Resource Legislation Amendment Bill

Members, we now turn to the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill. The bill is in five parts. Members will be aware that Part 1 amends the Resource Management Act 1991, which is the main piece of the legislation, governing the use of natural resources in this country. The amendments in Part 1 are substantial and form the majority of the bill’s text. There is significant interest in allowing these proposals to be debated. For these reasons, I anticipate that the debate on Part 1 is likely to be considerable and will take longer than normal.

We have today at long last learnt what has been the price for the Māori Party capitulation to vote for this appalling piece of legislation, which further complicates the RMA, which does little, if anything, to cure the housing crisis, and which I think brings this House into disrepute. This piece of legislation is opposed by everyone in this Committee—Labour, the Greens, New Zealand First, United Future, ACT. The only ones in support are National with two votes from the Māori Party.

The Māori Party was said to have been voting for this in all future stages. In its form as it came back from the Local Government and Environment Committee, it was evident that the Draconian ministerial powers that are conferred by this legislation, which have been described by, amongst others, Sir Geoffrey Palmer as being on the spectrum of the National Development Act and the regulation-making power under the old Economic Stabilization Act 1948, abused decades later by Muldoon—those regulation-making powers allow the Minister for the Environment to, by ministerial action, override rules and plans that the Minister says, in his opinion, overlap other pieces of legislation. Rather than amending those other pieces of legislation and saying they are codes, which would be a proper way for the Minister to achieve that purpose, the Minister has granted himself ministerial powers under this bill to, by regulation, strike out rules and plans that the Minister thinks should not be there because they conflict with other regimes. The most controversial example of that has been in respect of GM rules and plans.

The Labour Party position on this, which has been consistent throughout this, is that rules relating to GM safety or the release decisions should be taken by the Environmental Protection Authority under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act (HSNO), and that medical decisions, in respect of clinical uses of GMOs, should be for clinicians and not councils, but that there is an economic decision that can still be taken by a council as to whether it thinks it is in the economic interest of its district to have, for example, GM crops. That is the current law, as found by the courts following attempts to strike out rules to that effect in a plan up north. The Minister does not like those and so his stated objective in respect of these ministerial powers was to get rid of that sort of rule by overriding it by regulation.

We cooperated with others running a campaign in the Hawke’s Bay area. We successfully brought to the public attention the inconsistent statements that were coming from the Māori Party and the National Party on this issue, and in response we now see a Supplementary Order Paper from the Māori Party limiting in a minor way—better than no limitation, but in a minor way—that ministerial override power so that it cannot apply to GM rules and plans. I am very interested to hear calls from the National Party and from the Minister on this, because I have heard the Minister rail against that very issue, saying that was the reason we needed this ministerial override power in the first place. We had Paul Foster-Bell, amongst other people, saying it was ridiculous to have rules relating to the use of GM crops in one area and not another, so I am wanting to hear from the Minister as to whether he now supports the proposition that you should be able to have different rules in different areas, because he is now, if I am to understand, supporting the Māori Party Supplementary Order Paper to that effect.

Can I congratulate those in the regions who have run, I think, a very successful campaign, including—

💬 Meka Whaitiri: Pure Hawke’s Bay.

—Lawrence Yule from Pure Hawke’s Bay, the National Party candidate, current Mayor of Hastings. So that is one area of unprincipled—oh, I see the member for Tukituki smiling up the back there. He is welcome to take a call to explain the Government’s current position on this, which is contortionist to say the least. I would like—[Bell rung]

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I intend calling the member again for a second call, but I omitted to draw members’ attention—I would not normally draw members’ attention to the fact that Supplementary Order Papers are on the Table, but members who went round and collected Supplementary Order Papers before about 5 minutes to 4 may have missed a significant Supplementary Order Paper. I want to warn members who did that that there is another one on the Table of the House and is currently being debated.

I actually have come into the Chamber for this debate and I note that there is a Supplementary Order Paper from the Minister in respect of this issue that runs to about nine pages, which I certainly have not had time to digest—so perhaps that is for a later call.

