Resource Management (Natural and Built Environment and Spatial Planning Repeal and Interim Fast-track Consenting) Bill

The House is resumed on the second reading of the Resource Management (Natural and Built Environment and Spatial Planning Repeal and Interim Fast-track Consenting) Bill. We’re going to start with either a Te Pāti Māori or Green Party split call. Up to you.

Kia ora. Tēnā koe e te Pīka. Tēnā tātou e te Whare. Look, again, as I said earlier this evening, it’s a shame that we are here in urgency discussing something so critical—especially critical for us as Māori—after the great relationship that particularly National used to enjoy with Māori. I think about the reflections on the National Iwi Chairs and the relationships you had in helping to design in collaboration with iwi technicians the Ministry for the Environment regulations, the Environmental Protection Authority regulations, the best-practice guidelines for engaging with all companies, and I’m just really struggling to understand that this is the National that we’re dealing with today that has completely ignored its relationships with iwi and with Māori who have fought really hard to get what they could in this space.

I get why you’re picking a fight with Māori. You know, we’ve got ACT that got 1 percent of the Māori vote, we’ve got New Zealand First that got 4 percent of the Māori vote, we’ve got National that got 5 percent of the Māori vote—you’ve barely got 10 percent in total of the Māori vote. So I guess it’s a comfort “rip in and take them on” at the moment, but the reality is for those of us who got six, seven times more than you did for Māori voters and who actually enjoy six of the seven Māori electorate seats, we’re really concerned with what it is you’re doing and the fearmongering that you’ve put in, especially when it comes to discussing kupu like “te Oranga o te Taiao”.

Those are kupu, and if this is what this is about—that you’re worried how that’s going to fare in court—I’m really, really stunned that, given again the history you’ve had and that you’ve enjoyed, which I’m struggling to see if you’re going to continue, you’re sitting here and saying, “Actually, we need to repeal today because we’re worried how that will be interpreted in the courts.” So let me get this straight. You’re worried about “oranga”, you’re worried about “wellbeing of the environment”, you’re worried about “acting with precaution in a precautionary way”, you’re worried about being intergenerationally focused and sustaining what it is that we should be doing. It’s really concerning.

The other part that I do want to pick up in the five minutes that we’ve had to be able to reflect on what it is that you’ve put in this—you have used the system to not only pick a fight with Māori; you have also done things that we see in page 85—it could be 83; don’t quote me—where you have replied by putting in this: you’ve replaced “Te Tiriti” with “Treaty”. You have replaced “Te Tiriti” with “Treaty”. Of all the things that I thought you would pick, that is the last thing that I would have thought that you would sit there and do within this rushed bill that we have before us.

I think the thing that’s really concerning for us in this stage is that, again, if you are attempting to move us to the English version of Te Tiriti on page 83 and, following up, making hapū invisible with the erasure of all mentions of hapū—on page 83, there is absolutely no mention of hapū. It’s like we just didn’t exist. I’m struggling to believe that this is the party—you know, forget all your coalition buddies, but this is the party that prided itself in its relationships, its parallel engagement, and policy development with iwi technicians.

The Treaty settlements appear to be protected, but there’s an expectation that the Treaty settlement legislation needs to be amended to achieve that. So much for full and final! I’m stunned, David, that you’re attached to this. But the thing is—I mean how will you come home? But the reality too is if you are saying that the settlements are now open, that full and final is no longer something that’s going to be respected, and this goes to the principle of full and final, then what is it that the Government is attempting to do?

You know, we get that this is a transitional bill. You’ve got a lot of things you’re doing in 100 days. I don’t know what you expect to try and improve in 100 days, but the real meat, as we understand, will be in the fast-track bill itself. But what you have done particularly—and I want our people to be really clear—with “Te Tiriti” changed to “Treaty of Waitangi”, as we believe that you are doing, in page 83, you are attempting to remove the relationship that you have truly and fully with Māori, and you are now defaulting to the English version of the Treaty. That is shameful. That is not a way that is looking after the best interests of all Māori. But, as I said at the beginning, I get, with those on the right who barely got 10 percent of the Māori votes, you feel comfortable enough doing that. Kia ora rā.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. There seems to be a bit of a misunderstanding. Before the dinner break, it was explained to the Speaker that the call was given to us when it was a Māori Party call. So we made an arrangement with the Māori Party that they could then take our five-minute call on call No. 10 to even it out. The Māori Party—Te Pāti Māori, apologies—was given the call immediately after the dinner break. Our understanding, therefore, is that the Green Party should have the five-minute call in call No. 10. The alternative is that we will, as the Labour Party, miss out on our five-minute call because Ingrid Leary made a call on the assumption that it was a five-minute call leading right up to the maiden speeches. If she wasn’t given the opportunity, and as yourself, Mr Speaker, indicated, it was straight away either a Māori Party or Green call, the Labour Party will miss out on five minutes speaking time in this as a result.

