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

Members, when the committee suspended last night, we were debating Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 5 and 6, “Repeals and related provisions”, and Schedule 2. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to contribute to this debate. It’s my first opportunity to contribute to this part and I have 11 tabled amendments in my name that I hope the Minister in the chair will consider, because there are a few that do some things that this House has been discussing last night.

So the first ones that I’ll speak to are the first three on this part—they are new clauses 5A. The effect of the clauses that I’m seeking some support around the House for would bring in a new section after section 5, which, essentially, referred to one of the committees of this House the pieces of legislation which are being repealed for a cross-partisan discussion about those clauses which have been removed from the new Act but still have cross-partisan support. So it would, effectively, be a six-week urgent inquiry by whichever committee it was referred to. I’ve left it open for discussion to consider those parts which are important.

Now, this is in the context of my colleague the Hon Rachel Brooking sending a letter to the Minister about seeking a bipartisan solution here, because we all know around this House—and especially after the committee stage debates last night—that there are some things in the legislation which is being repealed which will inevitably need to be brought back in. We’ve already seen that there are provisions which have been saved by this repeal bill, including the fast-track provisions; those are a useful improvement to the 1991 regime. This tabled amendment to clause 5 is about identifying those other parts of the reforms which were recommended by the Randerson review panel that needed to be improved and that have cross-partisan support.

The Minister responsible for RMA Reform also said last night that he may well be back in the chair introducing more legislation which deals with bringing in some of those provisions which are being repealed today. So I think it’s important that we all acknowledge in the primary legislation that there is a place for those select committees to do that work and to find common ground here, because that is the work of our Parliament. It is about finding the common ground and a way through in an area of law that has long been overcomplicated. Both major parties agree that there are too many opportunities under the 1991 Act for long plans that do not get used and do not inform our planning process in a way which is constructive and is quick and is nimble. So we all agree that we need to find a faster way through that also protects our natural resources and our natural environment.

Things like trees were something that the Environment Committee spent a long time on, and there was an eventual coalescence around the views of the committee members who dealt with that issue. Urban trees are something that has long vexed urban planners, and the protection of which, in Auckland at the moment, is a vexed issue. It’s been put entirely on to local councils to determine notified trees. There were something like 600 applications outstanding when I last spoke with the local authority about a tree in my electorate of Manurewa which had not been dealt with, simply because of the capacity issues. That is something that there is a reasonable level of bipartisan support around and is something that the committee should consider if this legislation is referred back to those committees.

I’m not suggesting that this legislation would be referred to a new kind of committee, a bipartisan committee. It is still appropriate for the Government to have a majority on the committee that it would be sent to. It’s useful, though, for experts in the room like my colleague the Hon Rachel Brooking to be able to have the discussion in a forum which is a formal forum that we all know how it works, to hash through some of these ideas.

The three different tabled amendments also include the regulations. Though that is not one of the most substantive pieces of legislation that is being repealed now, it’s also useful for a committee to consider the effect of the secondary legislation being repealed. The Regulations Review Committee will not have the opportunity to consider those regulations because they are being taken off the statute book, but usually there would be a power in this parliamentary cycle for the Regulations Review Committee to consider how those are operating. So this would give a committee the opportunity to do the work that would have usually been expected by that Regulations Review Committee.

These three tabled amendments are separate amendments. I have suggested them because I think there is a different case for sending the Spatial Planning Act back to a committee. Whatever we say about the bipartisanship around the Natural and Built Environment Act (NBA), there is certainly coalescence of views around the need for spatial planning in the long term. That Act is a smaller Act, but it does a very different thing; it allows New Zealand to have a long-term framework around spatial—

The member’s time has expired.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s good to be back. I thank the member Arena Williams for her constructive amendments. In relation to new clause 5A around the fees and regulations, the Government’s not of a mind to support that. The fees and regulations that have been passed, pursuant to the Natural and Built Environment Act are administrative, to do with forms, fees—

Arena Williams: I’d like to look at them.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I’m sure you would like to look at them, but I’m not sure there’d be much point. In relation to the other new clause 5A, which asks a committee of the House of Representatives to conduct an inquiry in 28 days and report back within six weeks, I’m open to a conversation around that. I think the member is being ambitious with the dates, so, depending on progress of the committee this morning, the Act is scheduled to come into force the day after it receives Royal assent, which will be soon—again, depending on progress. So a committee conducting an inquiry within 28 days—let’s do the math. What are we today? The 19th?

Hon Members: The 20th.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The 20th. Well, it’s the 19th in parliamentary time. So the 20th—so 28 days is 16 or 18 January. Anyway, the point is I’m not sure a parliamentary select committee is going to sit between—

Arena Williams: I’ll chair it. It’ll be all good.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Oh, really? The member is offering?

Arena Williams: Yep.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I’m not sure how your whānau feels about that. You might want to text your whānau before you commit to that over the Christmas break. Anyway, the point is I’m not sure there’s going to be an inquiry within a month and then report back within six weeks. That would take us through until March. I think the member’s time frames are unrealistic. However, if the member wants to make a case, or other members—I see the Hon Rachel Brooking is smiling—we’d be prepared to consider something with a longer time frame, because I think the substantive point the member makes is that there are some things from the Natural and Built Environment Act which the Government is wishing to proceed. As I said yesterday during the debate on Part 1, we’re taking advice on some useful and substantive amendments that we wish to advance, and I’m not opposed to the idea of a committee doing a bit of work on that. The Environment Committee is a very hard-working committee, with an excellent chair.

Darleen Tana: Fantastic chair.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Oh, a very good chair. That’s great—a bit of bipartisan love breaking out in the Parliament. But if the member would like to withdraw the amendment and have perhaps some more realistic time frames—

Arena Williams: I’ll amend my amendment.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: —you’re amending it already; that’s good—the Government is open to considering that amendment.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ve got a couple of issues I would like to traverse in this contribution with the Minister responsible for RMA Reform, going back to comments that were made in the Chamber last night on Part 2. One of them is around my question around the amendment to section 80A of the Resource Management Act (RMA), and this is the time frame for when councils have to implement the national policy statement on freshwater.

I asked the Minister about what analysis there had been about where councils were at with their progress of that, and the answer was, “Well, we’re going to change the national policy statement; that is the reason for changing the date.”—a paraphrase somewhat there. But then that begs the question about what councils are to do. They have legal requirements, and there are requirements within the RMA to act as effectively and efficiently as possible. There’s a requirement in section 55(2D) of the RMA to put a national policy statement into effect as soon as possible. What are councils to do now that they have had a letter from the Minister saying that it’s going to change, but they don’t know what the change is? And this is very important constitutionally, of course, because, as we all know, Parliament is sovereign, the laws and regulations are those that are on the Table, not ones that the Government intends to make at some future point. If the Minister wants to answer that—or I can go on? I’ll go on.

I am interested in being able to jump back up and down with the Minister, as I think that’s what the committee stage has been designed for. I do appreciate, though, that this Minister has been answering many of our questions. But, of course, there was some sadness last night when there were many questions and many amendments on the Table regarding Part 1, and we did not get to those.

On a different tack, then, you will see in Schedule 2 that there’s a lot of grey highlighted bits, and we can ask questions on all of these. But it may be in the Minister’s interests to go through them and to give some assurance to the committee that these are only technical changes and that there is nothing substantive in them. For instance, there are amendments around Auckland and the spatial planning. I know some members will have some specific questions on different changes. We have not had the time to cross-reference everything to see what these changes mean, because, of course, this is all coming through under urgency—all stages. And there’s a big difference between urgency for different parts of a bill, where you’ve got some time, but this we saw in real time yesterday and in parliamentary time just today.

There’s also questions around—well, last night we had a discussion on a different topic, about the need for reducing plans; I think there was some reference to the Spatial Planning Act. But, of course, it’s the Natural and Built Environment Act that reduces the number of plans from over 100 to 16 regulatory plans. That just seems to be a whole lot more efficient, so how is it that the Minister thinks it’s a good idea to go back to the RMA and the over 100 plans?

I’m also interested in the comments made by the Minister last night about the Spatial Planning Act and the Natural and Built Environment Act, which are both Acts, of course, that are being repealed in Part 2. So it’s our opinion on this side that we can talk about those Acts, and I have some specific questions on them. The Minister was saying that everything that needs to be done in a coherent way—that we have three waters issues going on and there needs to be a structural coherence. Madam Chair, you know that there was a lot of thought that went into the coherence at the select committee stage of both the Finance and Expenditure Committee considering three waters, and the Environment Committee considering these pieces of legislation.

