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

We now come to the debate on Part 2. Part 2 is the debate on clauses 5 and 6, “Repeals and related provisions”, and Schedule 2. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

Point of order, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I do just want to seek from you some clarification about the extent of the debate on clause 5. Clause 5 repeals the Natural and Built Environment Act, repeals the Spatial Planning Act, and revokes the Natural and Built Environment forms of these regulations 2023. The first two of those are substantive pieces of legislation, and I do want some assurance that when members of the committee raise issues within that legislation that is no longer going to be on the books, we are able to have a full debate about those.

While they are deceptively short clauses, they do significant things. I’m not relitigating your ruling, Madam Chair, because I know that’s not something I’m allowed to do on Part 1, but I am asking, for Part 2, that consideration is given. Relevance matters here because if we are speaking about matters that are being repealed, they are most definitely within the scope of the debate on Part 2. I just want some assurance on that.

I give you my assurance, Mr Robertson, and also I have signalled many times during that debate to come back to the bill and provide new material. So I suggest perhaps your team needs to follow your instructions. Speaking to the point of order, Simon Court?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d just like to note that during the debate on Part 1, it was a very wide-ranging debate which extended well into the schedules and has covered—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): What’s your point of order, Mr Court?

SIMON COURT: Speaking to the point of order, I think it’s important that we do stick to the very, very limited provisions stated in Part 2.

Thank you for your help. I call the Hon James Shaw.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Speaking to the point of order, the bills that the next part repeals did cost something like a quarter of a billion dollars and six years to develop. So I think given that this is a Government that wants to tighten up on costs, it is important that we don’t just throw out a quarter of a billion dollars on a very short debate, and that we do have a fulsome debate. There were a number of speakers who did not have a chance to ask questions in the first round, who I think perhaps would deserve a more fulsome debate in this next part.

If the material is new and relevant, they will get their opportunity. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m going to go straight into some detail here, and that is on page 105—my 105 of the bill. It amends section 80A, and that is to “replace 31 December 2024” with “31 December 2027”.

What this is about is it looks like it’s just a date change, but it is very important because it is about the freshwater planning process. So Section 80A of the Resource Management Act—that’s what we’re talking about here—requires a freshwater planning instrument. It says at subsection (4), “A regional council must—(a) publicly notify the freshwater planning instrument; and (b) if the purpose of the freshwater planning instrument is to give effect to the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2020, publicly notify the freshwater planning instrument by 31 December 2024.”

The amendment—it looks like from the New Zealand Legislation website—was made on 1 July 2020. So this date has been on the statute book for some time. I imagine it would have gone through with that National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management. So my question is: what analysis has the Government done in coming to its determination that from 2024, we go many more years into 2027—if they have looked at where regional councils have got to with their plans? Because it’s been my experience that there has been good work done by regional councils and they are much closer to meeting the 2024 deadline and there is no need for them to go to 2027. Of course, I note that the substantive issue here is that we have better planning laws or planning regulations for our water so that we have the high-quality water and quantities of water that New Zealanders care about. That is my first question on this part.

It’s very, very simple. A very simple question; a very simple answer. The Government has a commitment to repeal, replace, and rebalance the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2020. That process will take some time. As the member well knows, there’s quite a convoluted process to go through to update national policy statement instruments. We’ll go through that process in full, take policy advice, and work through that process. So the date extension is to give us time to work through that process and make it really clear to regional councils that we’re doing that and they’ve got the extension of time.

Thanks, Madam Chair. Thank you for allowing me to take the call. I actually would have asked this question in the earlier part, but obviously can’t. However, I have found a connection in Part 4, Schedule 2 of Part 2.

So looking at Part Three of the departmental disclosure statement, because, again, this is the only officials’ advice that we can actually go off, under paragraph 3.2, it asks “What steps have been taken to determine whether the policy to be given effect by this Bill is consistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi?” The response by officials was: “Due to [the] limited time, high-level Treaty impact assessments were provided to Cabinet on the NBA and the SPA repeal.” And it references CAB-23-MIN-0473 and CAB-23-SUB468.

So my question to the Minister is: is this information publicly available; if not, will the Minister be able to table that tonight so that members on this side of the Chamber have some officials’ advice in relation to the information that he received, in relation to the impact on Treaty settlements, given that both Part 1 and now Part 2—we have some growing concerns on this side of the House in relation to the impact on some of those settlements.

Kia ora. Thank you. Tēnā tātou e te Whare. A couple of questions. I think the first thing is, as my colleague to the right, who’s from the left, just said, there have been assessments identified that this bill has implications under Te Tiriti, but because of time frames there hasn’t been able to be a good analysis, there are complex interactions that will affect Treaty settlements, and that given the time lines, only limited engagement with post-settlement governance entities has happened in other Māori groups.

