Planning Bill

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to go first to “Commencement”, and then I’ll, at some point, talk about the “Title”. It’s very important to note that there have been a number of changes since the Environment Committee looked at this bill, and so it would, of course, as always, be useful for the member in chair, Simon Court, to explain what those changes are and why they’ve happened; that’s one question.

Then I want to look, first, at clause 2(1A), and that is the list of “The following provisions come into force 1 month after Royal assent:”, and as we were discussing in the last debate, one month after Royal assent is very soon, presumably. It’s going to be incredibly close to the election. Generally, big policy changes aren’t made so close to an election. Particularly, we were in the last debate asking: why were councils ready to make these changes so quickly? The member in the chair, Simon Court, told me that the policy decision seemed to be based on vibes. I asked for evidence about any consents around fixtures; no evidence was given. So this is policy based on vibes, based on anecdote, and it’s going to come into effect in a month’s time from the commencement, when all the other provisions won’t be commencing—just this one that’s going to affect planning behaviour very quickly. From a policy point of view, I do not disagree when the member and the Minister in the chair talk about expensive structural changes such as Juliet balconies, but I was asking questions about fixtures and I have not yet got them, so this is based on vibes.

Given the proximity to the election, I would suggest—and I don’t have a tabled amendment to do this, but I’ll put it here that, in fact, the following provision should come into force six months after Royal assent. That would give some time to deal with the election that is coming on just 7 November. We are at the end of August; we stop being in Parliament from 24 September. This bill will not have its third reading this week, so we know that that Royal assent cannot happen in the next month, but it could be happening in that month after the next month—so into the end of October at the earliest, or into November. So this is very proximate to the election. Let’s move it a bit from the election. That is one question: will the member in the chair consider that change?

Then we have, at subclause (2), “The following provisions come into force on a date or dates set by Order in Council:”, and there are a lot of different provisions here until we get to proposed new subclause (3), which is that “Any part of this Act that has not come into force 4 years after Royal assent comes into force then.” So we’ve got the backstop of four years at (3); that’s fine, and we’ve got these first provisions coming online at the election, but then we’ve got this whole set of significant changes that come into force on dates set by Order in Council. So what that is is vague. It is uncertain. We do not know when all of these different changes will be made. So my question to the member in the Chair about those provisions—and I accept that there are reasons for why you commence different provisions by Order in Council, but if he can give us some answer as to why those provisions are chosen to be by Order in Council, noting that again we have this big amendment.

Then, going to proposed new subclause (2C), which is—and he didn’t answer my question before about irony—the repeal of the Resource Management Act, because, of course, this Government brought back the Resource Management Act and then it’s going to get rid of it again, but we don’t know when because it’s going to be enforced on a date set by an Order in Council. So those are my questions on commencement.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair, and I thank the member for her questions. In answer to the question of what’s changed through this amendment, we’ve added a backstop commencement date of four years, and we’ve added a new subclause (2AA), which is available for the member to consider. It’s to provide for commencement provisions, essentially, for the land market officer. So those are the changes that this amendment makes.

The member asked a question about commencement: why commence it one month after Royal assent? Why not wait for an election and then see what happens? Well, I need to inform the member that New Zealanders don’t expect reform and progress to be delayed by an election. They want action, and they want the benefits of this reform as soon as possible.

The member asked, “Well, isn’t there a lot of work to do, and, you know, are you confident?” Well, Ministry for Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport staff have been spending a lot of time preparing for transitional consenting to assist councils and applicants. Of course there is much work to do, but that’s what this Government is up for and that’s what officials are up for and that’s what council representatives I’ve spoken to have told me they’re up for. They want to get on with it. The member Hūhana Lyndon’s shaking her head—she disagrees. She’d rather retain the status quo, perhaps. That’s not what New Zealanders want.

I’ve answered the question about Order in Council. The system will be turned on by Order in Council, but there is provision, there is some flexibility. Just to come back to an answer that I gave the member Arena Williams in response to her question in a previous part of the debate around what if the Waikato’s ready but Auckland’s not and vice versa, there is some flexibility for a region by region transition in exceptional circumstances so that regions that are ready are not unnecessarily delayed by one or two incomplete plans elsewhere. So I’m happy to clarify that, and, further, happy to clarify my answer to a question in the previous debate that the bills provide a backstop date of four years, not five. Thank you, Mr Chair.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair. This is just a call about the statutory officer, the competitive land markets officer, and it’s an amendment that the Minister made while the committee stage was open to the commencement of this provision. Given that it’s a new provision, I just want to make sure with the member in the chair, Simon Court, that we understand the timing of that, because we’ve heard from the Minister over and over again that we’ll be building the plane as we are flying it. The Opposition has some enthusiasm for this policy, so this is not a general policy critique; this is a question about when these things will come into force.

Firstly, the the Hon Dr Duncan Webb is preparing right now an amendment which I would like the member to consider, that would mean that the general Order in Council and regulatory provision which allows a date to be set in future for the statutory officer to commence would be no later than 12 months. It was the 12 months that was discussed back and forth with the Minister around the operative provisions of the statutory land officer. I have been waiting patiently to take this call in clause 2. That is the best way to effect that policy change, to make sure that no more than 12 months in future—and as the Minister said, you might want to do that in Auckland only, but you could do that in Auckland only if you had a statutory officer which came into effect within no more than 12 months and then it was operative, because it can decide how it’s operative in Auckland only. But that is critically important to the policy, that we don’t see an unnecessary delay.