So what is the Minister imagining that there needs to be more coherence for that isn’t already included in that Spatial Planning Act, which already enables central government involvement with the different councils within a region to do that long-term planning and thinking about infrastructure? I do have more contributions but I see the Minister is on his feet.

I thank the member for her questions and am happy to engage in a dialogue back and forth. I don’t have her level of expertise on the Resource Management Act, but I’ll do my best to answer the questions. I’ll just go through them one by one.

In relation to the extension of the freshwater deadlines, the member asked what councils are meant to do. Councils are meant to follow the law. I am not Rob Muldoon. As I’ve said—

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Ha! The similarity has not gone unnoticed.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Thank you. As I’ve said to Parliament many times, if members come to my office, as she’s very welcome to do, on the way into the office you will find a printed copy of Fitzgerald v Muldoon, the entire judgment, framed, on the way into my office, to remind myself that Parliament is sovereign in this country and Governments can’t suspend the law by press release. We are not purporting to do that. We have given councils an extra three years from 2024 through to 2027 in the development of their freshwater plans. Contemporaneously with that, the Government is advancing work that has started, that is under way now, led by Minister Simmonds, alongside other colleagues, to repeal, replace, and rebalance the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2020. There’s widespread consensus, at least on the Government benches, that the current hierarchy needs to be rebalanced, and so that work will flow in due course. This is just a simple amendment to extend the time frame.

In relation to the other question she had, which was the second question, which was all the bits in grey, as she put it—and she wanted an assurance that these are technical amendments—I’m advised that, yes, they are. They just go through that process of taking the law back to what it was, basically, and the only substantive amendment is the extension of the time frame that we’ve just been talking about.

In relation to her third question about the Spatial Planning Act, well, I think the member answered her question through her own comments, which is—look, reasonable people can agree to disagree about spatial planning but I think everyone would agree that it needs to be done in a structured and coherent way alongside local government and alongside any potential changes around water infrastructure, which the previous Government was advancing and the current Government remains committed to as well, in a different form.

I just think it’s important we get that right, because one of the things we heard during the select committee process from local government was they just had an avalanche of stuff being thrown at them from central government. One of the points many councils made was, well, what is going to be the point of regional councils under the new Natural and Built Environment Act and Spatial Planning Act, because the Government was essentially rendering a lot of their powers and their abilities nugatory—because we were establishing these new regional planning committees—and what would regional councils do? It’s a legitimate question. There were unanswered questions around that.

We are interested in spatial planning, and the member, and other members too, have raised good points around the ability to lower long-term infrastructure costs to better plan our cities and our regions. The member knows I’m very deeply interested in infrastructure planning and housing, and I’d say it’s the biggest problem facing this country, and social planning’s a part of that, but it’s important we do it in a structured and coherent way.

Thank you. So following on from that answer by the Minister—and I thank him for getting to his feet so quickly—can he explain what he means by “Regional councils would have nothing to do under the Spatial Planning Act and the Natural and Built Environment Act”? It’s important to understand that those are two different pieces of legislation. The Spatial Planning Act is one that involves central government and the councils—the regional council, the district councils, the unitary authorities, whatever you want to call them; all the councils. Regional councils, under the Resource Management Act (RMA), under the Natural and Built Environment Act, under the Spatial Planning Act, continue to do what regional councils have done since they were created, and that is their focus on the environment—their focus on water quality and air quality, in particular. That is why it’s so important that we have good water plans, which should be delivered well before 2027, in my opinion.

So I honestly do not know what the Minister means when he says, “Well, what would regional councils be doing?” Regional councils would remain having those functions around air and water quality, biodiversity—there’s hazards, there’s other elements as well—but the fundamental is that they are environmental regulators. Why is that a reason to repeal the Spatial Planning Act, which largely doesn’t have very much to do with the ins and outs of environmental bottom lines? That’s in the Natural and Built Environment Act; that makes little sense. Also, though, again—the Minister said I answered my own question about why spatial planning needs to be done in a coherent way, but this was done in a coherent way; this does enable spatial plans to look at water infrastructure.

So I’m interested in those questions, and then some different questions—and I thank the Minister for his comment on the grey areas as well. Why is it that so many parts of the RMA that have been widely regarded as wildly inefficient are being gone back to, rather than using the provisions that could have been rolled over from the Natural and Built Environment Act or the Spatial—well, the Natural and Built Environment Act in particular, because, obviously, that is the one that directly refers to the RMA?

You can think of the Natural and Built Environment Act as a replacement RMA. The Spatial Planning Act—that is new. The idea of a climate adaptation Act—that is new as well. These are both different functions. The Natural and Built Environment Act is the one that has the regulatory plans under it, where you have to go to get consents. In my mind, you could have the Spatial Planning Act with the RMA—they could still work quite easily. There’s no reason to be repealing the Spatial Planning Act. You could easily—I mean, of course you’d need to do some amendments to it so it referred to different legislation, but obviously the Parliamentary Counsel Office is well versed in this, and I have faith that they could do that very easily.

So I say to the Minister: (1) there is no need to repeal the Spatial Planning Act at all; (2) has there been any consideration of, for instance, not reverting to section 32 of the RMA? Section 32 is a very long analysis process that takes a lot of time. It is normally done after decisions have been made, which is unfortunate, and just adds a whole lot of inefficiency into the process.

Then there’s other changes that were made in the Natural and Built Environment Act, including reducing the number of consent categories, and this was to make the system simpler. At the moment, under the RMA, you have non-complying resource consent categories, and non-complying resource consents have a convoluted test, at section 104D of the RMA, that requires a lot of decision making from the councils that just seems unnecessary if you can already have a plan that specifies what the considerations can be. So I’m seeking an answer on those questions.

Just as the Minister responsible for RMA Reform is considering his answers, let me take the committee back. I’ve now written an amendment to my amendment that the Minister was considering whether or not to support. Because it’s not on the Table yet, I will just take the committee through it.

My amendment to Part 2—new clause 5A—if amended would read: “Subject to section 5, a committee of the House of Representatives must initiate an inquiry within 90 days of the Act coming into force and report to the House of Representatives within 12 weeks on those parts of the Natural and Built Environment Act 2023 and the Spatial Planning Act 2023 that should be reinstated or given effect in policy.” This amendment now lengthens out the time frames available to the Minister not only to refer it to the committee but also for that committee to report back. It would fold in both of those two pieces of legislation into the committee’s inquiry; however, that wouldn’t prohibit or exclude the Minister from directing the committee to focus on the Spatial Planning Act if that was the Act that it was deemed there was more cross-partisan interest in improving and putting back in some form on to the statute book. I won’t use all of my time discussing that amendment, because there are a number of other amendments—six, actually—that I haven’t spoken to yet.

Let me deal with the fourth; it’s a replacement of clause 6 with an amendment that would, essentially, hold off on the consequential amendments in Part 2 to Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 and Taumata Arowai, the Water Services Regulator Act 2020. The reason for holding off on those, and it’s only suggested in this clause that it would be a nine-month hold-off, is that for Te Ture Whenua Maori Act to be amended—that’s on page 67 of my copy of the amendment bill—it requires a number of amendments to how things like subdivision consents would be considered. The issue that I’m raising here for the committee’s consideration is that, with a nine-month period to consider how the Act that is being repealed—the Natural and Build Environment hierarchy of how concepts in Te Ao Māori should be taken into account—when in Te Ture Whenua Maori Act you’re giving effect to the powers of communal owners, and going back to the 1991 provisions should be taken into account, because they’re not the same; they create a different kind of hierarchy.

In the 1991 Act, we have a hierarchy where kaitiakitanga is meant to be given effect in those decisions. In the new Natural and Built Environment Act, we have a new way of giving effect to those values that are important to Te Ao Māori, with concepts like Te Mana o te Wai. Now, whatever you think about those considerations, on any side of the House, they are different, but we’re requiring an immediate whiplash in decisions that are made under Te Ture Whenua Maori Act to go back to the 1991 system that have been being made under the new provisions—particularly things like subdivision consents and the powers under Te Ture Whenua Maori Act for communal Māori land owners to move their land from general freehold land to reserves, or what are called whenua tōpū; these trust ownership models that own what was freehold land now in a trust environment where they do not pay rates and they are held in reserve for the good of not only the owners but also of the wider public.

That’s a move that you can see in other kinds of corporate law as going from privately held assets to publicly held ones, which is like a move to a charity. When you give consideration to that kind of decision which is given power by Te Ture Whenua Maori Act, you have a situation where people are doing something which is generally for the public good, and we allow them those powers that are different from any other situation where, say, directors of a company move to a charitable context, because we think that there is good for the public but there is also good for kaitiakitanga and for those values. But the values are different here. The new legislation proposes a different sort of values system that the decision makers, which may be the Māori Land Court or it may be those owners who hold it in trust for the good of their descendants, should take into account.