Speaking to the point of order—thank you, Mr Speaker. The issue was that the Labour speaker just before the dinner break had a 10-minute call, and so, as a result of that, that took the entire call No. 6, as it was, on the run sheet at that point, which then meant, after the dinner break recommenced, it should have commenced with National Party call No. 7 being a 10-minute call. Because now we’re seeing the call going instead to the Māori Party and Green Party, and if we don’t then have call Nos 8 and 9, then we would be disadvantaged in terms of the allocation of calls. I can understand what Mr McAnulty said, but it was a 10-minute call, not a five-minute split call, and so that’s the difference, because obviously now we would miss out on the allocation we should be entitled to.

Point of order. My recollection of what the Speaker said was that the 4½ minutes remaining on the Labour Party call could be taken after the dinner break.

Point of order. As I mentioned in the original point of order, the arrangement was made with the Speaker to explain the situation. The issue with the clock is not uncommon. Ingrid Leary sat down after five minutes, because that was the start of the maiden speeches. She had full rights to continue on but sat down on the assumption it was five minutes. That’s because of the maiden speeches. That’s how we carried on. This is easily resolved. If the Green Party took their five-minute call in call No. 10, we wouldn’t; the National Party don’t lose out, we have our full allocation, and it ends up as exactly the same speaking spots as originally intended.

Tim van de Molen: Speaking further to that, Mr Speaker—

Hold on a second. I’m just going to take some advice. So I’ve taken some advice, and according to the Standing Orders, parties have the ability to negotiate work between themselves about how the twelve 10-minute calls can be made. I take the Hon Kieran McAnulty’s word for it that that was an arrangement that was made with the Speaker. So I guess we can add a five-minute call somewhere in there. I guess that is what we will do.

Point of order. I believe all that needs to happen, Mr Speaker, is for the Green Party to take one of the two split calls on call No. 10. That will then even it all out. The Labour Party took five minutes, which was intended for call No. 10. The earlier split call was between Te Pāti Māori and the Green Party. If we just do a swap with the Greens instead of Te Pāti Māori as originally intended, it’ll all come out even.

So your solution is you take the split call now?

We’re done. We did ours before the dinner break. Outstanding, at the moment, is the Green Party. If they take our slot on call No. 10, it’ll all come out even.

I think the ruling here is that the Green Party split call will be at slot No. 10, so get ready to jump up. I think that’s the best way to move forward.

Speaking to that, the issue is, though, that it’s recorded now as being on speech No. 7, not on the second half of speech No. 6. And that was quite clearly because, just prior to the dinner break, the Speaker in the Chair made it very clear that Miss Leary had 4½ minutes remaining on her call, which she could take once we resumed, if she chose to. So it was very clear in the Speaker’s mind that it was not a split call, that it was a full 10-minute allocation, and that she had used more than half of that.

But, in order to move the business of the House forward—I mean, I wasn’t there when they had that discussion, which I hope you will appreciate. And the best way forward, with my understanding of the Speakers’ rulings, is that parties are able to negotiate how they split that those twelve 10-minute calls. I take the Hon Kieran McAnulty’s word on it. This is the best way to move forward. The Green Party will take the split call at slot No. 10. I call the next speaker—David MacLeod.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. May I first start by telling the member from Te Pāti Māori that I’m very happy to be on this side of the House—certainly just after that—and that’s because we need to unleash the potential of our country. The recent changes made affect our ability to subdivide land, to build houses, to establish businesses, or just simply dig a hole in the ground. We have become a country constipated by bureaucracy. That’s right. It’s affecting people’s lives, people who are simply wanting to get ahead. I repeat: we need to unleash the true potential of our country. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. The situation we’re in now is that we’re in, obviously, the second reading of this bill and that would have been normally, in normal times, the time where we speak to the select committee process and what people had to say. What we do know from the original select committee process from the Act that this bill intends to repeal, or the Acts, is that there was a broad recognition that the Resource Management Act (RMA) was no longer fit for purpose, and there was a discussion, not so much as to whether there needed to be reform, but the details of that reform.

