government has put a stop to and deferred some aspects of Plan Change 1, what we would expect to see is, while that is deferred—and I’m just searching for a note—we have also included a requirement when new plans are made under the new system to have regard to Plan Change 1 when developing natural environment plans, to acknowledge the work done to date. It’s a serious matter—water quality in the Waikato and the Waipā—and we want to make sure that it’s addressed, but it won’t be through some of the provisions of Plan Change 1.

The member had a question about the Hauraki Gulf. The amendments made to the legislation uphold the existing relationship that the Hauraki Gulf has with respect to the Resource Management Act. I think that’s enough for now.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I know that my colleagues will still have questions regarding the Minister responsible for RMA Reform’s last-minute amendment, but I do want to check a few things with the Parliamentary Under-Secretary Simon Court, starting with clause 270. Again, I’m looking at, specifically, amendments that were made in the Minister’s Amendment Paper 709. For clause 270, on page 208, a new provision has been added, which is clause 270(1)(b), around section 21 on the Summary Proceedings Act 1957.

Now, section 21 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 allows certain infringement notices to be given by the District Court. We have seen previously that, in this case, the Environment Court has the same power conferred to them as the District Court. Can I check with the Parliamentary Under-Secretary that, in this case, an infringement notice can also be issued by the Environment Court if it had the same power as the District Court? That’s my first question.

Clause 271(1) is what’s going to empower, I guess, Schedule 8, so I’m going to ask a question regarding Schedule 8. On pages 446 and 447—this is clause 20 of Schedule 8—I’m specifically looking at the changes that were made in clause 20(1)(c) and clause 28. This is Amendment Paper 709. In both cases, “enforceable undertaking” has been removed—

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Sorry, which Amendment Paper was that again?

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: This is the Minister’s Amendment Paper 709, pages 446 and 447, clause 20(1)(c) and clause 8. Both of them are serving the same purpose. Can I just check, when you’re talking about non-compliance in the case of an enforcement undertaking and offered as part of an enforcement undertaking, because I see that enforcement undertaking is still a tool that is being used, are they being removed? Because, in this case, enforceable undertaking as opposed to, I think, prosecution is no longer available in instances of non-compliance under adverse publicity orders. Can I check with the Parliamentary Under-Secretary on that particular reading, since both have been deleted?

Simon Court: Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): He’s still going.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Sorry. I can actually wait, if the member has—

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Do you want to go?

Yeah, let’s crack into it. Enforceable undertaking is provided for in clause 2, Schedule 28, page 447. It’s all set out there. I invite the member Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan to read it, familiarise himself with it—it’s very helpful.

Question No. 1: the Environment Court is a civil court; the District Court provides criminal penalties. They’re different. We’ll leave it at that.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I will move on to proposed clause 217A. This particular section is also quite a substantial addition. I can’t see that part being transferred from other parts. This is “Proceedings against the Crown”. Correct me if that’s a move from another section. Can I check with the under-secretary what the rationale is for this particular clause, seeing as it also came to the House post - select committee stage.

I noticed that a number of my colleagues have moved on to Schedule 11. Now, one of the questions I have for Schedule 11 is, there has been a number of additions and changes, and one of the things we have seen throughout this bill is changes around—I can’t remember the specific section, but what I’ve found is there are a lot of mentions of particularly iwi settlements or changes in the legislation that, potentially, will have consequential amendments because of the removal and the repeal of the Resource Management Act (RMA). One of the bills that I have not seen there—considering this Amendment Paper 709 came to the House last Friday, I believe, as well as a new tabled amendment by the Minister just yesterday, I would like to ask the member why Te Here ā Nuku (Nelson Tenths) Act, which was given Royal assent last Thursday and which has significant mentions of the RMA as well, is not mentioned in any of the amendments by the Minister at all.

In response to the member’s question on how the Act applies to the Crown, for the member’s benefit, proposed clause 271A is a move from 9(5) to (12).

Kia orana, Mr Chair. I’d like to ask the member a question in relation to clause 282A. This is relating to the “Regulations [for] hearings processes and hearings authorities”. Now, one proposed change here in subclause (1)(a) is, effectively, the removal of the word “efficient”. The first question is whether or not the Government’s intention is for those hearings to not be efficient but rather just be focused on control, as the removal of the word seems to indicate.