So those decisions will be different. We need some time to work through how those decisions are different, and I want the Minister to consider giving nine months to be able to consider how the hierarchy is different, given that a number of these decisions will be in train within the Māori Land Court setting and within trust boardrooms around the country right now. Giving it more time will allow us to make sure that those decisions are done in a way which gives effect to the law as it is proposed by the Minister.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I thought that contribution from my colleague Arena Williams was outstanding, and it’s in that vein where we are coming up to this anomaly when we look towards the repeal bill here. I want to bring the Minister responsible for RMA Reform’s attention to the amendments to the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011.

Ngāti Apa took a claim to the Waitangi Tribunal and actually ended up in the High Court, where the High Court decided the customary rights of Ngāti Apa in Te Tau Ihu o te Waka. The rest is history, really—that sparked the foreshore hikoi, and what it did was it forced the Government of the day to look towards bits of legislation that allowed tribes to have the ability to apply for customary rights through the courts. Actually, it was our former colleague the Hon Christopher Finlayson who I thought did a very inspired job there to tidy up something to allow Māori the avenue towards application for customary rights on Takutai Moana.

My question to the Minister: in repealing the coastal permit—and it’s slightly in the vein of my colleague Arena Williams—what we’re effectively doing here is reverting the coastal permit laws back to 1991, which gave rise to the Ngāti Apa claim which ended up in the High Court and forced the High Court decision which led to the foreshore and seabed and, ultimately, the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act. So that’s the first question: in doing so, are we diluting Māori’s ability to be able to take these particular claims of coastal permit into the legal realm, to apply for customary title?

The second question, just very quickly, is with respect to the customary title right, for those under the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011, there have been quite a large number of iwi who are already involved in a process to try and achieve a customary title right. I’m curious if the Minister knows what will happen with those cases. We know—and I may be corrected by some of the members in the House here—that there’s only been one application that’s got across the line that resulted in the Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Porou legislation. But there are no less than seven others who are already going through this particular process, and whether or not this repeal of the definition of “coastal permit” will affect those particular members or tribes who are pushing through their coastal claim. I think these are important questions. I know, as I said already, Mr Finlayson, I thought, through legal instruments, actually provided a really good way of getting through the customary title argument and debate on the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act. So I’d really like to hear from the Minister on those matters.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I agree with the member who resumed his seat, the Hon Peeni Henare, around the elegant solution that Parliament came to with the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act. Although, as the member will be aware, we do have concerns around one of the more recent judgments in relation to that Act. Parliament has made its intention clear and it’s not clear to us that the courts are taking the right approach to it. But in a general sense, I accept the member’s point.

This repeal bill has nothing to do with that. So any existing claims that are before the courts or going through the process remain so; they will work their way through the process. The Ngāti Apa decision of the Court of Appeal in 2003—I respect the member’s knowledge of the matter, but that’s not going to happen, so I wouldn’t be too worried about that. All it does, as I’ve said many times, is take out the last three months and go back to what we had under the 1991 Act. There is no intention to upturn or overturn any existing processes or settlements or anything like that.

That also, I think, deals with Ms Williams’ point around changes to Te Ture Whenua Maori Act. Again, in the sense that changes around that that were seen as an advancement are being undone: yes, that is true—reasonable people can disagree or agree on that. But we are just going back to what the law was up until three months ago. So that’s the easiest way to think about the bill. Parliament is essentially rejecting the changes made just three or four months ago.

In relation to her select committee referral motion, which she’s had another go at, I see she’s moderated her demands—demand’s probably a bit strong—moderated her inquiry request a little bit; 90 days. The House must conduct an inquiry within 90 days.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: It’s a 90-day trial.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Ha, ha! Yep, yep. Well, 28 days of that time, people will be at the beach; cute Mr McAnulty will be playing cricket and Ms Williams will be at those beautiful North Shore beaches. So I think that might be a little bit ambitious. I am prepared to consider it.

The other option, of course, is that Ministers or the Government write to a parliamentary select committee and ask them to do a short, sharp, targeted piece of work around what bits of the Natural and Built Environment Act (NBA) the Government may wish to advance. Because, as I have said to the House previously, it’s inevitable that we will keep some of the more sensible technical amendments in relation to the Resource Management Act (RMA). Because, although it’s sort of been advertised that the NBA repeals the RMA, it doesn’t—actually, David Parker is partly to blame for that, because David Parker stood up in Parliament on many occasions and said, “We’re repealing the RMA; National’s opposed to it,” and, actually, it doesn’t. The RMA continues in its existence for quite some time.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: You’ve been waiting a long time to make that point, haven’t you?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: What was that?

Hon Kieran McAnulty: You’ve been waiting a long time to make that point.

Arena Williams: Yeah, which is why we don’t need to be here today.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yeah, well, we could finish up right now, vote, and get out of here. But, you know, it’s entirely over to you guys.

Arena Williams: No, you remove it.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I’m happy to keep answering your questions. So that deals with that issue.

Just going back to what Rachel Brooking said in relation to the Spatial Planning Act, the member’s very exercised about why the Government’s keen to get rid of this. I think I’ve given a few reasons already, which is that we want a structurally coherent way around spatial planning. The other bit is that it is not possible to unpick the changes made through the Spatial Planning Act (SPA) from the NBA. So, for example, clause 5 of the SPA inserts a strengthened Treaty clause around giving effect to the Treaty. Our preference is for “have regard to” the Treaty, as is in the current RMA. Clause 6 contains the language around te Oranga o te Taiao, which we’ve canvassed in Part 1 and the first and second reading. The SPA purpose clause makes it clear that the purpose of the SPA is to uphold commitments made through the NBA. So, yes, they’re separate Acts, but they’re clearly interlinked and it’s impossible to unpick them.

The other thing, of course, is that the SPA—and the NBA, for that matter—kicks off a 10-year transition time frame. The Government’s taken the view that rather than councils and decision makers starting to apply the law and get started on it, we’ve taken a decision that it’s best to get it off the statute books—[Bell rung] Madam Chair, I’ll just answer this briefly.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The Hon Chris Bishop.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I’ll just take a couple more seconds. We’ve taken the view that it’s best to get it off the statute books so that everyone has certainty. I actually think we’re doing everyone a favour. It’s no longer going to be the law if Parliament passes it.

The other point I would make is something that I don’t think I’ve mentioned before, which is that I’ve decided to retain the Spatial Planning Board, which is not actually set up through the NBA or SPA; it’s set up through the Public Service Act. I have decided to retain the Spatial Planning Board while we work out our own approach to spatial planning. But the idea of getting agencies together into a room—as the member knows from her time as a Minister—is very, very useful. So the Spatial Planning Board will continue, and in due course we will work out exactly what the Government’s approach to spatial planning is.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I’m pleased to have the opportunity to make my first call in this contribution. It will be, I hope, one of many. There was an instance last night where, in raising a point of order, the presiding officer conceded that there were relevant spokespeople on this side of the Chamber that didn’t get an opportunity to speak. The presiding officer said that was a fair point. So just registering now that there is, through my portfolios of local government, housing, and, to some degree, regional development, a desire to touch on those.

There is also a desire from the finance spokesperson to speak to this Part. However, the Opposition showed, I think, the sort of collegiality that we expect in Parliament at Business Committee last night, and agreed to allow the Government to release their financial details today, which wouldn’t normally occur under urgency. But because we were quite happy to agree to that, he is now working on that. So just registering our desire for him to contribute as well.

The reason I’ve said that is because last night we also got an assurance from the presiding officer that now that we’re in Part 2, we can speak specifically to the parts of the Acts that are being proposed to be repealed. Specifically, within the Spatial Planning Act 2023, there is clear reference to the Water Services Entities Act 2022. So the first question that I have in regards to the local government portfolio and the proposal to repeal the Spatial Planning Act is: how does that then align with what is currently in the Act around the Water Services Entities Act? Because we do know it is the Government’s intention to repeal that also, but that hasn’t happened. We don’t know when that will happen, and we don’t know details about that. So, in repealing the Spatial Planning Act, that then puts local authorities in difficult positions when it comes to water services. We know what the intention is, but we also know another provision will be put in place. We don’t know the details yet, and I don’t intend to ask that today. I don’t think that will be relevant. But what is relevant is what local councils do in the interim.