At the moment, his provision, I think, allows for five years for the statutory officer to come into effect as the maximum date. I think that is the wrong time period. When you look at the effect of 188A, the statutory officer is meant to have as much scope as possible for that new office to determine how and when it applies, but the problem is that we’ve allowed the making of regulations to determine when those powers become operative. So we’ve created, I think, what is an accidental tension in the system where the Ministry for Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport (MCERT) and the statutory officer will at times be deliberately intentioned—that is Parliament’s intent, that the statutory officer will at times be at odds with MCERT, but MCERT has the power to turn them on. We want to make sure that Parliament is clear here that the statutory officer is meant to be in place when the regime is, effectively, in effect, and it’s most important in Auckland.

So could the member just address that point about—there are two changes that the Minister made, one at 7.26; one at 5.40, around that—

Hon Rachel Brooking: Time-wise—she’s talking about times.

ARENA WILLIAMS: Just time-wise, for when the statutory officer will come into effect. I want him to turn his mind to whether there should be a maximum. We’ve got the amendment now, and I will bring him a copy.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Camilla Belich. Sorry, Camilla was trying to call earlier.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair, and good to be able to take a call on the commencement. I wondered if the member would just elaborate a wee bit. This is following on from the answers given to my colleague Rachel Brooking. When will the Act in its entirety, as set out in clause 2(2)(a) to (j), come into effect? What is the member proposing in terms of the details of the Order in Council? Can he tell us now the dates that all of those different provisions will come into effect? If he can’t tell us the date when all those provisions can come into effect, can he tell us the time frame for when the Order in Council, which is set out in these commencement provisions as secondary legislation, will be made available and a time frame for that?

I think the issue around the sensitivity of commencement for this particular bill is that we’re in a situation now where we’re a few weeks out from the election. We were here three years ago, and we suffered a significant amount of criticism as the Government of the time for making changes to the Resource Management Act prior to the election—a significant amount of unhelpful rhetoric saying that they would be better and how terrible it was that the Government was changing it so close to the election. Look, here we are, three years later, and this Government has brought back the Resource Management Act. Every damaging thing that has come out of every mouth of a member from the other side of this House saying how bad the Resource Management Act is is in force today because of the actions of this Government. That is the reason that these improvements could not be made to the Resource Management Act.

I think, probably, with the benefit of reflection, when we read the member’s memoirs at the time that he leaves Parliament, I’m not sure that he or Minister Bishop will in time agree with the approach that they’ve taken here, because as New Zealanders, we all agree that the Resource Management Act needs to change. We changed it and this Government brought it back. Now we’re in the frustrating position of looking at this commencement clause and not actually knowing the exact dates that these alleged improvements—some of them we think will be improvements and some of them we disagree with. My colleagues have put very, very well-thought-out, articulate amendments as to why those changes need to be made. But we don’t have clarity on that. I appreciate that there’s a backstop—I’ve understood that—but I think that it would be good if the member could answer those two questions.

The other thing I want to understand, and I know this has come through the select committee process, is when I read this commencement clause, it appears to me that some of the changes are less clear in the new drafting in terms of the exceptions and how they are drafted. So we have (2)(1), and it just has a full stop. This Act will come into force the day after Royal assent with some exceptions, full stop. Then we have to look at a separate provision. Now, normally we would have—this might be a bit detailed for the member—a colon, a semicolon, an “and”, some kind of joining word that actually links the changes to the commencement date with the overall duty. So why has that change been made? Why is it less clear than it was prior to coming back? Is the Minister proposing to clarify that?

This is important, because when these changes come into effect is when New Zealanders will, if there is any benefit to this legislation, as the member has purported to articulate, will actually have an effect. So, in a way, it’s the most important clause. There’s no clarity in it.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair. I know that my colleague Arena Williams is very keen to take a call as well on the amendment that she has now tabled, and hopefully the member in the chair has seen that amendment as well.

So I want to move on, backwards, up to clause 1, which is the title. We’ve just heard a bit of back and forth about the impending election. The member in the chair has said, “Oh, well, we’re allowed to make policy to continue so close to the election.” I remind the member that that is not what the now Government members were saying this time in the cycle three years ago.

The point that the member Camilla Belich was just making about the Resource Management Act and it now needing to be repealed again, and that we are here with this significant legislation where Government Ministers have not taken on board any of the Opposition’s concerns about it, when we know that when we win the election that it will be changed, that they are blustering on and could have taken the Natural and Built Environment Act and the Spatial Planning Act, they could have taken those Acts and made amendments to them. But, no, they chose to spend three years doing their own version and saying that they are going to commence right on the election. So I think that a better title for this Act than the Planning Act is “This is a Vanity Project.” [Interruption]

Then another one—I heard some disdain from the Government members, who have not been sitting in this House for quite as long as I have or the member in the chair, who have rehashed these arguments over and over again. We’ve been discussing urban design. This is important because the urban design provisions come into force just around the election. We had some word that I can’t now recall that the Minister said it wasn’t quite extinction, but it was on the way to extinction of urban design. So another title suggestion could be that this Act is the “Extinguishing of Urban Design Act 2025”.