The second is in relation to subclause (1)(b). This is where the Governor-General may make regulations around the eligibility for appointment as hearing commissioners. Now, it says there, “including requirements that those persons must be accredited:”. Now, in this Chamber, we’ve heard from members about the nature of accreditation. I think Mr Arbuckle talked about the fact, previously, when this bill was before the House, that he himself had been an accredited hearings commissioner. I think that might have been when he was in his dual role as an MP and a district councillor at the same time. But, none the less, the question that I have for the Minister is: is it the intention of the Government that there is no accreditation as a possibility, or is it that there is still accreditation but that the type of accreditation might change? At the moment, it’s the making good decisions accreditation—that’s what it’s commonly known as. That’s what is required for people to be credited. So is it more that there is a possibility that regulations exist or could be made to not allow for accredited persons, or just that there is still accreditation, but the nature could change from making good decisions to some other sort of title?

We have taken the decision that the details around the accreditation of commissioners do not need to be in primary legislation. For all of those fascinated by the detail, the layout, and the processes in this legislation, this is an example of modern drafting, where matters such as the details about who can be a commissioner and their accreditation can be left to secondary legislation.

Thank you. I appreciate the response, but the response does not address the second part of the question that I posed—

Hon Simeon Brown: I think it did.

TANGI UTIKERE: Well, Mr Brown might think that it did, but he’s not in the chair. Is this seeking to allow for those appointed to hearings panels to not have any accreditation?

As I pointed out, the details about who is qualified or accredited and what the processes are for those to be appointed can sit quite safely and with the fullness of time can be developed in a way that, potentially, the member even wants to contribute to.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m still waiting on a response from the member in the chair regarding my question around Te Here ā Nuku (Nelson Tenths) Act. In that Act, it does mention the Resource Management Act (RMA), and if the RMA is repealed under this bill and that Act mentions that, what does it mean for that particular Act that was just passed last week? I think that would be helpful to note.

Since we’re talking about secondary legislation, I think, then, this is a good time to move on to clause 281 on “Regulations”. I want to focus on a couple of things here. Number one is the proposed addition of (1)(d), through Amendment Paper 709, which is around “prescribing the form … (i) for any application, notice, certificate or other document or information required under this Act:” I just want to check on the rationale for that particular addition.

One of the things that’s interesting, I think, from a Regulations Review Committee perspective, is (1)(g), which is around the prescription of fees under this section. I wondered if the chair of the Regulations Review Committee may also be interested in delving further into this as well. Part of that is to do with the fees that are going to be prescribed in this case and how one would be able to check that the fees are charged in a way that measures the kind of requirement—because the idea of fees is to offset the function of a particular board or particular registry agency, but I just want to check whether there are any provisions around the fees setting.

Now, I notice that there are other sections here as well, but I think one of the things that I can’t see at this stage is whether there is any formal requirement for a review process as well in terms of any regulations. Now, we’ve seen a large number of regulations that are mentioned throughout this particular bill. There’s a lot of secondary legislations involved, but that also, again, potentially means that there needs to be some sort of review mechanisms for that secondary legislation as well. That will be, I guess, in many ways, a sensible thing to do. But what I’m seeing is no mention, at this stage, of any sort of sunset clause or any particular review mechanisms. I do have additional questions because clauses 281 and 282 have some quite significant changes in Amendment Paper 709, but I’ll leave those questions for the time being.

Going back to the member’s question about the Nelson Tenths, despite the fact that the legislation was only passed last week, it does mention the Resource Management Act (RMA) replacement legislation too. It’s futureproofed, and it refers to subdivision under the RMA, which will remain under that legislation for the transition period until the new legislation fully transitions. We’ve got that.

As far as fee setting is concerned, that’s a carry-over from the RMA. If the member was familiar with the Resource Management Act, as I’m sure at least 1½ people in this Chamber are, that would not be new.

I want to go back to the discussion I was having with the member in the chair about the Waikato River Authority and Plan Change 1. He said that we’ve negotiated the new 10A in the legislation and that, ostensibly, that’s enough. So even though the river authority might not be happy with the court case being paused or stopped—or whatever word you want to use—even though that decision from the Environment Court was made and there were outcomes of that court case that they liked that are now being overturned by this legislation, the member is saying, “Well, that doesn’t matter, because we have 10A.” Can he confirm that that’s the stated position?

Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, the member the Hon Rachel Brooking might wish to characterise it in any way that suits her world view, but the Government did engage with the river iwi, we got their feedback, and it’s very clear in clause 10A—which is, by the way, in Part 1, and we’re now on to Part 6—that we have provided for Te Ture Whaimana and the provisions of that Treaty settlement in the way that they were ascribed in the Resource Management Act (RMA), and there is a general Treaty clause preservation - type clause, which says that we will give “to the greatest extent possible” equivalent recognition or provision that was available under the RMA in the new system. This has been debated, questioned, and answered at length over the previous, essentially, two days, so I hope that satisfies the member.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I wish to take a call on clause 281, “Regulations”, particularly subclause (1)(f) to (h), which set the fee-setting powers. I want to ask the member in the chair, Simon Court, about—we have had previous discussions about fee setting, but those are about councils who were able to recover costs in an administrative sense; this is a much broader power than that. It’s the broadest fee-setting power that I’ve seen. It is one that, essentially, says “Any excise of public power is something that you can charge for, and Cabinet, via Order in Council, can set any fee.” So there’s no parliamentary check. The first question to the member in the chair is: did he consider making these confirmable instruments, given just how broad they are, and, if they’re not confirmable instruments, what is the check and balance?

There are access-to-justice issues in setting high fees for something which is an excise of public power. We’re expressly contemplating, say, not only the Environment Court fees, which are set by the rules that are agreed by the Minister and the Chief Environment Court Judge, but then we got an answer earlier in this session from the Minister that it is clause 281 which sets entirely the rules of the tribunal. We’re deciding who gets to appear and how much they pay for that in these rules. There was also an earlier answer around how the cost recovery mechanisms were intended to work for the planning tribunals. We understand the policy perspective that the Minister has brought to the Chamber, which is that applicants are not meant to entirely shoulder the burden of those costs, but that’s still going to be determined entirely by the Order in Council mechanism, which sets a fee, and there’s no tension in the system to make sure that those fees are low and that people have the ability to participate in these processes.

We won’t come back through to paragraph (h), so I just want to make sure that the member in the chair is comfortable that these are very broad fees and that the only check on them is that offences are not going to exceed $2,000 and $4,000. Does he, then, intend that to be a ballpark figure for the fees themselves, so the fees are going to be under the offence numbers?

Going back to my discussion with the member in the chair, Simon Court, about Schedule 11 and the amendments to Schedule 11 at the very last minute—four minutes before we started debating this bill—no, I am not satisfied with his explanation, because we are talking about a court case decision being overturned. So we can put new clause 10A to one side, and I’ve heard his reasoning then—

Ryan Hamilton: It’s just paused.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Oh, it’s just paused—just paused for ever.

Dr Hamish Campbell: No, six years.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: No, clearly the intent that we’ve heard from the member in the chair is that that is the end of it, because the system is going to change everything and enable more pollution, which we’re going to talk about in the next bill. That is a disgrace. People have gone through the court process, and this House, and that Government is once again taking away their rights. The member in the chair is welcome to address that point, which he has not yet.

Going to Part 6—and clause 294 is “Amendments to other legislation”, then new clause 295 is “Repeal of Resource Management Act”, and this does go to section 2, and I’m sure we’ll discuss this in the title and commencement phase. I’m just wondering if the member in the chair sees some irony in the fact that his Government brought back the Resource Management Act and now he’s had to do an amendment, just last week, to repeal it again. That’s one question: does he see the irony there?

Camilla Belich: Here we are again.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: And here we are again: three years of delay.

Now, another question is on Schedule 8, which is the schedule that, I believe, Tangi Utikere was asking questions about before, which is “Enforcement matters.” It’s a question that goes to more than just this part of the bill, but at clause 20 of the schedule, there is “Adverse publicity orders”, and, at subclause (2), “An adverse publicity order may require the person to do 1 or more of the following: (a) take any specified action to publicise—(i) the non-compliance:”. Here is the bit that I am interested in: paragraph (ii), “any effects on the built environment, natural resources or people,”. My question around this is that there is a deletion of “impacts on human health or the environment”. That has been changed to “effects on the built environment, natural resources or people,”.

I think that why the change has happened is because of the definition of “built environment”, which is entirely non-sensical and unintuitive and will confuse everybody, but it seems to be, again, a slogan. I am here wearing my “built environment” dress and I am interested in the comments that the member might have—and “heritage” dress, as well—on why it is that the phrasing has changed to “built environment”, and if he agrees with me that this is not an intuitive phrasing and will cause a lot of confusion.