We do know that local councils as a whole made it very clear that they were unable to do what was expected of them in their local areas under the old Resource Management Act situation. But by repealing this, we go back to that. What is different, however, is that we have, currently anyway, a situation where councils are preparing for the establishment of water entities, and, in the case of Northland and Auckland, that is very well advanced. So what happens to those councils in the interim, when they are put back to the old planning structure, whilst also being required, for the time being, to prepare for the establishment of water entities? We know that councils are in a dire financial situation. We recognise that they have indicated concern about how their financial situation could get more difficult if this is put back. In the context of water services, I think it is important and relevant to get an understanding of the Minister’s thinking.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d like to pick up, specifically, on the aspect of the bill that seeks to extend the deadline for regional councils to notify plans. As was so accurately pointed out by 50 freshwater experts and leaders in their letter to the Prime Minister just on Monday, the health of the country’s waterways are already under immense pressure, and I’m sure the Minister responsible for RMA Reform is aware of that. In light of this, I’ve tabled an amendment that specifically deletes section 80A from Schedule 2 of the bill, which seeks to extend the deadline of regional councils to notify plans. Currently, it’s at 31 December 2024, but the proposal that the Government have on the table is to extend that to December 2027.

Just for some context as to why I’ve put down this amendment—and I really invite the Minister to respond to this—before entering politics, I worked as a freshwater ecologist, and it would be remiss of me not to highlight the issue to members of this committee, who may not be aware of the current state of freshwater in this country, which would be directly impacted by the proposed section. I just want to paint a really brief snapshot of that, from our latest freshwater report that the Ministry for the Environment put out. That’s things like the fact that 76 percent of our native freshwater fish are endangered; over 40 percent, and specifically 46 percent, of our lakes are in poor or very poor health; and ecosystem health—and this relates to both the freshwater invertebrates or the bugs that live in our freshwater environments—56 percent of freshwater sites are worsening; and E. coli contamination is worsening at 41 percent of freshwater sites.

Through my time, again, before entering this House, I was a councillor for two terms on Environment Canterbury and I heard just the surface of the immeasurable losses that ngā rūnanga and whānau of Ngāi Tahu suffered as mana whenua, particularly hearing from those across Waitaha Canterbury but also the wider Te Waipounamu area. I also heard a lot about the heartbreak of tangata Tiriti or non-Māori communities who have experienced the damage and degradation of their local freshwater ways, just over the last few decades. For these people, they have had over a decade of community processes—planning processes—without national direction that upholds ecological integrity and Te Mana o te Wai. Ultimately, when it comes to environmental outcomes, this has simply resulted in a lot of talking, a lot of money spent, but, ultimately, ongoing environmental decline.

So I would really like to hear from the Minister how he would justify his Government’s proposed delay of another three years of this deadline for regional councils, for communities who really want to see this timely, measurable improvement in their freshwater environment and see Te Mana o te Wai enacted in their local areas. I really want to encourage the Minister to consider this amendment that would actually keep freshwater improvement back on track like his Government intends.

Just before I take the next call, I just want to let the committee know that I’m just waiting for some work that’s being done, so I’m not intending to take some closure motions at this point because we’re having a bit of a constructive debate going on here.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I have five questions about my Amendment Paper 9 for the Minister responsible for RMA Reform. I hope we can have a back and forth discussion about these questions, and I will be very quick on my feet.

The first two questions about Amendment Paper 9, which is to delete all amendments to the Urban Development Act 2020—that’s in Part 2, on page 68. These are about the Treaty of Waitangi clause that has changed, and there are a number of Treaty of Waitangi clauses in the consequential amendments that do change, but it would be helpful to just examine this one amendment here so that the House can get some comfort about all of those Treaty of Waitangi amendments. I hope we can use this as an exemplar.

My first question to the Minister is: does the amendment that he proposes create a hierarchy where the purpose of the Urban Development Act subordinates the Treaty of Waitangi principles? My question here is because the amendment that the Minister is proposing inserts the words first “in achieving the purpose of this Act”, which is new as compared to the Urban Development Act, where it simply says all persons performing a function under this Act. So there’s a first reference there to the purpose of the Urban Development Act, and I want to know whether the amendment that he proposes creates a hierarchy whereby the purpose of the Act comes first in the decision maker’s mind, and then the effect of the Treaty principles comes in next.

As he’s considering that, I will ask my second question, which is about the practical effect of the change that he is proposing, and bear in mind that this is a change all throughout the section; it’s not just about the Urban Development Act. So, this is a major change. The second question to the Minister is: is he aware of any incidences where this provision has had a practical effect, in this circumstance in Kāinga Ora’s decision making, but in the context of other Government decision making? So what I’m asking here is: is there any incidence where, after the change was made in 2022-23 where decision makers were not subject to a hierarchy, where they were considering the purpose of an Act first before considering the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, is the Minister aware of any incidences where they made a different sort of decision or any incidences where their policy or procedures were impacted because they had to give effect to the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi first before considering the purposes of the Act? Those are two questions of five.

I can answer this very simply: the change made through the Natural and Built Environment Act (NBA) strengthened the Treaty provision of the Urban Development Act. The change we are making through this bill goes back to what the law was prior to the passage of the NBA. As I have said multiple times now, it is actually quite a simple piece of legislation, notwithstanding the saving of the fast track. We are going back to what the law was—with some exceptions—prior to the passage of the NBA. So, in answer to the member’s second question about practical effect, there is, essentially, no practical effect. Nothing has happened in the last three months because of the changed Treaty provision in the Urban Development Act.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to ask my next questions in light of the Minister responsible for RMA Reform’s answer that there is no practical effect. My suggestion here is that the House should certainly consider my Amendment Paper 9 to delete all amendments to the Urban Development Act 2020 in light of that answer, given that there is no practical effect. The symbolic nature of the change that happened in 2023 is important for the way that the public servants can conduct their affairs. It is simpler for the public servants to have one indication, not this couched, hierarchical way of considering their decisions. It cuts down the litigation risk because it means that the policy decisions made at a Kāinga Ora level are easier and more straightforward.

But, given that, I want to ask my third and fourth and fifth questions to the Minister. In the context of the Urban Development Act, is the urban development purpose of the Act at odds with the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi? Is there any balancing there that is being required by the new wording that the Minister proposes?

My fourth question is: does the difference between the new amendment words which are “take into account the principles”, and the old wording, which was “give effect to the principles”—in the Minister’s mind, is there a difference in those two things? Would he expect, as the Minister responsible for Kāinga Ora, for decision makers within Kāinga Ora to treat those two things differently? He said that there is no practical difference. I want him to clarify for the House, then, what the difference is between those words: “take into account the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi”, which is the new amendment that he proposes, and the old words, “give effect to the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi”, which is what this side of the House would prefer.

The fifth question is that—if, in fact, there is a difference, then this provision does not belong in the consequential amendments. This House will get itself into trouble if we make this kind of decision in a consequential amendment to Part 2 of an amendment bill which is buried on page 68. Because if there is a difference to the way that decision makers give effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, which is a part of our constitutional law in New Zealand, then it should not be a consequential amendment.

As I’ve said about five times now, we are going back to what the law was—it’s as simple as that. I know the member’s trying to create something that isn’t there. It’s really quite simple: the Act used to say “take into account”—

Arena Williams: Dean’s going to tweet about you.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, I mean, he tweets a lot about me. But, you know—good luck to him. So the member is really grasping at straws.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the Minister responsible for RMA Reform for giving me but a moment of his time. Suffice it to say, there’s a few issues in the freshwater space, and I know the Hon Rachel Brooking alluded to it earlier on. I’m cognisant of the settings in and around the national policy statement (NPS) for 2020, and what he expects the councils to do in the interim—if he could give some clarity for those that may have tuned in—prior to the extension that he alluded to. I’m sure he’s got some offerings and words he might want to share with the committee for certainty.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and I appreciate the opportunity to have this robust conversation about this, because this is a substantial change. The Minister responsible for RMA Reform refers to it just going back to three months ago, but, of course, what we have achieved in long-fought struggles to achieve environmental outcomes have taken years.

One of those struggles has been the return of general tree protection. Now, if you want to take it back to the 1990s, in fact, we had general tree protection in the original version of the Resource Management Act (RMA). We had it there. So that is one instance where the RMA was better than what we’ve had since the amendments were made in 2009 and 2012 to the RMA. Up until three months ago, we had no general tree protection, and then we got it back. We’re not just going back three months; we’re going back over 10 years, to 2009.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Great leaps backwards.

STEVE ABEL: These big steps backwards in that environmental space, that ecological space, as my colleague Lan Pham talks about in terms of the water space—these are things that people in the community have argued for and fought for, for many, many years, to finally get them recognised in the legislative frameworks that protect the collective commons, which is our environment.