That is what puzzles me about this. It goes back to a system that was broadly recognised as being unsuitable. It goes back to a system where local government, industry—in particular, construction—was saying that it did not enable them to do what the Government is using as a rationale for repealing it. They said that they couldn’t get on with their business. They said that they couldn’t do what they needed to do, that it was cumbersome, that it got in the way.

When you consider there are 71 district councils across the country and, under the RMA, each had a slightly different interpretation of how the rules could be applied, it is possible, and it was common, that tradespeople would have to go about things one way in one district and about things in a different way 10 minutes down the road, and that just didn’t make sense. But nor does what’s being proposed here today.

Why on earth would we go back to a system that, if we think back to the 2017 election, both major parties, the Labour Party and the National Party, said that the RMA was no longer fit for purpose and wanted to do something about it? I think I remember a few pledges of a bipartisan approach to this. But what this bill proposes is to go back to exactly that: a system that was designed in 1991 and has been added to and become a massive beast and was cumbersome and didn’t take into account the realities of a modern world. Why on earth would we go back to that without something to replace it with? I don’t quite get that.

If there are elements to the Natural and Built Environment Act and the Spatial Planning Act, why on earth don’t we take the time to look at that and improve it? It seems to be counter to the whole point of a select committee process, this parliamentary process where regardless of what individual MPs or their party’s views on a particular proposal are, they use a select committee process to improve a bill. And the good parliamentarians amongst us, even if they know ultimately their party will vote against the bill when it gets reported back to the House, will use that time to try and improve it.

I’m puzzled as to why that principle that so many members in this House, including on the other side, on the Government side, in my time here, have worked constructively to try and improve something—I struggle to understand the rationale here. I know that members, or some members—not many of them are taking a full call today, which in itself is interesting and I’m sure we’ll explore more at the committee of the whole House stage. But ultimately, why wouldn’t we just touch on the things that they feel didn’t work?

Because I actually don’t think that they believe that the whole thing has to go. Sayings about babies and bathwaters come to mind.

Hon Member: We’re open to taking aspects of the laws.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Why wouldn’t we improve it? And the call is from the other side “We’re open to that.” Why aren’t we doing it now? I want to know why they didn’t take up the Hon Rachel Brooking’s offer to approach this in a bipartisan way and try and improve things, as opposed to throwing it out on a promise that they will then start working on something else. I actually can’t think of an example where something’s been repealed in the context of an acknowledgment that something has to be done to go back to a system that wasn’t working on a promise that one day they’ll get round to doing something about that. Why don’t we do that first?

That’s the essence of my point: why on earth aren’t we doing that first? Why are we rushing through under urgency something that’s going to take us back to what it was? The speakers that have contributed to this have said that they want business to just be able to get on with things, that they want to provide certainty. I can’t understand how going back to a system that they know wasn’t working is providing certainty. If anything, it is uncertain what’s going to ultimately replace what this bill is replacing the Act with. We’ve got two or three steps ahead of us here. Nobody knows what on earth is coming, and that is not certainty.

What I did here, in my travels around the country speaking to district councils, was that, yep, some of them had some concerns about what was being proposed, but they also absolutely acknowledged that the Resource Management Act was no longer fit for purpose. The whole idea of having a region-wide approach is that once things had been agreed, there was certainty for business, certainty for ordinary Kiwis that might be wanting to build a home or might be wanting to put up a shed or any of the normal things that require a consent. They can go in the streamlined approach: here’s the parameters that are agreed; if you fit within those, get on with it. That makes sense—that makes sense.

I think it was fair for local government to register a concern about what they deemed to be a dilution of their local input. That had to be balanced up, of course, with the similar calls from the local government sector to say that simply many of them didn’t have the resources to be able to comply with what was required under the Resource Management Act. That problem’s not going to go away. There are many small rural and provincial councils who have a very small ratepayer base, who are now about to face massive escalations and costs because the Government has indicated they want to repeal the affordable water reforms without any indication as to what it’s going to be replaced with or indeed how it’s going to work. And incidentally, while I’m on that point, I noticed the Hon Simeon Brown can’t guarantee that balance sheet separation is going to be a part of it. He said it might be included or may be included or something—the crucial element.