Now, I just wanted to hold that, and the question that I have for the Minister is on page 83, under Schedule 2. In Schedule 3 of the Urban Development Act 2020, clause 1(4)(c), the Minister’s proposing to replace “Te Tiriti o Waitangi” with “the Treaty of Waitangi”. My question is: there were 50 rangatira that signed the Treaty; there were 500 rangatira that signed Te Tiriti, what is the Minister going to do about those who signed and recognised Te Tiriti and their relationships, indeed, under their settlements and those who are currently waiting and preparing to go through settlement—some who are large groups of hapū and iwi.

I want to also pick up on that hapū and iwi in Schedule 2 on page 83: in Schedule 3 of the Urban Development Act 2020, clause 1(4)(e), the Minister is proposing to replace “iwi and hapū participation legislation” with “iwi participation legislation”. So what is the Minister proposing to do with the hapū who have been completely left out and replaced? We have real concerns, obviously, with those 500 who only recognise rangatira and signed Te Tiriti, and those hapū that I’m sure the Minister would not want to be seen left out of legislation.

The further question that I have to ask to the Minister is that there has been a redefining and replacing of the definition of “Te Mana o Te Wai”. It is unclear who has been engaged with determining Te Mana o Te Wai, specifically given the Minister’s concerns about the kupu of te Oranga o te Taiao. And the meaning that has been set out in the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management has been completely rewritten and the purpose for it. Again our question is: if in fact the Government hasn’t had the time, because it’s under urgency, to engage not only with post-settlement governance entities, to engage with pre-settlement iwi, hapū entities, and other Māori groups, and if the Minister is proposing now to replace “Te Tiriti” and only acknowledge “the Treaty”, what is he going to do with the 500 rangatira who only signed Te Tiriti and not the Treaty? Is this indeed the start of the deterioration from this Government of the Tiriti?

I think it’s really important. This is of absolute imperative to Māori. You must remember: 30 percent of those of Māori voted for Te Pāti Māori. We have six of the seven electorate seats. We have been contacted by numerous technicians, numerous hapū. Only 1 percent voted for that party over there. So what I am really clear and confident in is who I can speak for, which actually this part over here can’t speak for. What is the Minister proposing to do? Is he proposing to rewrite the Tiriti?

In relation to the last question, no, I am not proposing to rewrite the Treaty of Waitangi. The committee will be glad to know that. I’m advised that the change that the member is adverting to at page 83 is just in keeping with what I’ve already said, which is that we are just going back to the Resource Management Act 1991 in the interim while we work to have a replacement regime around fast track and also a replacement regime for the resource management. So that deals with that. I know the member’s getting very excited, because she’s sort of randomly flipped open the bill and found something and is trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. The member is getting a bit excited.

In relation to the questions from Barbara Edmonds, which is sort of on a similar note, in relation to the departmental disclosure statement, I will consider making that information public in due course. It’s a Cabinet paper, so it will be proactively released in due course. And the other point to note there is that there was engagement between post-settlement governance entities and iwi by the Government. It was, to be fair, limited. I’m not going to pretend it was a full and robust engagement, but there was consultation. There were letters sent by myself to all local councils and also to post-settlement governance entities, PSGEs as they’re known in the parlance, and there was engagement with iwi technicians. And as I’ve indicated in my response to the Hon Willie Jackson’s question, there was a helpful suggestion made, which was inserted into the bill. So there has been engagement. I’m not pretending that it has been as robust as members would have liked, but there has been engagement.

Oh, great choice, Madam Chair, thank you. I have a series of questions for the Minister, mostly around clause 5(2), because the Spatial Planning Act, one of my favourite bits of what we did, hasn’t had anywhere near enough attention tonight, so I want to come to that.

But, first, I want to ask the Minister whether or not any cost-benefit analysis has been completed on this piece of legislation that’s in the House tonight.

Hon Shane Jones: Oh, detail!

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I’m not at all surprised that Shane Jones doesn’t care about cost-benefit analysis, but that’s the subject of another discussion for another day. But the work that was done, and the Hon James Shaw mentioned this before—the extent of the work that was done to create the two pieces of legislation being repealed under clause 5 of the bill that we’re debating tonight. Among other things we were able to determine during that was that over 30 years the Ministry for the Environment estimated that the new system would deliver between $2.58 and $4.90 for every dollar that was spent. Now, that kind of return—I see that’s back to Mr Jones’ interest when he hears about that kind of return on investment, because that is a significant improvement to where we are.