The member has raised a number of important questions. I want to try to address a number of questions, including ones which were outstanding, about the fees. The question about the fees from the esteemed chair, I understand, of the Governance and Administration Committee—

Hon Members: Regs Review.

SIMON COURT: “Regs Review”—thank you; the Regulations Review Committee, which I have had the benefit of sitting on for a very limited time following Cyclone Gabrielle, passing emergency legislation. I appreciate how much work goes on in that committee. All fees would have to demonstrably relate to a function that is carried out under the Act. That is the tension. Fees can’t be created in a way that is not able to be related back.

I want to address the question that I think maybe Lawrence Xu-Nan had about clause 281(1)(f)(ii). That, on fees, is very similar to section 360F of the Resource Management Act (RMA). We tried as far as practical to preserve the process parts of the RMA, because we did not intend to try to recreate the whole world of resource management. We tried to keep—what did we say when it comes to infrastructure? Maintain and make the best use of what you’ve got before you start building new. There’s an example of that when it comes to legislation.

There were some other questions that the member had about Plan Change 1. I want to acknowledge that there may be a number of people who are not satisfied with what the Government has done around Plan Change 1, but I want to make the point that the Environment Court dutifully handled Plan Change 1, the application for plan change; provided a decision, which itself was litigated; and eventually, after what, I understand, was over a decade, Plan Change 1 was finally published. One of the important things when you’re in Government and when you’re at Parliament and you make laws is that you sometimes have to wait for other parts of the system to do their thing before you can react to it. I consider that the Government was patient, was attentive to the decision that came out from the Environment Court, and took deliberate, measured, and sensitive action in response.

I will explain again: we have deferred some aspects of Plan Change 1 because they did not fit into the new system and they’re going to be very expensive, time-consuming, a massive drag, most administratively in the implementation on the people affected by it. So we parked it, but we have provided for Te Ture Whaimana to come through into the new system—that’s provided for in legislation explicitly—and for plan makers in the Waikato and the Waipā region to have regard to Plan Change 1 when they create the new plan under the new system. I would not, again, say that I expect the member to be satisfied, but I hope the explanation is sufficient.

There was another matter—I’ve got a list here, and forgive me if I have so many lists that I may have missed something. The member identified clause 295, “Repeal of Resource Management Act 1991”. Well, we don’t have to go back too far to when a previous Government developed—with some consultants, over five years or so, led by an esteemed RMA lawyer Tony Randerson, some planners, and other lawyers—a prescription for the Natural and Built Environment Act, which took an entire term of the previous Government to develop and pass, and which I hear, from those tasked with implementing it, it would have been impossible to implement. Rather than trying to panel beat a wreck, rather than trying to refloat a boat that’s got holes punched in it, floated off a reef, we don’t believe in the sunk-cost fallacy on this side of the House. We don’t keep going with things that are not going to work and be inefficient and cost people money. So we stopped Parker’s—the previous Government’s—bill and we repealed it, and we were forced to bring the Resource Management Act back until we brought this into the House.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ll take the member Simon Court to the planning consent levy, which is at page 221. This is an issue which has been raised with the committee and with the Minister. In his own departmental disclosure statement for this bill prepared by the public servants, it recognised that this is a general levy-setting power which is more similar in nature to a tax than to the other fee-setting powers in the rest of the bill, so he will be able to speak to some of these issues.

First question is: how much will that be? And the second question is: it’s a reasonable question for people who are levied with this new charge, this new form of a tax, to ask why they’re paying a fee which is associated with the lodging of a consent that is not reasonably associated with the processing of that consent; that they’re being charged for something which is actually developing the national standards, which benefits all system users, but they are not all system users. This is not a levy which is being charged against everyone who benefits from the making of consents; it is a charge which has been levied against new consents only. Arguably, there are far more system users who are people who have existing consents, who are benefiting from those national plans and the making of those national instruments and regional instruments that the charge is paying for, and yet it is only levied against the much smaller number of new participants.