So we’ve got a situation where local councils were previously struggling under the RMA, because of the cost burdens and their inability with their ratepayer base to pay for and allocate the resources that are required to do consenting. And now the additional costs that are about to come down because of the water reforms. That concerns me. Councils have been asked over successive Governments over many generations to increase the level of service to their communities, but they haven’t had the ability to be able to expand their revenue streams and revenue bases, and this is just another example. No one’s saying it was perfect—perhaps Rachel Brooking. Other than her, no one was saying—

Hon Rachel Brooking: Not even me.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: That’s tongue in cheek, because, as you may have realised, as the House may have seen, the Hon Rachel Brooking is incredibly passionate about this, and I want to commend the amount of work you put into there. Because this is the member’s area of expertise and she dove right into it. She took on board the concerns that had been registered with us, with the local councils, with farmers, with various stakeholders, and made a genuine attempt to try and improve it.

In fact, I think it’s fair to say that many of the concerns that have been raised today by the Government, raised in justification of doing this—I’m yet to hear a justification about urgency, but certainly justification repealing it—had been addressed by the member when she was Minister. So I do want to acknowledge that.

It’s a fair question. We want to know what this will be replaced with and I don’t think it’s good enough for the House or for the general public to have a response that is simply, “We’ll get to it, but we’ve got to get rid of this now.” I don’t think that washes, and it would have been incredibly interesting to have heard the feedback from the public. The reason I mentioned water reforms before—and I’ll mention it again now—is because it’s actually quite similar. Originally, there was a large amount of concern about the water reforms. Some changes were made, and then there was actually quite a lot of support, particularly from the local government sector. In fact, I had mayors, that were previously opposed getting in touch with me, asking to go first because the changes had improved it. I believe that’s exactly the same with the changes that the Hon Rachel Brooking had made to this.

So it would’ve been incredibly interesting to hear the feedback at the select committee process to actually gauge if that view had changed. I think that there is a genuine possibility, a real possibility, that some submitters that submitted originally expressing concerns, now that they’ve seen the changes, would come back and say, “Actually, this is much better now”, or, the more relevant question is: OK, you might not have liked what the previous Government proposed, but how do you feel about going back to the thing you didn’t like in the first place? That’s a fair question, and that is a question that could have been teased out at select committee. This bill would have been improved as a result of that, but we haven’t had that opportunity.

The only opportunity that we have now is in the committee of the whole House stage, and we may as well register our interest early. This side of the House have a lot of questions.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I speak, again, in support of the repeal of this Act, an Act that would be the biggest impediment to getting anything done in this country. This Act would not be a step forward for economic development nor the environment, and it would do very little to get New Zealand back on track.

In addition, this Act demonstrates contempt for basic property rights, and the change from a facts-based regime to an outcomes-based approach further weakens respect for private property. The existing Act does nothing to support New Zealand’s productivity, and it also does very little to support the rapid development of urgently needed housing. I look forward to the repeal of this Act.

I call Steve Abel. Just before you start, because of the misbalance of the call, there is four minutes, 30 seconds on the clock.

Kia ora, thank you, Mr Speaker, and I acknowledge your ascension to that noble seat, if we can call it that.

I submitted on this bill myself. I gave three whole submissions on it, numerous written submissions as a part of Mana Rākau, the tree protection organisation. What strikes me is the number of conscientious New Zealanders who participated in the legislative process—which was extensive—and gave their feedback on our pre-eminent environmental protection legislation, and all of the nuanced efforts that were made by people within this House to get this legislation right, to take us on an important step that improves from where we were in the Resource Management Act 1991, to where we are now in the Natural and Built Environment Act 2023. All those months and years, and thousands of submitters and participants, and this Government throws it out in one day. For me, it makes a mockery of the legislative process. My friends in Mana Rākau, who won back general tree protection that was put out by the John Key Government in 2009—they feel like they are back to the drawing board again. Because general tree protection, again, is being thrown out with this legislation, this repeal.

In the struggle to protect our biodiversity and our climate, it is a rare day that we see a lucid piece of legislative framework that actually places the priorities right, and one of those is Te Mana o te Wai, the coming into force of which this legislation is delaying. Now, that means years more—I think until 2027—delay in taking action in protecting our precious water.

It was extraordinary today to hear the answer from the environment Minister that she did not support the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management in 2020. Let’s be clear what that is: putting first the health and wellbeing of water bodies and freshwater ecosystems.

James Meager: Over everything else.

STEVE ABEL: That is—over everything else. My friend, when you realise that everything we’ve been doing for the last 20, 30, 50, 100 years has led to the biodiversity crisis we face now, we need a sea change in the way that we approach the protection of the environment. That’s exactly putting protection of water bodies first. I would also say that that same Minister said that she did not support putting the health and needs of people—such as drinking water—she did not agree with looking after that, as well.