I want to speak to a very specific amendment regarding general tree protection. It’s an amendment to Part 4 of Schedule 2, after the amendment to section 58H, at page 105, after line 6. We want to bring back the right of councils to protect trees. This was brought back in the Natural and Built Environment Act. It was in the original Resource Management Act 1991. If you want to take it back to the 1990s, bring back this as well.

I feel that in my town where I come from—in Auckland—there is a heartbreak on a weekly basis. When people go to work and the tree that they pass at the end of their street that’s been there for a hundred years—they come back from work and it’s gone, and there’s no by or leave, there’s no say, and there’s no input from the community on it. I was part of a campaign in Avondale to save a magnificent arboretum of native trees at Canal Road. The community spent 245 days trying to save that stand and it is gone, and that is the consequence of us not having general tree protection.

I took great heart from the select committee this year that you were sitting on, Mr Bishop, and in your comments at that select committee, and this is why I am hopeful that you will support this amendment. You said—and I paraphrase—“I am fast coming to the view that we need some sort of general tree protection in this country, not just for livable cities and for the climate”, and you are absolutely correct about that. For us to have livable cities, trees provide extraordinary amenity. They absorb moisture, they hold the land together, they provide urban cooling—they’re like magnificent outdoor air-conditioning units. I invite you this summer to sit under a big tree and find out just how incredible their services are. They sequester carbon. They take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and turn it into wood. It’s not magic; it’s real—it’s called nature.

They do incredible things in our cities and they make our cities more livable. They make density done well a good thing, when you retain those mature trees. If you allow those trees to have no status and no protection, they will be gone, and that is what we’ve seen. We’ve seen a third of our urban ngahere lost in the last decade in Tāmaki-makau-rau Auckland, and it’s awful for Aucklanders. It’s magnificent to come here to Wellington and see how you’ve got this incredible green belt still intact. It needs a legal status, it needs protection, and I urge you to seriously consider this amendment.

This is a very reasonable thing that most people across our community agree we need. We need general tree protection. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Let me deal with a few of the questions. Just on the freshwater stuff in the questions asked by Ms Pham and also Mark Cameron, the Government has made its position clear on that: we are extending the deadline for notification of council instruments through to 2027. That allows enough time for the Government to go through the process of repeal, replace, and rebalance, and there’ll be further information to come about that in due course. It’ll be led by the Hon Penny Simmonds, the Hon Andrew Hoggard, and the Hon Todd McClay—

Chlöe Swarbrick: What are you balancing towards, Bish?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: —to work through that process. Well, we’re rebalancing, and you will have to wait and see. All Christmases don’t come at once, Ms Swarbrick—you’ll just have to wait.

On the issue of water services, just to deal with Mr McAnulty’s point from, I think, a few minutes ago, this bill doesn’t really have anything to do with it, to be honest.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: I disagree.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, OK, you feel free. But the Government is working through a process around three waters reform, which is being led by Simeon Brown, the Minister of Local Government, and we are going through a process which the Minister will talk more about in due course. But the Government’s policy position is very clear, which is: council ownership, council control, and remove mandatory co-governance provisions. But it is important that we fix the water infrastructure crisis that is afflicting our councils and our communities. We’ve got to go through a proper process to get that right and repeal three waters. Simeon Brown will have more to say about that in due course.

In relation to Mr Abel’s point about urban tree protection, it’s good to see you picked up on my comments to the select committee from a few months ago. We’re not going to support his amendment, but I am happy to have a conversation around how we can do better as a country with doing density—and our cities are going to become more dense in the future. It’s an inevitable by-product of urbanisation and the growing population, and—

Scott Willis: The conversation is nice, but a rule is good.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yeah, well, you know—all good things take time, Mr Willis. [Interruption] Well, if you’d just listen to me, I’m saying—

Hon Member: You’re delaying it another three years.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, I’m happy to have the conversation around it. We’re not going to support the amendment, but I think there is a balance to be struck around how you can do better density and get more trees in our cities to encourage denser living but, at the same time, balance that against property rights, because, by definition, urban tree protection that protects trees on private property has an impact on people’s land but also the way in which we plan our cities.

So I’m happy to have a conversation about it. I take the member’s point, but we won’t be accepting the amendment.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The difficulty with not having a select committee process and this bill going through under urgency is that the committee has to put a lot of trust in the drafters of this bill and the proof-checking of the bill to ensure that it meets the policy intent of the Government of the day.

I have only in the last hour been able to go through Part 1 of Schedule 2, through the Airport Authorities Act, the Aquaculture Reform (Repeals and Transitional Provisions) Act—these are all the consequential amendments as a result of this bill—the Auckland Improvement Trust Act, the Biosecurity Act. Now, I had to stop at the Biosecurity Act because this is where I think there has been an omission, and I want to get a clarification from the Minister responsible for RMA Reform that it is an intentional omission from this bill. So under the heading “Biosecurity Act” it states, “In section 7A(1) and (4), replace “Part 2 of the Natural and Built Environment Act 2023” with “Part 3 of the Resource Management Act 1991” in each place.”

So if you look at Part 2 of the Natural and Built Environment Act, you see that Part 2 is in relation to the duties, responsibilities, and the restrictions in that particular Act, which this bill is repealing. Section 17 of the Act, which this bill is repealing, has a requirement around environmental responsibility, and, again, I tie this back to the Biosecurity Act, and that has the purpose of protecting New Zealand’s borders from biosecurity threats—it’s really serious stuff. It has serious penalties, and for anybody who’s in the primary industries or has an interest in the primary industries in New Zealand, it’s really important that this is made really clear.

So Part 2 of the Natural and Built Environment Act has section 17, “Environmental responsibility”. It states, “(1) Consistently with the ethic of stewardship, every person has a responsibility to protect and sustain the health and well-being of the natural environment for the benefit of both present and future generations, including as required by section 18

So after a bill is passed, officials will provide some guidance to the rest of the country as to how you interpret the law. Under that guidance that’s been provided by the Ministry for the Environment, it says that clearly this is a new duty and responsibility. It says the purpose must be achieved in ways that first and foremost protect the health of the natural environment.

The second thing that’s most important about it is that it futureproofs it. It futureproofs the environmental responsibility so that, basically, the decision makers of today have to ensure that they take into account how they can futureproof the protection—again, I go back to the Biosecurity Act—of the biosecurity of the country. So, basically, when you make decisions, take into account the duties and responsibilities in those provisions.

My concern is that by replacing this just squarely with Part 3 of the RMA, there is no duty and responsibility because that is within the Natural and Built Environment Act. So I’m just wanting to make really clear: is it the Minister’s intention that there is no longer this very specific duty, which is set out in the Natural and Built Environment Act, “Consistently with the ethic of stewardship, every person has a responsibility to protect and sustain the health and well-being of the natural environment for the benefit of both present and future generations, including as required by section 18.”?

So I just want to ask the Minister that. Because he is transferring this straight from Part 2 and going straight to Part 3, is it an intentional omission not to have that environmental responsibility duty on decision makers?

As I have said about eight, nine, maybe 10 times now, we are going back to the Resource Management Act 1991—it’s pretty simple.

Just before I take—I’ve been watching this debate carefully for the last hour; I’m aware that most, in fact all of the amendments have been spoken to by those proposing the amendments. Also conscious that we are, sort of, even when we are speaking to amendments, while we allow some context, it can’t turn into a general debate speech. So it will now be getting to the stage where we will be looking for fairly specific ideas and questions on this.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Minister Bishop, congratulations on your role. First of all, I’d like to add to the comments of my friend Steve Abel, who talked about tree protection, and I’d like to ask—I saw a little glimmer of hope there that you had some sympathy with this issue—is there an amendment we could put up on tree protection that might bridge the gap here? Because this is an issue that’s really significant out there at the moment, and every time we delay it, trees get cut down.

My other request is that you tell us what kind of economic analysis has been done of the delay itself, because my understanding is there was an analysis done by the Ministry for the Environment which looked at this whole scheme which we are repealing in Part 2—all of the Acts—and it looked at the cost and the benefit of the new regime versus the old one. My understanding is that we were looking at, over 30 years, the system was expected to deliver $2.58 and $4.90 in benefits for every dollar spent—between those numbers—and that it was a 19 percent reduction in costs associated with it, or $150 million a year.

So we are, effectively, as I understand it—and I’d like to know if you agree—losing $150 million a year as we delay this process, even if the scheme that you develop is in some ways better. So I’d like to know, has that analysis been done? I appreciate that you have carved out one part of it, which is your fast-tracking process, and I wondered what has been attributed in terms of value to that part of it, because I do know that the Government has committed to cost-benefit analysis in this area.