Then, of course, we have a whole lot of this bill that is about what the member in the chair would say is the enjoyment of private property rights and the move from where private owners—people who enjoy that private property—have had to sometimes pay for resource consents and the like, that all of that economic activity is going to move on to the public. The member in the chair and the Minister as well have talked a lot about how they want to really enable everything. They talk in ways as if there will be no planning—that this is really the death of planning—because there’s going to be so much national direction that is undertaken by the Minister that then councils at that local level, they’re not allowed to look at place. I’ve put up a whole lot of amendments to say, “OK, well, what about that local place? What about that localism that Government members campaigned on three years ago that is all gone now?” So my suggestion is that this Act is the “Anti-planning Act 2025”, because I think that is what these Government members are trying to do. They’re trying to say, “We don’t have to have planning at the local level. Don’t worry everyone, the Minister will decide.”

Committee of the whole House

Mr Chair, with your indulgence, I might need a little longer than five minutes to respond to a number of questions. Starting with the question from the member Camilla Belich in relation to the member Arena Williams’ tabled amendment, asking why the statutory officer for competitive urban land markets could not be set up in 12 months. Well, I would expect that the Government will move very quickly to establish the statutory officer because we all have an interest in ensuring that there are competitive urban land markets, that land is available and affordable. That is one of the stated goals of this Government. We’ll be moving very quickly, but an Order in Council allows for it to be turned on as soon as ready. So it’s also important, because this is a new concept, that we get it right. I hope the member understands that getting it right is just as important as moving fast, but I absolutely accept the urgency of establishing the office and the officer and getting that office focused on making sure more land is available and it’s affordable and it’s where people want to live and develop. So we share that goal.

I’ll just come to the second question, which was from the member Camilla Belich, about a specified transition date. The member, and, I think, the Hon Rachel Brooking also, complained that this Government had had to resurrect the Resource Management Act (RMA). There are some difficult choices in life. One was between the previous Government’s Natural and Built Environment Act or bringing back the RMA, and we chose the least of those two poor options, the least worst—bringing back the RMA. But I would offer the members in the Opposition an opportunity: if they wish to be rid of the RMA once and for all, and getting rid of it faster, they could support the Government by voting for this legislation. They could call for a vote right now, and we could get the Planning Bill passed through committee stage right now.

Now, responding to Camilla Belich’s further questions: a specified transition date will be set once all plans are notified. It’s expected to be early 2030, and the date is in order for councils to allow for plans to be developed before the switch-over, because switching on without plans ready to go would cause chaos. We have taken a deliberate and considered approach to mapping out the transition.

Now I want to go into some of the transition details, in responding to questions from members from earlier. The “Commencement” clause provisions required to stand up the system will commence on Royal assent, as set out in the clause—for example, national instrument provision, system performance, regional spatial plans, and the Environment Court. That is because people who are participants in the system can get on and get started and we can start to see and realise some of the early benefits of the legislation immediately. One month after Royal assent, the changes to the RMA and fast-track provisions will take effect, and the Planning Tribunal will be switched on as soon as it is set up and ready, via a subsequent Order in Council. Then the focus will turn on to the features and matters set out in Schedule 1, clause 15. We’re working towards a specified transition date: 39 months is set out; four years as a backstop. The bills do provide that backstop date: four years from Royal assent to commence everything. I’m just making sure that I clarify that with respect to an answer I gave previously.

I just want to come to the member Rachel Brooking’s description of the “Title” clause and some proposed amendments to it. I’m disappointed in the member, because it is quite clear from reading the Planning Bill that it provides a framework for the enjoyment of land and sets out the goals that this Government intends the legislation to deliver through the framework in the bill. It provides many of the same features and processes, literally cut and paste, from the RMA that are non-controversial, so I would expect that a member with such extensive background as an RMA practitioner would offer a more constructive suggestion about the title.

Committee of the whole House

Oh, kia ora, Mr Chair. I wanted to speak to the issue of commencement and coming from a rural perspective where, you know, the dollar in council is stretched as it is, and in hapū and iwi it’s non-existent to participate in these processes. The fear or the concern, I guess, in terms of commencement being straight after Royal assent is that the system is not ready and councils are going to have to have a quickening of readiness to give effect to this process that will be stood up at haste while still trying to grapple with the day to day of what they continue to work through. As tangata whenua, we’ll be left behind once again.

Talking from a Tai Tokerau perspective, knowing that our regional spatial plans have only just started a conversation and we’ve only just gotten a working group together to try and bring councils together from a planning approach, there are significant worries within the North in terms of the speed by which they will be expected to stand up for this new machinery.

That’s my questioning to the Minister in terms of the haste, because we’ve heard from the Minister this morning, just now, saying, you know, “We have to move at pace, but it has to be done well.” So it’s all in the implementation, really. I signal from the North—we’ve got our joint committee across councils, and they asked, “Hey, we need some national tools, a digital platform that brings together all of the information and helps us at a national level to usher in these changes and map out the system.” That’s been happening at a regional and local level for a little bit, where we’ve got our own templates and tools, but where is something that can bring us together, some glue in the planning space?

So that’s a question around: are we ready enough for the commencement at haste, because we’re moving at pace; this is a fast-track planning bill that’s coming into effect very quickly, but also are the voices of tangata whenua being forgotten? In questioning the member in the chair, Simon Court, but also the Minister responsible for RMA Reform in terms of resource and support and provision for tangata whenua voice—because in readiness for this bill to come into effect, tangata whenua aren’t even at the table yet; council are talking to themselves. So the idea that somehow we’re going to be ready or we need to be ready at haste because of the commencement coming on so quickly forgets its Treaty partner, and it forgets the fact that not all councils are designed or resourced at the same level as well.