The most important thing is that we take a step towards treating the intrinsic value of nature, recognise the intrinsic value of nature. This legislation took us on this step. This repeal takes us back the other way.

I should say, Mr Speaker, that it is absolutely consistent with how this Government has indicated it wants to proceed in its time. It is a Government for destruction of the environment. It is a Government that has already laid out that its legacy will be a degradation and a destruction of the environment. It loves the fast-track component of the legislation because that allows it to fast track mining on conservation land. It allows it to fast track the drilling of our oceans. It allows it to fast track the bulldozing of roads through wetlands and through ancient rainforests. In a time when we know the scale of the challenge the planet faces with climate change and biodiversity loss, it is a shame on the history of this House that we have a Government that is so retrograde and so hell-bent on destruction of our environment. We oppose this repeal.

E te Māngai e te Whare. Mr Speaker, let me start by congratulating you on your ascension to your promoted role. It is my privilege to speak in support of this repeal bill.

Everybody in this House knows that the Resource Management Act 1991 is in desperate need of reform. Where the divide is—this Act, that we are repealing today, is not the solution to that. It would have made it more complex, more legalistic, harder to actually get things done and get things developed in this country. Let me speak to those directly at home and let me guarantee to those at home that our intentions our very clear. Our intentions are very clear to develop a law that is less bureaucratic, less complex, that improves local decision-making, and helps us meet our decarbonisation goals as a country.

That is what we are committed to on this side of the House and it is my privilege to commend this bill to the House.

Can I first acknowledge the maiden speeches made earlier today, and of course all of the maiden speeches for the 54th Parliament. I take heart from the members on the Government benches, who, in most of the speeches I’ve heard, use words like “kaitiakitanga”, “wairua”. They are using the very words that their own Government is saying causes too much confusion, yet they stand in this House and say that they base their principled approach to coming into Parliament on words like “kaitiakitanga”.

Here we are looking at kaitiakitanga and te Oranga o te Taiao which I will come to very shortly. We heard from the Minister a little bit earlier talking about the recognition of tikanga in law. I want to read for the Minister a little something from the Supreme Court / Te Kōti Mana Nui o Aotearoa. The Supreme Court has recently affirmed “that tikanga Māori can be a source of enforceable rights and interests, and is relevant to developing the common law. Tikanga is also recognised in various ways through many Acts of Parliament”. And that says that we actually have the ability to look towards a model of tikanga or in this case, with respect to this bill, te Oranga o te Taiao, the wellbeing of our natural surroundings—things that I’ve heard in maiden speeches right across the House, not just in the 54th Parliament; the 53rd, 52nd, 51st—my entire time here. So te Oranga o te Taiao isn’t a new concept. Te Oranga o te Taiao is also a concept that has been evolved over many, many decades, in many, many pieces of legislation as well as many court rulings. The Supreme Court makes it very clear that tikanga Māori is part of the evolution of the relationship of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. That’s what’s being lost here with the proposal in this particular repeal bill; that’s being lost.

I’ve heard members from the other side of the House talk about ruling for all and talking about making sure that they represent their constituents. Well, I look forward to some of them going back to the iwi in their district to make sure that they represent all of the people in their rohe, to make sure that their voices are being heard on this important bill. Sadly, that’s not going to happen because it is being rushed through the House.

We know that this is a big piece of work. We also know that there’s lots of work to be done in terms of the relationships between iwi and the Crown, and this particular bill undermines it. The fact is that we don’t have a regulatory impact statement, that we are unable to engage with organisations and Public Service departments, the likes of Te Arawhiti, to understand what the Māori perspective is on this; to understand the amount of work that they’ve put into this particular bit of legislation that’s being repealed today. Because what’s not quantified in this piece of work is the goodwill from Māori to make sure that we look after our natural environment; that’s not being spoken about here. Yes, we want to look towards the opportunities of being able to make sure that we can build into the future, that we can protect our natural environments into the future, but what we’re not looking at and what we’re not talking about is actually the slap in the face to many iwi who, through goodwill, sat with local government, sat with central government, sat with many Government departments in order to have something that was workable and recognised their rights as well as the rights of the entire community.