I also wondered what role the Minister for Regulation will have in the reshaping of this, given that you are getting rid of this whole scheme of Acts that’s been very laboriously considered by submitters. I was listening to you yesterday, in the answers to one of the questions, talk about how submitters had made certain criticisms and that you had taken them on board in your decision. But one of the things that I noted was that those submitters had been listened to and the eventual shape after the select committee process had actually reflected a lot of the criticism. So this had been quite a—yeah, I’d be very keen—I can see you nodding your head. I’d be very keen to know how you respond to that.

Do you think that there was something that wasn’t listened to in that submission process that was of particular concern to you that means that you are now repealing what is a scheme that would save the country over $150 million per year, on the estimates of the Ministry for the Environment, and have you looked at that issue? Because it does seem that, even on your own account, Minister, you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater here, and that we are going to, in a time of cost of living crisis, cost people a lot of real hard money. I’m concerned that the kind of cost that we’re talking about is adding particularly to the cost of housing in an area like Mount Albert, and that we have schemes under way in that area that will be subject to this change, and that actually might be complicated.

My last question to you is the value of certainty, because I’ve been concerned by the signals that we’ve been sending out there that every time a Government changes, everything gets chucked out and replaced by things very quickly, and that that is actually destabilising people’s capacity to invest in some things that we need long term: infrastructure and particularly housing, which I know we’re concerned about. So I wondered if you could give me a comment on your weighing up of the issue of really undermining the certainty we need to get for investors in areas like housing.

Finally, Minister, I have recently been talking to somebody who’s a developer, who develops around—[Time expired]

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Catherine Wedd. Did I get the wrong—Katie Nimon, sorry.

Hon Chris Bishop: Am I allowed to say something?

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Oh, sorry. The honourable Minister.

Can I answer the member’s question. Sorry to colleagues across the Chamber, I just thought I’d deal with Helen White’s questions. It’s meant to be a back and forth.

So, lots to that. Let me deal with them with some conciseness. Firstly, to answer the question honestly, no, there’s not an amendment you could put up around urban trees that we would consider. As I’ve said to your friend Steve Abel, the Government’s interested in that issue. We’ll have a look at it in due course. Happy to have conversations around that.

In relation to the economic analysis, we don’t accept the economic cost-benefit analysis that was done by the previous Government. We do not accept the idea that it would save money. In fact, I think the opposite is the case, to be honest.

In relation to the third question around the role of the Minister for Regulation, well, he’s a member of the Cabinet—a very senior one. He will play a role in that, and the future role as to how the Minister for Regulation may interface with the new Resource Management Act (RMA) reform process that I’ll be leading as Minister Responsible for RMA Reform is yet to be determined. No doubt the member will find out in due course.

In relation to the other comments she made, I think her comment about throwing the baby out with the bath water is, essentially, emblematic of a recurrent theme from members opposite, which is that because a lot of time and money was spent on this, we should just charge on ahead, and it’s the classic sunk cost fallacy. I accept a lot of time and money’s been spent on it. That’s regrettable. But if something is going to lead to worse outcomes for both the environment and the construction of infrastructure and agriculture—

Hon Rachel Brooking: Which it won’t.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yeah, well, I know you say that, but we have a different view. This is the debate, right? So, you know, welcome to Parliament. If something is not going to lead to the outcomes you want, then you’ve got to throw it out, and, by definition, repealing it is a progressive and sensible way forward.

In relation to the member’s final point about certainty, yep, there’s a value in certainty, and her colleague the Hon Rachel Brooking has written to me around trying to get some sort of bipartisanship when it comes to planning. I mean, I don’t want to get too political about it, because this is a committee stage debate and we’ll go through part by part, but the National, now Government, has been up for RMA reform for a long time. We could never assemble a parliamentary majority in the period between 2008 and 2017, largely because every attempt to assemble a majority was rebuffed by the Labour Opposition at the time, who said that every change proposed to the RMA, including around making renewable energy more available and things like that—the Labour Opposition at the time, and I accept the member who asked the question wasn’t around at the time—every attempt was met with cries of “You guys just want to destroy the environment, you’re environmental vandals, blah, blah, blah.” No doubt there’ll be a lot more of that over the next few years. So that’s the history.

Then, when the Government changed in 2017, the outgoing last Labour Government parked the issue up for a few years while the Randerson report was under way. Judith Collins—

Hon Member: Well, that’s not called parking up.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, OK. Judith Collins wrote to David Parker and offered the National Party’s support for a bipartisan reform effort. David Parker never even wrote back to her. I’ll write back to Rachel Brooking, but David Parker didn’t even bother.

So, yep, I mean, we can go back and forth about this. Is there a value in certainty? Yes, there is. But I’ll tell you what there is a greater value in, and that’s not doing dumb law, and that’s what this is, because it would make it harder to get things done and harder to protect the environment, and it does not make things simpler. Members keep saying, “Oh, it’s a simplification.” The Acts that we are repealing are just as long as the RMA that preceded it—900 pages—and in particular, in relation to uncertainty, it introduces entirely new legal concepts that everyone will have to grapple with over the next decade. That reduces the value of certainty.

The RMA has many critics. I am one of them. But at least with the RMA there is well-established case law and jurisprudence around how section 6 and 7 interact, around the Treaty clause in the Act, around what the purpose of the Act is. So at least there is a value in the case law, and we’ve had 30 years of jurisprudence under it. That exists. That is not something to be easily done away with to go to an amorphous and ambiguous new legal regime, which, people to the select committee made clear when they turned up, will lead to endless litigation and cost that gets passed on to infrastructure consumers.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I’ve been reflecting on the answers that the Minister responsible for RMA Reform has been giving to the varied and wide-ranging questions that my colleagues have been putting forward, and I’m not sure it is satisfactory for the Minister to respond by simply saying, “the intent of the bill”. We know the intent of the bill. It is quite clear; it is in the title. But there have been some considered contributions from my colleagues here wanting to know specific things that have not been answered. It certainly doesn’t wash when parts are being kept, and if some parts are being kept, then surely the Government should be open to proposals to keep other parts, especially if it is going to improve the Resource Management Act 1991, which we no doubt will eventually get to.

I’ll give the Chamber an example. This bill proposes, under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Amendment Act 2023, in section 4, providing a new definition of “natural hazard”, going from the definition that is provided in the Natural and Built Environment Act 2023, to the Resource Management Act 1991.

Now, we get what is intended to happen here. We understand that the Government wants to go back to the Resource Management Act 1991. I get it. Everyone gets that. There’s no need to provide that rationale as an answer to a question. But, when we consider that the definition of a “natural hazard” in the Resource Management Act 1991 is: “any atmospheric or earth or water related occurrence”—and then it gives examples—“the action of which adversely affects or may adversely affect human life”, the definition of “natural hazard” in the Natural and Built Environment Act 2023 specifically includes the effects of climate change on any of those occurrences. That is crucially important to the understanding of a natural hazard.

Now local government, which is the perspective that I am speaking from now—one of the major issues that they are facing is how to deal with natural hazards. If we are moving back from this to the Resource Management Act 1991, with the clear definition of “natural hazard” that doesn’t include climate change, local government will be working within criteria that is no longer relevant.

Presumably, that is the definition that was provided in 1991. Things have changed. We only need to look back in the last 12 months to see the impact of natural hazards that has happened in the local government sphere. We think back to the Nelson and Marlborough floods, and what those councils have had to deal with in terms of the re-build there. We think back to the Auckland floods and Cyclone Gabrielle. It is clear in anyone’s mind that climate change was a massive driving factor for those unprecedented events. If we are then going to bring in a planning regime that doesn’t take into account climate change in the definition of “natural hazards”, I believe that could hamstring local governments and their ability to build back.

This is a genuine point, one that I make in good faith, and I just simply do not understand why the Government wouldn’t consider maintaining the exact same definition of a “natural hazard” as is outlined in the Natural and Build Environment Act 2023. They can still achieve what they want to achieve, they can still get back to the Resource Management Act 1991, but we can have a definition of “natural hazard” that is actually up to date and relevant for 2023. The reason I propose this is, further on down, the Government is proposing to include a whole new section in section A.