So that’s a pātai in terms of: why don’t we have commencement, say, 30 June 2027—give it a bit of time. Let’s get the system sorted. Let’s do it well but also do it in a timely fashion, and I don’t think that 30 June 2027 is too far away. I just think that gives a little bit more breathing space for our officials, for councils, and for, finally, tangata whenua to be acknowledged. Apparently, in the bill, councils and Crown are meant to acknowledge them because it’s in the bill, but there’s no provision, really, for us because we’re just taken into account. That doesn’t even qualify a conversation, sometimes; it can just be the reading of our Treaty settlements or statutory acknowledgments, te mea, te mea. [etc., etc.] So that’s a genuine question coming from regional, provincial New Zealand. Not all councils are the same. If we want to do it well, let’s push it out a little bit. I’m not saying three years; I’m saying just till 30 June 2027, and let’s get it going. Let’s set the system up appropriately, and as our Northland council’s joint management committee, who are trying to figure out how to come into this space—are there national tools and platforms that are going to be established to help us, for consistency and for mahi tahi, so we can learn and we can have a system that speaks to us all, no matter where we exist.

I recognise Tāmaki-makau-rau Auckland is special and different. They’re massive compared to us in the North, but, you know, in provincial New Zealand we need to have the safeguards in place in local government to be able to put bills such as this into place at haste—because it’s quickening; it’s quick—and, of course, we’re forgetting tangata whenua once again. Kia ora.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, respectfully to the member Hūhana Lyndon, who has raised a number of times concerns around participation, consultation, and involvement of Māori in the functions and processes set out in the Planning Bill, the Government is very clear that we intend to provide for Māori interests through Māori participation in the development of national instruments, regional spatial plans, and, subsequently, land use plans, through the identification and protection of sites of significance to Māori, including wāhi tapu, water bodies, sites in or on the coastal marine area, and enabling the development—so important—and protection of identified Māori land. While not all of this is set out in the level of detail the member might wish to see, it is provided for as an expectation, as the intention of the Government that that is on it.

In terms of the member’s suggestion around a delayed commencement date, New Zealanders have waited far too long for an enduring reform and reset of expectations of the resource management system. Turning it on one month after Royal assent will deliver on the ambitions of this Government, but also deliver for all New Zealanders who want a far simpler, more agile, responsive, and lower-cost planning system.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m wanting to speak regarding title and commencement, and I have a couple of proposed titles. One of the things that was elucidated through the process of us grilling the Ministers on the Planning Bill was the fact that the regulatory relief component of it, whereby property owners are to be compensated financially for protection of nature, is, in a very specific regard—that is the status of urban trees—totally unworkable and has been totally not thought out or thought through.

In that instance we have—I’ll give Tāmaki-makau-rau, Auckland, as an example, because I know it well—6,000 currently scheduled protected trees. The Minister clarified that perhaps only a third of those would retain some status because of their heritage value. That means trees with botanical amenity—ecological functions—would no longer be protected. If a council decided they wish to protect them, they would have to set up a framework for doing that and provide a mechanism of giving compensation for not destroying those trees.

When the Minister was asked what that compensation might be—some sort of figure—he had no idea. What is the budget for protecting 4,000 or 6,000 trees? Because indeed the heritage trees are still subject to regulatory relief. What is a tree worth? What is a 300-year-old tree worth? What is a 200-year-old tree worth? It provides these values. The Minister had no answer to that. What sort of budget is necessary to protect the 6,000 trees that this legislation takes out of protected status? There is no budget estimated. People have talked about a figure of $2 billion for implementing regulatory relief across the whole country, because the scale of inverting the principle of a commons that is good for the whole society, and therefore deserves a protected status, has been entirely inverted by this legislation.

Instead of seeing trees in a value to the whole of the society and therefore worthy of protection, this legislation says, “No, if you want to look after nature and the commons, you’ve got to pay for it.” It’s ideologically nonsensical and utterly unworkable in a practical sense, because who’s going to pay the regulatory relief? The ratepayer. Where does the money come from?

Francisco Hernandez: Sounds like a tax.

STEVE ABEL: It is a tax. Regulatory relief is a tax. Let’s be very clear about that. It’s unworkable ideological madness. What I’m proposing is that—

Todd Stephenson: It’s not a tax, mate. You don’t understand what a tax is.

STEVE ABEL: Take a call, Todd Stephenson. What I’m proposing is the name for the bill which is Planning (On Tree Destruction) Bill. Because that’s what it does: it plans on destruction of the most valuable and exceptional trees in our urban areas. In Nelson, in Auckland—about three quarters of the trees in Nelson will lose any status at all through the legislation.

You could call it the Chainsaw Massacre Bill. Because in 2012, when general tree protection was lifted—

Hon Member: Frivolous!

STEVE ABEL: In 2012, when general tree protection was lifted by the last National Government, John Key made a quote that he didn’t think that the chainsaws were going to be heard across Tāmaki-makau-rau, Auckland—he didn’t say Tāmaki-makau-rau—and they were. We saw a mass loss of urban trees because of the loss of general tree protection. This is not just getting rid of general tree protection, which hasn’t been reinstated. This is getting rid of the scheduling and protection of those most exceptional trees in our urban areas.