I also want to ask him specifically about clause 283(4)(b), at the bottom of page 221. You can either prescribe the amount of the levy—so answer the question: how much are we being taxed?—or you can have a methodology. The problem with allowing a regulator to set a methodology is that it will also then be impossible for people who are lodging a consent to know how much they are being charged. You can understand from the regulator’s perspective why they would want to see the methodology. If you are requiring a big consent, you will pay more. If you are this type of consent and it’s complicated, you will pay more. But the problem with that is that, if you end up with a methodology that, say, sets an hourly rate and does not give you any indication of how many hours will be spent on processing your consent, and that will be the fee, that will be the special magic number which is used to determine the levy that you’re paying for the national consenting programme.

The problem with that is that it becomes completely unknowable and then you’ve got a charge within the system which people can’t predict. This Government has spent a long time in this committee stage trying to tell us that it is trying to be enabling and to change the system to one which allows people to foresee the costs and to make informed decisions about that.

I also want to ask the Minister about subclause (4B). The exemption here—it’s good that there is an exemption under (a)(i) for existing customary rights, they will not pay the levy. But what about those consents that apply to Māori land? There are already special provisions which apply to not only the rating of Māori land but the payment for, say, changes in subdivisions associated with Māori land at the local authority level. Those are set on the basis of a case called Mangatū, which sets out how charges are meant to be set in relation to Māori land. There is no exemption here for Māori land consents, though. So how is it that the Order in Council is going to make allowances for the different charges that are appropriate to levy against Māori land because of the different commercial value of it?

Just in relation to clause 283, I’m advised that it’s not a fee, it’s not cost recovery; it funds some system costs. It is not only for new consents.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I do want to thank the member in the chair previously, Simon Court, on the responses to Te Here ā Nuku. That’s actually really, really helpful.

Just looking at the regulation clauses, I want to check with the Minister responsible for RMA Reform regarding new clause 282(1)(e). Again, in clause 282(1), there have been some significant changes in Amendment Paper 709—and this is on page 219. This particular one I was interested in because there are other instances where it talks about fees or waivers when it comes to something that the Environment Court may potentially direct, but what it doesn’t actually specify—I think this is the only instance in this bill—is a waiver for construction management plans as secondary legislation or as a regulation. I wondered—this clause doesn’t seem to be a carry-over, for example—if the Minister wouldn’t give some examples of what a waiver for construction management plans could potentially look like, considering this is a last-minute addition to this bill.

Following on—and I think the member Arena Williams had some excellent questions around levies and fees, and, indeed, this is something that we’ve been considering quite closely, as well—one of the things I want to check with the Minister is actually starting with clause 283(1), and this is subclause (2)(a). Again, I’m trying to focus on amendments in Amendment Paper 709. This is a really good example of where there is potentially certain limitations on secondary legislation and regulations, and, in this case, the time frame specified in clause 5 of Schedule 1. I wanted to check with the Minister, as well, that—you know, there are a lot of regulations in this that are supposed to be set as secondary legislation, but we don’t see a lot of limitations on what some of that could potentially look like, or the scope of some of that. I wonder whether there are going to be mechanisms that allow for the review of secondary legislation here.

My final question for the time being—and just signalling to you, Mr Chair, I don’t think I have a lot more on Part 6, but I’m going to be moving on to Schedule 11 in the subsequent calls. The last one I want to check at this stage is new clause 283B(1)(ea). This is to do with national standards, fees payable by a person, and when a national standard empowers a local authority to charge for that—

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): What was that again?

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Sorry?

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Oh, sorry, I’ve got it here.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: It’s clause 283B(1), new paragraph (ea).

And I just want to check, again, the addition for this particular section on what that would mean, and how local authorities would be able to interpret that. And whether this—I can’t see it immediately—if the Minister wouldn’t mind just saying what the limitation it is to charge some of those fees for monitoring.

Very briefly, in relation to the outline—construction management plans, it’s a new word for “outline plans”. I’m advised it’s a carry-over from the Resource Management Act in relation to that.

In relation to the member Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s point around administrative fees in clause 283B(1)(ea), it is as laid out there. It’s “payable by a person carrying out a permitted activity for the local authority carrying out its monitoring functions in relation to that activity, if national standards empower the local authority to charge for the monitoring:”” it’s relatively straight forward.

In relation to oversight, I’d encourage the member to join the very hard-working and erstwhile Regulations Review Committee, which I started my parliamentary career on, and it’s a great learning ground for all members.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m proud to stand as the previous deputy chair of the great Regulations Review Committee in my first term. I do want to go back to—the previous member in the chair widened the scope somewhat of these arguments when we were talking about Part 6 and the repeal of the Resource Management Act, to tell me how terrible the Natural and Built Environment Act was and how it would not be implemented well. I need to get it on record to this Minister that I have talked to people up and down the country, including just on Monday, senior practitioners, but also a whole lot of other people as well, who just do not think that this legislation is workable. And I’ve offered up amendment after amendment to try and make it workable.