The system could have created a 19 percent reduction in costs, or around $150 million per year in reduced costs from the two pieces of legislation that are proposed to be repealed under clause 5 of this bill. Now, I find that extraordinary, because we hear day after day from the Government opposite that they’re here to be able to cut costs and cut waste and be more efficient, and here they are repealing legislation that would have saved around $150 million a year and, over 30 years, delivered between $2.58 and $4.90 in benefits for every dollar spent. That kind of cost-benefit analysis should accompany any major piece of legislation. So my question again, for the Minister’s benefit, is for him to be able to tell us whether or not he did commission a cost-benefit analysis and what it said, because at the moment this looks like a pretty bad deal for the taxpayer to be going backwards to this.

I also, as I said, want to then ask the Minister a series of questions around his repeal of the Spatial Planning Act. There are many of these that I could ask, but the ones that I want to start with are the extent to which the member thinks that the repeal is going to result in an increase in the number of plans that need to be done. The Minister, because I know he’s followed this debate for some considerable time, would be aware that we were moving from around 100 plans that are required to be done, and all of the red tape and the challenge and the difficulty that presents to people to want to be able to do things—we were going to reduce that down to 16 plans, from 100 to 16. That’s the cutting of red tape. They should be on their feet over in the ACT Party saying, “Well done, congratulations to the former Government for doing that.”, but instead tonight Christopher Bishop and the National Party want more plans. They want 100 of these plans around the country that are going to slow down the activities of people. Mr Bishop and others—Christopher Luxon being one of them—have told us how bad the Resource Management Act (RMA) is. Chris Luxon told us it didn’t work for anybody, it needed to be got rid of, and tonight they bring it back. Clause 5 repeals an Act that actually would’ve seen the number of plans reduced down from 100 to 16.

So I want the Minister to tell me how many plans he expects will exist under the RMA instead of the Spatial Planning Act, and while he’s at it, it would also be useful for him to be able to outline to us what it will mean for the speed of plan-making to return to the Resource Management Act rather than the Spatial Planning Act—I’m sure the member would be able to help understand that for us—what it would mean in terms of Māori representation in the plan-making process. So what does it mean now to go back to the Resource Management Act? Can he please explain to the committee in some detail what the difference is there, and whether or not there will be fewer consents as a result of the plans that are now going to be put here, or more consents? I look forward to the answers from the Minister.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I can deal with these questions relatively simply. In relation to cost-benefit, no, we haven’t done a cost-benefit—

Hon Grant Robertson: Oh, outrageous.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, yeah. It’s three minutes to 10 o’clock. I mean, there are so many things I could say about cost-benefit under the last Government, but I’m not going to.

Hon Grant Robertson: No, you just decided not to do one.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, no, because we sought a mandate to repeal this legislation and we received that mandate and we are doing it.

In relation to the second question, I do not and we do not accept the analysis that the member has raised around the $2.58 to $4.90, which I think he mentioned as the return.

Hon Grant Robertson: Ask the officials.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, yeah. Well, no doubt we’ll be discussing it. I don’t accept the analysis that was presented.

Hon Grant Robertson: You just don’t accept it.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, no, I don’t. I don’t accept it. I don’t accept it. Again, if the member wants to point to Ministers ignoring official advice, there are many examples from his time in Government that we can point to, but I won’t.

On spatial planning, which is more substantive, the member does make a good point. Spatial planning is important and we do want to develop a robust regime around that. We do want to see fewer plans; we do want to make it easier to streamline. There are a number of issues with the spatial planning regime as advanced by the previous Government as is contained in the Spatial Planning Act (SPA).

The first is that the member talks about a reduction in bureaucracy, but actually the regime would have set up new layers of bureaucracy through regional planning committees and what not to create that. Again, it goes back to the point I made before about the intention being a good one; the outcome not necessarily being created by that. So I do say to the committee and say to the member that we are interested in regional planning and spatial planning, but getting that regime right is important.

The other thing that should happen is it should be done in a coherent way. The last Government had the three waters regimes going on at the same time as the Spatial Planning Act was being passed, at the same time as the future of local government was throwing all of the local government sector into a spin about what the future of planning was. You know, all three things have some merit as things that Governments do often do, but getting some kind of structural coherence around that, I think, is important. I’m not trying to be overly political; I’m just making the point that coherence is important. So that deals with that.

Everyone wants to see fewer plans and faster decision-making under the RMA; I think we’re actually aligned around that, it’s just we disagree that the Natural and Built Environment Act and the SPA would have delivered that. That’s fine; reasonable people can disagree. We sought a mandate for it and now we are proceeding to implement it.

Members, the time has come for me to leave the chair. The committee will resume at 9 a.m. tomorrow. Thank you.

Debate interrupted.

Sitting suspended from 10.01 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Wednesday)