Another notable thing of this bill is its expectation that regulatory relief will be paid for protecting ecology on the hinterland of Auckland, in the space that goes into that magnificent Waitakere Ranges, the lungs of Auckland. That will have to be also compensated for. Now, the values of those properties, because they’re alongside our biggest city, are very high. The compensation is going to be high. Again, who’s going to pay it? What’s the budget for it? The effect of it is the death by a thousand cuts of that magnificent regenerating lungs of Auckland on the west part of Tāmaki-makau-rau. So this bill could also be the Lungs of Auckland (Death by a Thousand Cuts) Bill. Because the effect of it will be to undermine those long-fought-for protections by that local community of West Auckland to ensure that we protect the existing spatial planning designation that protects its exceptional value.

I’ve proposed those two titles. Thank you.

Committee of the whole House

Answering very briefly, we’ve been very clear that the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act provisions carry over.

The member raised the spectre of the cost of regulatory relief being $2 billion. The report he refers to by MartinJenkins said the range could be $7 million to $2 billion, which shows how little is understood by those who claim to know.

The member referred to the cost of a tree. The legislation and Government’s intent is not to value the tree; it’s to put a value and seek to have transparency over the potential cost of protecting a public value on private property, against the cost or limit to the use of that private property. The member suggested that private property is held in the commons. It is not. That is, we do not subscribe to the collectivist understanding of society that the Green Party does. We believe in the rights of the individuals and private property rights, and so we will not be accepting the member’s proposed change to the title.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ve been sitting this morning listening to a whole bunch of typical, I think, paternalistic, privileged rhetoric. This is the one question that I did want to ask. Does the member in the chair, is he familiar with the phrase—because as I’m listening, he’s going, “Mari will or Māori will get—they’re an interested party. Yes, we know about them. We’ve got”—this whole attitude about “Maris” or Māori. Is he familiar with the phrase, “That’s mighty white of you”?

I’m interested if you know that—“That’s mighty white of you”. Because it is the question that rages in me when I’m listening to that paternalistic, privileged rhetoric to get away with making such trite statements as if 180 years never existed on this land. You stand and all puffed up and all that kind of behaviour. It just, for many Māori that are watching this and watching that kind of behaviour, we know—and they will know—this is why we just simply cannot trust you. Not a single ounce of you. And all of those that carry that same kind of racist, bigoted thinking. I know you might moan, but to the ones that will moan when I say that, it’s simply because you cannot help your ignorance. You are completely uneducated. You think you know, and you think that the individual scene and the individual—[Interruption] calm down, I’m speaking—is better than, then you simply are full of ignorance there.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Hold a sec. There is a lot of chatter going across the Chamber, and I do want that to cease. But if I could encourage the member to focus on the title and the commencement date. It’s important that this relates to the title and commencement date—that is the subject of this debate.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI: I presented at a deputation at the Far North District Council just recently, and I could see the efforts of that council to do their utmost and utter best to make the difference for whānau in Tai Tokerau—up in the Far North. They were doing their best to figure it out, but the immense pressure that this piece of work, this particular bill—this House is labelling them and pressuring them to do the best with very little funds. And then I listened to this response again this morning about, “Oh, they’re just going to have to make it work.”

To the commencement itself: I mean, as you can tell, Mr Chair, this is such a fundamentally unworkable and failing plan. I would want to just say let’s not do this at all. But I am interested in the answer to “That’s mighty white of you”—have you heard it before? Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Before I take the next call, just to note for the House, we have had a number of calls based on the commencement date and the Minister has been engaging. I did note that there is actually a lot more in this commencement clause than there is in terms of the normal bills that come to this House as well, so we’ve been canvassing that particular part of it. If there are calls that are going to be made about the commencement date, please build on and don’t repeat things that have been said before. Building on the responses from the member in the chair is fine, but just to note that we have canvassed that. I do note we’ve also moved to more contributions about the title, so we are getting close to it. I will next take the call—Arena Williams.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to make a pitch to the member in the chair, Simon Court, about naming this bill the “Competitive Urban Land Markets in Planning Bill”. This is a speech I’ve been waiting to give because it did not fit in Part 5 for some time. This is an incredibly significant policy contribution to the way that the planning regime will work in the future. If it had been introduced at the first reading I’m sure that it would have made it to the title because it is significant and it changes the way that urban land markets will work in the future of New Zealand, particularly for Auckland, in a way which is novel. It is different to what both the Natural and Built Environments Bill was trying to achieve and the Planning Bill in its first reading, and that’s why we should be acknowledging this.

Congratulations to the Minister—this is something that has met with broad support in the House. When it was voted on last night, late at night, it was the only amendment which was voted on unanimously. This is something where in the work to build bipartisan and cross-partisan consensus, not only on a pipeline for infrastructure work that we can lift out of the daily fray, so too can we work on not only a pipeline of workforce to be able to do that work that we need in New Zealand with New Zealanders and young New Zealanders getting those opportunities, but also with a long-term and cross-partisan commitment to a system where urban land markets are dealt with fairly and where there is competition in the long run so that we can get things built in this country.

That’s why this Planning Bill should be renamed “Planning (Competitive Urban Land Markets) Bill”. The problem is that we have this persistent scarcity problem in New Zealand’s land markets and geography explains some of it, but we’re not like Hong Kong—there’s not a hard urban limit in our cities as they continue to expand. There is an effective urban limit, though, which then sets the land price—

Hon Rachel Brooking: Harbours.