Even if you put all the policy things aside, if you say, “It’s fine to ruin the environment, it’s fine to shift all the focus in the economy from individuals who use things to the general public.”—even if you agree with all of that, it still doesn’t work, and that’s a real problem. I again offer the Minister our time and energy in terms of—we would like to see this legislation work—if it does two things. It’s more efficient and does better for our environment. Two simple things: it’s more efficient and does better for our environment. Two simple things.

Now, going to some more specific questions, at Schedule 11, I have a published amendment—741 I think, if I can read my handwriting—that is to the bit about the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act 2008. And after section 9, there is an insertion—

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): What page is that?

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: It’s at page 552. Sorry, this Schedule 11 is very difficult to work with. At new section 9B, “Regional Spatial plan”, at (2), “When adopting or amending a regional spatial plan, the Council must ensure that its provisions are not inconsistent with the purpose of this Act”—meaning the Waitakere Ranges—“or the objectives.” So rather than not “inconsistent with” my amendment is to “must give effect to” the purpose of that Waitakere Ranges Act. So I wonder if the Minister would consider that change.

Another published amendment I have on Schedule 11—and this is an important one, relates to section 104, which is at page 563.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Is this one of your amendments?

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: I have a published amendment on the Minister’s amendment—well, on the bill as reported back from the Environment Committee.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Have you got the time stamp?

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: My amendment is 691 and the page number of the Minister’s amendment is 563. On 563, there is a subheading two-thirds down the page, section 104. This is a very important one, because it goes to the effects that can be considered in the consent application and the time for when those commence.

I had an amendment relating to boundaries, so I’ll go through what section 104(1A) of Schedule 11 is. It is an insertion, and this is as amended by the Minister’s amendment, that states, “When considering the effects of the district land use activity, a consent authority must disregard any adverse effects arising from the following matters:”—so these are the things that can’t be considered. It’s changed from “the external layout of any building on a site if the effects of the external layout remain within the boundaries of the site:”.

I had an amendment around the boundaries, but the provision has been subsequently changed so that the list of things that are excluded are “(a) any of the following:”, and it includes something about windows in relation to outdoor living space, “the internal fit-out”—and we’ve talked about couches before—“the minimum unit size”, “the outlook space”, and “landscaped areas for the construction of a building (except in relation to permeability):”. Permeability is very important, so I’m glad that permeability is excluded from the exception.

The question I have here is really around urban design. Does the Minister interpret the section as meaning that there is no urban design, and, if so, given that this section will come into effect within a month of the bill getting its commencement, is that going to require a lot of work from councils to work out how to do that?

Then, in terms of permeability, this is very important for stormwater, so how does it relate in terms of that? Often, with landscaping, there’ll be a landscaping requirement. You might look at it at face value and say, “Oh, that’s annoying, considering what I should plant where.”, but, in fact, it might go to permeability. But it might not specify that it goes to permeability, so how are the councils supposed to work out what this permeability relates to? That is the first question, and then the urban design one is the other one on that.

Yeah, OK.

Hon Rachel Brooking: And the boundaries; why the change to the boundaries?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yeah, yeah, I got the point. This has been covered extensively. There’s already special legislation in place for the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area—

Hon Rachel Brooking: I want to change the test.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, I don’t agree with you—you know what it does, and I don’t agree. I think we’ve covered that issue off.

In relation to clause 104 of Schedule 11, there’s actually a Government Amendment Paper on this, another one—some further changes. The member, I think, was talking about fit-out.

Arena Williams: Are you talking about 726?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: 709. It’s the statutory land market officer one.