I’m looking forward to members—and I’ve heard them call out Mr Rutherford and a good friend of mine Mr Luxton at the back there—heading back to the Bay of Plenty and sitting down with Ngāti Ranginui, Ngāi Te Rangi, Ngāti Pūkenga to talk through exactly what’s happening here. Because what this repeal bill does, too, is it can’t help but make Māori think that, actually, wait, there’s more to come. If I think about the representation across local government in this country—because what this does is it puts a lot of the emphasis back into the local government space, and I’m OK with that, but local government have already made it clear that, you know what, for the most part, they have a very good relationship with their iwi; others don’t. What this tells iwi and what this tells Māori in this country is that who knows what’s around the corner? Is this Government going to repeal Māori wards legislation, once again minimising Māori voice at the local government level? I’m looking forward to hearing contributions from my tuakana and Tāmaki-makau-rau resident Mr Dan Bidois about what this means for the iwi Māori statutory board in Tāmaki-makau-rau.

I’m looking forward to hearing from the Minister: what does this mean for tribes that are yet to settle their dispute with the Crown? What does this mean for the tribes that are currently negotiating with the Crown? How does that impact on their ability to make sure that they get fair rights when resource management in their own district, their own rohe, is considered? These are matters that, sadly, we could not discuss, debate, or hear from experts on because of this rushed process in something that is so significant.

This bill literally takes Māori-Crown relations back to 1991. Back to 1991; that’s what this bill does. For example, it says in here it repeals “to go back to iwi authority”. Well, I’m going to ask Mr Bishop in the committee stage of this House: how many iwi have been created under legislation in this House? How many iwi are now officially recognised since 1991, and how many are yet to be officially recognised through settlements in this House? I bet you that side won’t be able to tell me. I bet you that side will not be able to tell me, and that makes me really sad. It makes me sad because of the goodwill Māori have had to make sure that they can protect the taiao. It’s quite clear. When we make these decisions we’ve got to make sure that tribes like Mr Seymour’s tribe, Ngāti Rēhia—Ngāti Rēhia who has an agreement with the local council in the Far North but doesn’t have one with the regional council because of the refusal of the regional council. Now what we’re doing is limiting their rights. Ngāti Rēhia—Mr Seymour’s own tribe; the descendants of Tāreha.

So I’m looking forward to making sure that the Minister answers those questions so that the rest of the country can hear exactly what’s going on in this piece of legislation. This bill will set Māori- Crown relationships back decades; it will set them back decades. In fact, if Mr Seymour and Mr Bishop want to have a look at the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) they’ll see what determines an iwi authority and they’ll know through the settlements that they’ve been part of in the nine years they’ve been in Parliament, which is the same time as mine, that those have actually changed; the definition has actually changed.

The Ngā Hapu o Ngāti Porou legislation is another example of how that relationship has evolved and, yes, while in this repeal bill we might look towards protecting Ngā Hapu o Ngāti Porou, what about all the others? What about all of the other iwi who have come and sat in the gallery of this House and listened to speakers from all across this House talk about how right it is to make sure that we correct the injustices of the past? They’ve sat in this House and listened to speakers talk about why it is important that we work together and maintain strong Crown relationships. That’s what this bill is going to do: it is going to set those relationships back decades.

I also look forward to exploring even more, through the committee stage of the House, the impact that this has on Tāmaki-makau-rau, the consideration of the super-city legislation, and the fact that, as we look through the super-city legislation and what it affords Māori, it pretty much contradicts what’s in here, sending us back to the RMA of 1991. That’s just not good enough. All of that, we’ll have the good opportunity from my colleagues on this side of the House to make sure that the Government answers these questions because the people of Aotearoa New Zealand deserve to hear it—the very people that members on that side of the House claim to represent, all people in Aotearoa New Zealand.

On this side of the House, we are opposed to this. We extended the olive branch to say, “Let’s do this in the bipartisan way.” And I can say that, through the process of the committee of the whole House, amendments will be put on this Table and it will be recorded whether or not this Government supports it. Because this side of the House is quite clear on what needs to happen in order for this country to not only, one, advance its interests economically but, two, protect its environment. That’s the challenge that we’ll be putting to this Government. I do not commend this bill to the House.

I’m pleased to be speaking on the second reading of this bill, because overregulation is not the best way to achieve outcomes. I have examples in my electorate of where these Acts are actually getting in the way of progress of building houses and renewable energy. It is time we stopped playing the game of political “whack-a-mole”, and with that, I commend this bill to the House.

I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Resource Management (Natural and Built Environment and Spatial Planning Repeal and Interim Fast-track Consenting) Bill.

In Committee

Part 1 Preliminary provisions