ARENA WILLIAMS: Well, there are harbours, yes, but Auckland continues to expand out like a long noodle between its two harbours. It’s those fringes as it expands that set the price for land in Auckland, and so the cost of building is effectively what we’re trying to change here. We’re trying to make sure that we’re not artificially restricting and therefore increasing the price of land that’s available in our biggest city, and that is something that is critically important to almost everyone in this House with an interest in land development.

The member in the chair said, “We don’t subscribe to this collectivist idea that the Greens have about land development”, but this is an idea which is ideological: that we can have a competitive market for land and one which does broadly have the approval of everyone in this House. It is an ideological step. It is based on the idea that you can have more competition, that you don’t need to be restricted by either the artificial monopoly that the council has or the real and present oligopoly in the market, which is large developers who can command some level of market control, some level of market dominance by sitting on land for a long period of time and waiting for the value to inflate at the expense of the growth of our cities.

That gap continues to exist in this bill. We’re not completely getting rid of it, but this is a significant step in dealing with the problem. Our planning system has never had a means of enforcing that goal and that has been the problem for a city like Auckland in managing its own aspirations and goals around growing into the global city that we need it to be if the whole of New Zealand is going to be prosperous.

The consequence that follows if we don’t get this right puts it back on Government to summon up the political will to fight their own constituents. This is the trade off, that there are National MPs and Labour MPs that have been campaigning against the very things that the statutory officer is meant to mediate for—that Stockade Hill in Panmure is likely to lose its view protections because of something like this; that my own constituency in Manurewa is likely to lose the protections around the two tupuna maunga, Matukutūruru and Matukutūreia because of things like this.

The problem we have here is that those protections are unequally enforced, and this is a mechanism by which we can get at least some fairness in the system; that communities all around the country can have some hope that there is a fair umpire, and if they are losing those critical protections, that at least it is fair and it is in the service of building more affordable housing faster.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ve got a few different topics to talk on, and most of them are building on responses from the member who was in the chair before the Minister. One of them is this turning on some of these changes to the Resource Management Act (RMA) in a month’s time. I’ve heard the Prime Minister speak about it in terms of “in a month’s time, the RMA will be reformed”, and then the member in the chair just before the Minister said something similar about how in one month’s time everything is changing.

I would ask the Minister now if he would like to comment on that, because my impression from the commencement clause is that most of this bill does not turn on in a month’s time. Most of this bill turns on once different things have happened, and that will be in a wee while, and then there is a backstop of four years. So why is it that there is this rhetoric that everything’s changing in a month?

A different question is in relation to the questions and suggestions for title changes from Steve Abel, there was some back and forth—and Arena Williams just referred to it as well—about this belief that trees are private property in the ACT framework of the world and they are not in the Green framework of the world. This is really important, because the regulatory relief goes to biodiversity and by saying that a landowner also owns the trees, then that must mean that they also own the bats in the trees and the geckos on the ground, and that is this important distinction that we’ve been trying to make about why regulatory relief is a totally new concept in New Zealand, which is why one of my title suggestions was that this Act is the “Anti-Planning Act”.

My third point is that the member in the chair before told everyone that he was disappointed in me because I wasn’t being constructive—

Francisco Hernandez: I’m not disappointed.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Very pleased to hear that my friend from Dunedin is not disappointed in me—thank you, Francisco Hernandez. I’ll remember that.

We have been trying to be as constructive as possible and have offered up very clear amendments that go back to our differing view in select committee that we tried to work through very constructively in select committee. In fact, what has happened is that all of the concerns that I raised with the Minister at the Planning Institute Conference in Invercargill just days after he’d released a report from an expert group—those concerns have been apparent and public throughout and I have tried to advocate for those changes, one of them, of course being regulatory relief that we were just discussing. Instead, during the select committee process, members went in the opposite direction, and then we have had this giant Amendment Paper released by the Government at the end of last week, and it has gone further in the wrong direction. So I’m not sure how it is that I’m supposed to be constructive in the member’s mind beyond what has happened. This Government has chosen to go in the opposite direction from a very reasonable Opposition, an Opposition who, despite, as the Minister knows, would of course liked to have seen the Spatial Planning Act and the Natural and Built Environment Act continue, but I could put away my ego and my vanity and say, “OK. Well, if you are going to repeal it so you think it will have longevity, let’s work on that.”

To me, that sounds like a very constructive approach, yet I’ve just heard that I’ve not been constructive, and I would like the Minister’s comment on that. Thank you very much.

Committee of the whole House

Just firstly in relation to Miss Williams’ suggestion about the Planning Bill, competitive urban land markets, it’s slightly inconsistent with her colleague’s amendment that it should be called the “Anti-planning Bill”. There seems to be a slight bit of tension there.

Arena Williams: “Central Planning Committee Bill” as well, has been suggested.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I think, to be fair, you—

Arena Williams: We have lots.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yes, I know that. I think you’re just making up names in order to elongate the debate. So we won’t be accepting that. The bill is called the Planning Bill because it will become the Planning Act, which will become our major planning statute, and we think the name is entirely appropriate.

On the suggestion from Rachel Brooking, there are a couple of points there. The first point is there’s a staggered commencement. As the member knows, you can see it in transitionals and in the commencement dates itself.