Arena Williams: What time?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: 709; it’s right at the end, page 9. There are actually a few changes here—so the area of glazing; the presence or absence of balconies. Where it currently says—I’m not quite sure what it says about balconies, but that’s made it clear—outdoor living space, internal layout rather than fit-out, there was a view that fit-out of a building may mean that people would—

Arena Williams: What does “fit-out” mean?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, “fit-out” could go to appliances and furnishings, whereas the thing we’re trying to exclude from the system is layout. I feel like we’re kind of Lawrence Xu-Nan redux, because 90 minutes or so ago we had a long feng shui conversation. So layout’s out; the size of the landscaped areas—the member asked: does this get rid of urban design? I mean, it doesn’t eradicate it, but—

Hon Rachel Brooking: Low bar.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, the new system moves more towards getting rid of some of these urban design elements. This is the transitional stuff on the way through. The full list of excluded effects is in a different part of the bill, as the member knows. As I understand it, this is on the way through. We want to get these quick wins in place so that you don’t get, as I recounted to the committee of the whole House before, council planning officers saying, “I’m going to deliver your consent because I don’t like the size of your TV and the way it faces the street, or I don’t like—”

Hon Rachel Brooking: Have you got one example of that happening?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: There are multiple examples of that happening. It happens all over the place. For example, the council in Napier that decided the social housing development in the middle of Napier required Juliette balconies, which meant that the social housing developer built three fewer social homes for people because the cost of building the apartments with Juliette balconies went through the roof. We don’t need councils dictating to social housing suppliers that they need to have Juliette balconies. I didn’t even know what a Juliette balcony was. I know now.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): What is it? We all want to know now.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: A Juliette balcony is a tiny little balcony, and they’re pointless because you can’t really stand on them. You can smoke out them, but you can’t really stand on them, and so they’re pointless. They’re decorative. They look nice. Our view is that councils should not be able to dictate that houses, or apartments, actually, should have Juliette balconies. If you want a Juliette balcony, go for your life, but the council shouldn’t be able to tell that you should have one.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): That was a very Shakespearean answer, and I think we’re all illuminated. I’m going to go to Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you to the Minister responsible for RMA Reform for the previous response on the construction management plan, but my question to the Minister was more on the waiver part. I guess another way of asking that question is, are there actually any existing secondary legislation waiving—what was the term?

Hon Chris Bishop: Yes. It’s the status quo.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: OK, great. Thank you. That’s all I wanted to check. I’m going to move on to schedule 11 now. My broader question to schedule 11, because schedule 11 is quite substantial, is that—I guess this is just a general question. There are a lot of changes to Amendment Paper 709. A lot of them are consequential amendments that have only been picked up in this amendment. I guess my question is, if the Parliamentary Counsel Office etc., found another legislation later on that should have been captured in here, what happens to it? Do they have to bring it under the bill, or are they able to be inserted through other means? Because, presumably, you can only make changes through a primary legislation. I do want to know what happens to consequential amendments if they get picked up later and that weren’t picked up here. That’s my first question, but I have additional questions.

Hon Rachel Brooking: Mr Chair.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Oh, OK.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Keep going.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: I’ll keep going with just a few more questions. The Minister mentioned before that lawyers who are watching, potentially, there might be things that they might be specifically looking at. I want to check with the Minister on—this is page 520 of Amendment Paper 709—and this is to do with this consequential amendments to the Fast-track Approvals Act, and I’m specifically looking at the new additions in clauses 18 and 20, which is when referral applications or substantive applications are lodged during the transition period. I do find it difficult to follow the particular drafting here, particularly when you’re looking at clauses 18(a) and 2(a), which says that “the application must continue to be processed and determined—(a) under this Act as in force immediately before it was amended…(b) in relation to the RMA.” So under the Fast-track Act, it is in force, I’m assuming. If the Minister wouldn’t mind just elaborating on that particular point.

My last call for this particular call is on the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987—this is on page 537—which has given a specific definition of “climate change”. Now, I went and had a look at the main legislation here—the Local Government Official Information Meeting Act—which has a reference to the previous Resource Management Act (RMA). I guess the question is then, in this particular case, if “climate change” has been redefined in that Act, why couldn’t it be defined now in the Planning Act so that other legislation could be referring to the definition under this Act as opposed to inserting his own new definition?

The answer is, if you want to change the law, you have to legislate, so yes, they’re consequential amendments, yes. I mean, we’re going to—

Arena Williams: That’s not what you’ve done at clause 282A.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: In what way?

Arena Williams: Can I take a call?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: No, please don’t. In relation to page 520, schedule 11, the Fast-track insertions are transitional provisions to apply to the processing of RMA approvals sought via fast track when the system swaps over.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Members, the time has come for me to leave the Chair. The committee of the whole House will resume tomorrow at 9 a.m.

Debate interrupted.

Sitting suspended from 11.56 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Thursday)