It is quite clear that they are open to leaving some things as they currently sit or improving them compared to what they were. I think the committee deserves an answer as to why the Government is proposing to go back to a decades-old definition of “natural hazard” instead of one that is fit for purpose in the context of today.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

E te Māngai, tēnā koe, tēnā koutou e te Whare. Mr Chair, thank you very much for the call. I just wanted to reflect on some of those points, as made by the Hon Kieran McAnulty, particularly about climate adaptation, but also about climate mitigation, because it is the Green’s very strong view—and, in fact, the science and the evidence bears out—that good climate adaptation is also climate mitigation. This kōrero is happening not in isolation, nor in a vacuum, but in the context of our largest city in this country being hit by a climate-change charged weather event at the beginning of this year, in the form of the Auckland Anniversary flooding. As a result of that, we have seen Auckland Council start to move itself and shape its policies and regulations in such a way to provide for greater green infrastructure and that climate adaptation point.

The Minister responsible for RMA Reform will be amply aware, given that he is aware of the complexity in this area, of the fact that Auckland’s future development strategy, as recently signed off by Auckland Council, has substantive consideration for green infrastructure, particularly the utilisation of public spaces such as berms. There could have been a great synthesis and opportunity for cohesiveness across local and central government policy were we to see the Minister utilising the opportunity to direct, through the national policy statement—which the natural and built environment legislation and spatial planning legislation enabled—for greater utilisation of green infrastructure, in turn creating that environment of certainty for local government to move ahead with its plans. Yet what we’re seeing right now, and what I’m hearing from the Minister, is that we’re in a bit of a holding pattern of wait and see. We’re not going to have all of our Christmases come at once. We don’t really know what’s going to happen.

We’ve also heard the Minister say that it’s really important for the sake of the investment environment for there to be certainty for developers and otherwise. Yet what we’re seeing—and I know that he didn’t like this statement—is the throwing out of the baby with the bath water, and no indication of where it is that we’re going to go next.

So my question to the Minister is: in lieu of issuing that national policy statement and direction—particularly pertinent to those of us in Tāmaki-makau-rau, but also those on the East Coast, on the West Coast, those in Northland as well, actually, at the top of the South Island too, who have all been hammered by climate-change charged weather events over the past several months, over the past several years—what is he going to put in its place so that there is that certainty for local government to undertake the requisite planning not only to do density well but also to take inherent account of the inherent valuable nature of our natural environment?

This is something, particularly on the point of tree protection, that I think is really important to continue underlining here. In my first term in Parliament, two terms ago, in the 52nd Parliament, I sat on the Environment Committee when we were going through a process of another Resource Management Act amendment. I was sitting with members, obviously, of the Labour Party, of New Zealand First, and the National Party, and I sought to put up an amendment, through that select committee process, to reinstate urban tree protection, which the Minister will know was actually first removed by the former National Government and only recently reinstated, in watered-down form, by the outgoing Labour-led Government of the last term. To that effect, it ended up being voted down on the basis that we apparently had to deal with that complexity. I then had a whole lot of engagement with our then-mayor, at the time, Phil Goff. I actually, for the sake of debate and discussion here, need to make the point that I will later seek leave of the committee to table that correspondence, between former Minister Parker and Mayor Goff and myself, about the fact that Auckland Council, as one of our largest councils, as the super-city, simply does not have the resources—

Hon Member: The best council.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: The best council, the best city in this country, does not have the resources to be able to work through the process of notable trees. Again, we’re seeing this lack of cohesion between local and central government policy.

Just to kind of summarise all of those points, we are engaging in this debate not in a vacuum but in the context of a climate-changed world, in the context of climate-change charged weather events which have devastated our communities, both rural and urban, over the past several months and years. One of the best tools that we have to mitigate against that climate-change charged ravaging is the utilisation of trees, which are both climate adaptation in the form of green infrastructure but also climate mitigation too, in terms of their capacity to sequester carbon. My question to the Minister is whether he will, and what he will be doing to, provide that certain environment for local government but also for the sake of investment, in lieu of pursuing the national planning framework as would have been enabled under the natural and built environment legislation and that national planning legislation as well?

I move, That debate on this question now close.

I’ll just indicate that that last speech is the sort of general points being made that have been made a lot, and that do lead to a closure, so I’ll just be warning those now—very, very specific. Hon Megan Woods.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. This is my first chance to make a contribution on Part 2 of this bill, and I do have some very specific questions. They do pertain to clause 5(1) of Part 2, the repeal of the Natural and Built Environment Act 2023. Of course, that takes with it section 58 of the Natural and Built Environment Act. Section 58 of that Act provides some enabling provisions in some very important areas.

There are a number of areas that I wish to ask the Minister about, but specifically my question to the Minister responsible for RMA Reform is around what will be done to ensure that we can continue to see momentum with the repeal of section 58(b), which is the enabling provision for papakāinga on Māori land. Of course, with the Resource Management Act that will be coming in to replace it, with the repeal of section 58(b) in respect of papakāinga land, it was possible to build papakāinga housing, but I think it’s fair to say it was incredibly difficult to build papakāinga housing. The intent with the national planning framework legislation was actually to have an enabling environment so we could see more of it.

Our Government had an incredibly aggressive programme around the provision of papakāinga housing, and obviously that can take many forms. In those forms, we managed to build around 500 houses on papakāinga land when we were in Government, with another 200 in the pipeline, but this is not nearly enough and why it was that this enabling provision was put into the Natural and Build Environment Act. With that going and reverting back to the provision, which we do not consider is anywhere near permissive enough when it comes to papakāinga housing, what advice has the Minister received on this, if any? What are the Minister’s plans to ensure we can have a more permissive environment around papakāinga housing? I do have some more specific questions, but I’ll give the Minister an opportunity to answer that one.

In relation to the member’s question, I haven’t received any specific advice about papakāinga housing. I agree with the member that it’s a very important part of the housing mix as we go forward—a very important part of solving our housing crisis. Papakāinga housing in my own electorate of Hutt South has been very successful. I think there is a real role for Government, and my good colleague the Hon Tama Potaka, as Associate Minister of Housing (Social Housing) with responsibility for Māori housing, will be doing some work on that. There’s a wider issue around Te Ture Whenua Maori Act and land law reform, which Parliament—

Arena Williams: Accept my amendment.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: —well, not—

Arena Williams: It’s good.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: —has struggled with for many years, including the last Government and the Government before that, and maybe in the next three to six years we’ll make some progress on it. I won’t hold my breath, but let’s hope we can get some progress on it, because we do need iwi in particular to be able to make better use of land, and also various Māori entities out there.

So I’m very interested in the role that papakāinga housing can play in relation to solving our housing crisis. I haven’t received any specific advice in relation to this; however, there’s a fast-track bill coming—the Government’s own fast-track piece of legislation—in the new year. I’m happy to consider papakāinga housing as part of that fast-track, but I haven’t received any specific advice.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. That gives me great heart, and thank you to the Minister responsible for RMA Reform for answering that question. I have two specific questions, both relating to section 58 of the Natural and Built Environment Act. One is: will the Minister countenance an amendment to this bill to enable a more enabling and permissive regime around papakāinga housing than the old Resource Management Act that we’re bringing back would allow? And I’m sure I’ll have colleagues that would like to speak, if there are any proposed amendments. I know that Arena Williams will certainly be keen to speak to a specific amendment in that, so I’d be keen to hear from the Minister if that is an amendment that he would countenance.

My second question is also in relation to section 58, and that is around the removing of the enabling renewable electricity generation and transmission provisions in the Natural and Built Environment Bill—it pertains particularly to water usage—and whether the Minister has given any thought to what it will be replaced with or whether he has received any specific advice on whether it will be around both consumptive and non-consumptive uses of water in relation to electricity.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I said earlier in the House that I had 11 amendments in my name to this part. I have spoken to six of them, so I will take you through, quickly, those other amendments. There’s also an opportunity here, I think, for some bipartisan work on the amendment—which I have written now and will table shortly—which amends Part 1 of Schedule 2, and that is specifically around papakāinga housing. For the benefit of the Chamber, I will read it out: it would amend Part 1 of Schedule 2 to delete all amendments to Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993, the Urban Development Act 2020, and any other Acts which would reverse those changes made to the enablement of papakāinga housing.

There’s particular reference in those two Acts that would be amended by the Minister’s amendment that would set back the development of papakāinga housing. Given that the Minister responsible for RMA Reform has an interest in the enablement of papakāinga housing that is not only on community-held Māori land but also on other forms of freehold land which are owned by other organisations—like marae, like urban authorities—this would allow those practical changes which the Government of the last term introduced to enable papakāinga housing to continue. I do want the Minister to tell the Chamber whether he will consider my amendment, which I will table shortly. Given that he hasn’t had time to consider it now, I will run off some copies in a minute so he can consider it.