Hon Rachel Brooking: That’s not what the Prime Minister says.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, the next point I was about to make is that some things come into effect a month after Royal assent, some quick wins for people—the risk of reopening the debate, which I understand happened again this morning around Juliet balconies and other things to do with which way TVs—

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Very Shakespearean—Shakespearean tragedy.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: —it is a Shakespearean tragedy—face and layouts of living rooms and things like that. The other thing is retail distributive effects and other such nonsense that’s currently in effect under the Resource Management Act. So that is good progress.

I take a slightly more amiable view than others in relation to the member’s engagement on this bill. I think it would be good if both major parties could meet in the middle. But, as I said to her repeatedly, and I don’t wish to relitigate it, it’s not actually anything to do with the bill. As I said before, the foundation of this bill has to be good public policy. There are just differences between the parties on it. The member claims that regulatory relief is a disaster. We have a different view. The member claims that it balances too far in favour of growth and development against the environment. The Government profoundly disagrees with that perspective.

This member’s got a range of different issues that her and I have talked about online and offline. We have a different view. That’s actually, at the end of the day, what Parliament is all about. Sometimes disagreement is a healthy thing. In fact, very often it is a healthy thing. We’re trying to create the best public policy we can for the future of this country. The Government stands behind the bills and the amendments that it has placed before the committee. I would love the Opposition to support them, but I also fully understand where they’re coming from. That’s why we’re having this debate.

Committee of the whole House

I move, That debate on this question now close.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): I am looking for new material, and I didn’t note before that we are moving into the title part of this debate, which is an opportunity for members to summarise their content. But I don’t want that content repeated.

Committee of the whole House

Mr Chair, tēnā koe. In terms of the title—and I ask the Minister responsible for RMA Reform to take these suggestions very seriously, as seriously as he takes his Resource Management Act reform and his Planning Bill and the Natural Environment Bill that’s set to make its way into this committee very shortly.

The two names I suggest, on behalf of te iwi Māori, are very serious and reflect the nature—pun intended—the true nature, in the intent of this bill. Here is the name: “Te Ture Raupatu”. Translators will be able to help me out on that one. However, for the committee, “Te Ture Raupatu” really reflects what this Planning Bill is doing to iwi, to Māori, and, in this case, to the lovely people of Waikato-Tainui, who are upstairs in this Chamber. This is the type of impact that this bill in the committee of the whole House has had for the last three nights. It’s actually dragged out the taniwha from the Waikato awa and brought them right here to the bosom of this very Chamber to contest and to ask directly, “Why the hell is PC1 put on pause?”, because that actually renders [Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] ineffective. Everybody is vulnerable without the safety and the protective measures that existed before. They did need changing, but not in this way.

So “Te Ture Raupatu” is an accurate reflection in te reo Māori, when we look at the details and the devil in the details of this Planning Bill as well as its sister bill that’s set to come in, for that a suggestion, and I know the time will come for the Health Committee, but to ensure there’s duality across both bills and to mitigate confusion about which one is which. This one is “Te Ture Raupatu”; that one [Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]—makes sense in te ao Māori, and I implore the Minister to take it very seriously.

On the issue of commencement, to be fair and frank, Minister, when I look into the amendments that were tabled by the Minister in urgency this week, Amendment Paper 709, and flip to Plan Change 1 (PC1), right there it says there’s no relevant date under PC1, occurs before the close of 31 December. There’s still confusion around start dates, end dates. That impact—the mana motuhake and tino rangatiratanga—of those five iwi that have mana authority to te awa o Waikato, but spare a thought for every other awa, for every other mana whenua, and every other iwi who aren’t classified as iwi authorities right now, who will be sitting in their whare, in their car, watching this very committee, very concerned about when this all kicks in.

So a proposal really is to ensure that there’s fairness across the board and especially when mana whenua rights, iwi rights, that have existed in time immemorial and are now at real threat of being undone by this bill.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): I hope everybody remembers what I just said about new material.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair. Can I seek clarification on the new material? It’s part of a very recent exchange and discussion around the title between the preceding member in the Chair, who talked about collectivist ideology, and my colleague Rachel Brooking and myself. I just would like to ask the Minister responsible for RMA Reform to elucidate a view on the principles that underpin the legislation based on that exchange.

Hon Chris Bishop: Sure.

STEVE ABEL: Thank you.

So my colleague Rachel Brooking—I made the point that trees are part of a commons. Just to clarify that point, if a 300-year-old pōhutukawa tree stands on a private property, the average ownership length of private property in this country is seven years. So, houses are bought and sold with such frequency that it’s only ever going to be owned by that particular owner for about seven years on average. That means for a tree to survive for 100 years, say, it has to have had subsequent owners not cut it down. You’re only one owner in the course of that tree’s hypothetical life, to decide to cut it down, for it to be lost in terms of all the benefits it offers to the whole society—i.e., biodiversity, cooling, carbon sequestration, beauty, and so forth.

Now, my colleague made the point that if a gecko was in that tree, because that tree’s on private property, the assumption in this legislation is that the owner of that property owns the tree and can do what they like with it, and if we don’t want them to cut it down, we have to compensate them for not cutting it down. Now, if a gecko is in that tree, is that also private property? If a tūī comes and lands in that tree, is it also private property?

The point is, no. Under law, we say it doesn’t matter whether it’s on your property or not, you can’t kill a native bird or native gecko. They have a protected status irrespective of whether they’re on private property. That is the principle around which tree protection and notable trees and scheduled trees, which have been taken out of protected status in this legislation, are protected. The broader principle is one that private property is a very useful concept in many ways. I mean, it’s a useful way to designate who has rights over certain bits of land, but it has significant limitations when you come to the broader commons. We can’t designate biodiversity as private property, just as the Queen’s Chain principle, which is a principle this country was founded on after the signing of Te Tiriti—it’s just to say you shouldn’t be able to own the rivers. The rivers are a collective good and a commons.

The oceans are likewise; the atmosphere itself. These are commons that no one can really technically own. Iwi Māori have customary rights to those commons, but they’re not private property. This is to elucidate and seek clarification for the Minister on just how radical what is being proposed in this legislation is, because it’s applying a principle of private property across things that are the Commons, biodiversity being the most exceptional example, but including those trees in our urban areas that we have set and agreed are the most exceptional examples of trees that should be protected, irrespective of whether they grow on private property or not, because they are part of the collective good of our whole society. That is what is so radical about this.

I’d like the Minister to comment on just what an inversion it is on the principle contained in things like the Queen’s Chain, contained in things like the principle that the biodiversity of our nation does not belong to anyone. None of us has a right to go and kill a tūī or a gecko. Why should you be allowed to kill a 300-year-old pōhutukawa tree that grows on a bit of property that you happen to own for seven years?

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): I am looking for that new material. I do take the point that we are here to debate and to build on contributions made from members and the Minister as well, but please keep it narrowed to the title.

Committee of the whole House

OK. The title is the Planning Act and the Minister responsible for RMA Reform just brought the Juliette balconies back into the conversation. I would let the member know that there was no answer to my question about fixtures and how they compare—

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): This is title and commencement.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: It is related to the Planning Act, Mr Chair, because it is a straw man that this Government has put up again and again. They have said to people, “Oh, those nasty planners”—and this goes to why I’m calling it the “Anti-Planning Act”—“want to tell you where to put the TV. They want to tell you where to put the couch.” Then when I asked them for examples of there being consent conditions relevant to fixtures—

Arena Williams: Storage.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: I hear storage and I hear Juliette balconies. Those are not fixtures. This is relevant to the straw man that this Government has put up to say that somehow this bill is about planning, when unfortunately the Minister has not listened to my very sensible amendments that have been proposed throughout this. Instead of it being about planning, it is about costing the ratepayer. It is about costing the ratepayer, because that is who has to pay for regulatory relief. It is about diminishing Māori involvement in any planning that has happened under the Resource Management Act (RMA). This bill goes backwards from the RMA. I did not think that that was a possibility, but here we are. So that is against planning as well.

This bill will lead to more flooding and more stormwater incidents because of the lack of planning. This bill will lead to cell phone towers everywhere because of the impacts on everything to do with visual amenity. There has just been nothing about place. We’ve seen that in the document, the national direction that the Minister has been going like this with—

Arena Williams: Waving around.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Waving around; that is the word I’m looking for. Waving around. That will come through as well. That is anti-planning, and this goes to the title.

We’ve heard that infrastructure, which has the widest definition possible—anything to do with the economy, so a shop—can be in areas where there are hazards. This goes to planning as well. It is anti-planning. Why would we want to put a shop, why would we want to put an early childhood centre in a hazard area? It is anti-planning. It is a disaster. It could have been fixed.

Committee of the whole House

Well, the member has just made those points repeatedly throughout the debate and is using the time now around the title to reiterate her view that it is anti-planning. It isn’t. The title is the appropriate title for the bill; it is a planning bill. I appreciate the member doesn’t like some elements of it. Fine. We have debated that at length, but the title is the appropriate title for the bill. It is a significant part of the Government’s legislative agenda, but the title literally does what it says on the tin. It is a Planning bill which will become a Planning Act to help New Zealand do spatial plans, combined regional plans, land use plans, natural environment plans, and will set New Zealand up for success.

Committee of the whole House

I move, That debate on this question now close.

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

Ayes 67

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

Noes 54

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

Motion agreed to.

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

Ayes 67

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

Noes 54

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

Clause 1 agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to the Minister’s tabled amendments to Amendment Paper 709 amending clause 2 to amend new subclause (2AA) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

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

Noes 67

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

Amendment to the amendments to the amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the Minister’s tabled amendments to Amendment Paper 709 amending clause 2 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 67

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

Noes 54

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

Amendments to the amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to clause 2 set out on Amendment Paper 709 as amended be agreed to.

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

Ayes 67

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

Noes 54

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

Amendments as amended agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Hūhana Lyndon’s amendment to clause 2(3) set out on Amendment Paper 733 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee

The question is That Hūhana Lyndon’s amendment to clause 2(1) set out on Amendment Paper 733 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

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

Noes 67

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

Amendment not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 2 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 67

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

Noes 54

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

Clause 2 as amended agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment.

Natural Environment Bill

Committee of the whole House

Part 1 Preliminary provisions, and Schedules 1 and 6

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Members, we come now to the Natural Environment Bill. We begin with the debate on Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 3 to 10—“Preliminary provisions”—and Schedule 1, “Transitional, savings, and related provisions”; and Schedule 6, “Statutory acknowledgements”. The question is that Part 1 stand part.