Speaking to the other amendments in my name, I am proposing a number of deletions from Part 1 to Schedule 2, and they are amendments 5 through 11. They are deleting the amendments to the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Act 2020, the Environmental Protection Authority Act 2011, the Crown Minerals Act 1991, the Conservation Act 1987, the Climate Change Response Act 2002, and the Water Services Act 2021. I have spoken already to the deletions of the Urban Development Act, so I won’t use the Chamber’s time to discuss those, but these are all Acts that make amendments that I have already explained to the Chamber are not consequential and do not belong in Part 2 that amends this Schedule.

These are not consequential, because the amendments to these Acts all include things that are moving to a system where there is some change for the way that decision makers within Government departments or decision makers within our court system would have to make a decision based on a new—well, an old—hierarchy of values. If the Minister’s answer that he gave me in relation to the Urban Development Act stands in this Chamber—that “Oh, well, the difference is only three months.”—then it would make sense that it would be fine to pass, through committee stages and through urgency in Parliament, any kind of amendment that went back to a system which was time-limited. That cannot be the answer. We need answers about how the decision-making framework that is now in our law will be different in the future, and that is why I have proposed to amend just six of the Acts that are amended by this amendment here.

I haven’t chosen everything, I’ve just chosen those things which make amendments which are more than consequential, and I’d like the Minister to tell me how he proposes to deal with that and my new amendment, which I will run off now.

It’s hard for me to comment on an amendment I haven’t seen, so—

Arena Williams: Oh, I’ll go and do it.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: OK, well, that’s good—very good. So I’m happy to have a look at it. In relation to papakāinga housing, just further to the Hon Megan Woods’ point—she was talking about clause 58; I think that’s the wrong section.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: The enabling provisions.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yeah, well, I’m advised that section 129 is the relevant one in relation to the national planning framework which would have enabled papakāinga housing—

Hon Dr Megan Woods: No, no. It’s one, but so is 58.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, I’m advised that there is no 58B in the Natural and Built Environment Act 2023 (NBEA). The correct section is 129. Anyway, regardless, I think we’re both talking about the same thing. The national planning framework (NPF) would have sent the filter through the system to make papakāinga more enabling. I’m also advised that the initial national planning framework which was being advanced under the previous Government didn’t actually include the papakāinga housing changes to it. That was going to be in phase 2, so I think it’s fair to say we were a wee way off under the NBEA track from enabling more papakāinga anyway. That was going to be part of the phase 2 NPF reforms; it wasn’t actually in the initial draft that’s been publicly released, or at least available. I’d just repeat what I said before, which is that I’m very supportive of papakāinga. I think there’s more we need to do there, so I’m interested as to ways we can advance that—just to repeat that.

In relation to Arena Williams’ amendment, as I think I’ve said now for the 12th or 13th time, we are just going back to what the law was. Ms Williams says, “Well, it’s very important when Parliament does that, we need to know what the law will be.” Well, we do: the law will be what it was. It’s as simple as that. Parliament recently passed this. There was a long and convoluted debate about it. I spent a lot of time in this House and a lot of time in the select committee—we made it really clear relatively early on from the get-go that National in Opposition did not support the NBEA. ACT said the same thing, New Zealand First—coalition partner—said the same thing from outside the Parliament, and we are now proceeding to implement our policies and our promises. It’s really as simple as that.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Now, I would like to go back to some questions that weren’t answered, and I’ll just reflect on those very quickly. That is, what the Minister responsible for RMA Reform thinks that the regional council’s role would be under the Natural and Built Environment Act. Also, whether or not there was any consideration of keeping bits of the Natural and Built Environment Act that are clearly much more efficient than the Resource Management Act (RMA). So that’s regarding section 32 of the RMA and the consent categories were what I referred to earlier.

I’m interested also—we’ve had some discussion about good urban density and phrases like “sponge city” may have come up, and, of course, one of the changes in the Natural and Built Environment Act that came quite late in the process was in response to a lot of the hazard events that occurred at the start of the year, and this real focus on green infrastructure. Now my colleague the Hon Dr Megan Woods has been referring to section 58 of the Natural and Built Environment Act—apologies if that is the wrong section, we’re working off my copy of the bill as it was reported back from the select committee stage. But clearly the Minister realises that we’re talking about the “National planning framework must provide direction on certain matters”. This is a catch-all section.

Another question that goes to the efficiencies that could be gained by doing some of the things in the Natural and Built Environment Act—I would say all of the things, but being specific here—is that a lot of national policy directions at the moment can be inconsistent with each other. So on the one hand, you might have the National Environmental Standards for Plantation Forestry saying, basically, grow pine trees wherever you like, but then you will have other national policy directions—there’s the Essential Freshwater package which is saying no, we need to be really careful about what is going into our waterways. So having one national planning framework that puts all of those different national instruments together and makes sure that they are not inconsistent goes a long way in terms of efficiency. So I asked the Minister if he had considered that; had the Minister also said that he is going to keep the Spatial Planning Board, and given that there will be no Spatial Planning Act or no Natural and Built Environment Act, I wonder what that Spatial Planning Board will be doing?

Also, we have the Mana Whakahono ā Rohe. They are much more strengthened in the Natural and Built Environment Act than they are in the Resource Management Act, and if there was any consideration to keeping those strengthened provisions, they could have stood alone as well. That’s one series of questions.

I’ll just answer those questions briefly. I mean, we’ve been through this. Yes, the Government went through a process about what changes made through the Natural and Built Environment Act they wish to keep as part of this. Time pressures meant we couldn’t go through all of it.

Hon Rachel Brooking: Self-inflicted time pressures.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, but—yeah, sure. But also, unless we just wait another year, everyone subject to this 900-page monster—councils and all the rest of it have to go through that, start a 10-year transition—everyone knows the law is going to be repealed anyway. It introduces even more uncertainty, so we took the view—and I think it’s a legitimate and reasonable view—better to get it off the statute books as quickly as possible so that people know where they stand. So that’s what we’re doing.

As I’ve said—again, for the third or fourth time—we are going to go through a process in the new year about some of the more sensible technical changes that were advanced through the Natural and Built Environment Act. Ms Williams has made a spirited case for allowing a select committee to do that through legislative amendment to this legislative amendment.

Arena Williams: Give me one amendment, come on!

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I’ll have a look at that. I’m more minded to just instruct a select committee chaired by my good colleague David MacLeod—potentially the Environment Committee, a very hard-working committee—but we can have a look at the tabled amendment.

On the Spatial Planning Board, the Spatial Planning Board is staying. In relation to what it will do, well, we’ll be working our way through that but as the member knows, as a former Minister, getting departments to work together is going to be a good thing.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

There has been very little new material in the last several presentations, so I will give the call to Mr McAnulty but it will be new material.

Thank you, Mr Chair. The issue with including new material here is that I still haven’t got an answer to the previous question I asked, a genuine question, about the definition of a natural hazard. I would like an answer to that because I’m considering putting forward an amendment for the consideration of the Minister responsible for RMA Reform so that we could do that. If he could give an indication as to whether he’d be willing to consider the current definition of “natural hazard” under the Natural and Built Environment Act and simply state, in this bill, that that is the definition that local councils will continue to be able to refer to in their operations under the new planning model.

It’s not about opposing what’s happening here: we know what the Government wants to do; we know they want to move back to the Resource Management Act 1991. But a genuine plea: let’s at least have an up-to-date definition of “natural hazard” that considers, takes into account, not only climate change but also contaminated land—a point that I wasn’t able to make last time—as a result of climate change and natural disasters.

It is important that the definition that local government operates with, with specific reference to natural hazard, is up to date. Times have changed. We now know that climate change and natural hazards are linked, without question. The definition should reflect that. I’m in the process of drafting an amendment to that—at least an answer to my question would be good, but an indication from the Minister as to whether he’d be willing to consider that.

Happy to look at it. Sorry, I meant to answer it before, and I take your point. I’m advised that there is, basically—the only thing that has changed is the Natural and Built Environment Act clarified that the activities that are covered had to be caused by climate change. So it’s just literally a clarificatory statement, but all of the activities that were covered are still covered; it’s just by dint of the passage of time, the Resource Management Act 1991—I don’t know, I mean, we’re 30 years on; it’s just a minor clarificatory statement. So I don’t think anything substantive turns on the wording. All of the activities that you’d want to be covered through natural hazards are covered. But I’m happy to look at the wording if the member wants to—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: I’ll print it now.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: OK, very good.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment inserting new clause 5A to require an inquiry into parts of the Natural and Built Environment Act 2023 that should be reinstated or given effect be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment inserting new clause 5A to require an inquiry into parts of the Spatial Planning Act 2023 should be reinstated or given effect be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ third tabled amendment inserting new clause 5A be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 6 be agreed to.