The next issue I want to talk about is in respect of subdivisional consents. The Government, through this bill, is preventing both public notifications of applications for subdivisional consents and appeal rights. Both of those measures were criticised roundly at select committee by local government, by developers, by environmental NGOs, and by lawyers. Everyone said the right of public participation should not be forgone in respect of subdivisional applications, just because the Government has got an out-of-control housing crisis in Auckland. The applicants included the likes of Fulton Hogan. It said that it thinks that people should have a right of participation and it is going too far to exclude them. It also noted—it and others—that if there is no right of appeal against a consent for a subdivisional application, councils are without constraint as to lots of, and sometimes silly, conditions being imposed on the subdivision.

The reverse sensitivity objections from the likes of the major owners of infrastructure include examples given by both quarries and airports. We need our airports; I do not know that the Minister has noticed that, but most people who go between cities fly out of our airports. Every house in New Zealand that is built needs aggregate for the concrete that is in it and for the chip on the roads that lead to the house, and, yet, those quarries and airports face a less certain future because they have got no right to participate in a subdivisional application that impacts upon their interests. So the quarry comes along and it says it has been there for 30 years, and a subdivision has been put in next to it. In 10 years’ time the people who are in that subdivision will be complaining: “There’s too much noise or dust from the quarry. We don’t think you should be able to carry on that activity.” That is one of the effects of this.

If you think that these concerns are ephemeral or not practical, I would refer the Minister to his amendment in 2013, which came into effect on 3 March 2015. This was another botched attempt by the National Party to amend the RMA. What it did was it added to the things that an applicant for a resource consent has to list. Everyone who applies for a consent to do something in New Zealand, or in a plan, has to include in it an assessment of the environmental effects, which is sensible. But then what National did in this recent amendment is say they have also got to now include an assessment of the impact of the application against the objectors and policies of the plan. This was another layer of bureaucracy added on applicants, which has choked up the planning system and added to cost. It is largely chucked in the bin, because the councils do their own assessment, and then it is that assessment that is argued about by the applicant and the objectors.

These ad hoc amendments that we are having to the RMA, which are adding to its length and complexity, do nothing to achieve the purpose, which the Minister says is to simplify the RMA and make it more efficient. I also want to say something about the extent to which the Minister can use rules that purport to be about form and standard definition to change the content of plans, which is still not properly constrained in this bill. The Minister can use those powers, which we agree is sensible, in respect of standard plan formats and definitions. He can use those powers under this Act to do more than just that in ways that go to the substance of plans and that is not right either. I want the Minister to justify—again—that intrusion, which is another example of the change in the balance of power between councils and central government, with central government saying once again that it knows best and it is going to override other councils.

You can see that I have just about taken two calls here. I have addressed so far only three of many, many deficits in this bill. It runs to 250 pages, in the form that is reported back from the select committee, and because the Government has chosen to have this as one part covering every amendment to every part of the RMA, it is very difficult for us to bring all of these issues to the attention of the House.

Tēnā koe, Mr Chairperson. Just following on from my colleague David Parker and his contribution, I want to focus on the part of the bill that is clause 38, which adds new section 58N of new Subpart 2 of Part 5, which talks about the initiation of Mana Whakahono a Rohe plans. I want to follow on from my colleague’s statement around Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 281 from the Māori Party, in the name of Marama Fox, who can explain, and also join in the clear, I guess, campaign that was taken upon growers in Hawke’s Bay, particularly Pure Hawke’s Bay, and iwi leaders of Ngāti Kahungunu around ensuring that the broad powers—and I know I am going off my original statement about Whakahono, but it is important that I start off with the broad powers that the Minister gave himself through this passage of the bill but acknowledge the SOP that has been presented on the floor by the Māori Party, and I am keen to hear the change in which that change has come about from them.

But I do want to acknowledge that campaign on getting the Minister to make the allowance in this bill around ring-fencing GE-free crops from the broad powers that the Minister has, which then leads me to the lost opportunity of the Māori Party of the much bigger gains that this bill is intending to do, which is, obviously, the regions that may, for example, want to halt oil and gas exploration in their rohe. Does this bringing down of the Minister’s ministerial powers address the ability for councils to actually ban oil and gas from their regions? Does this particular clause, of empowering that the Minister has, allow councils—

💬 Marama Fox: In the ocean? Or on land?

Well, the member can get up and respond to that, but I am really keen to hear from the Minister in terms of the reducing of his powers to ensure that local councils can make such decisions in their regional plans and whether the Minister is contemplating whether his broad powers will allow that to happen, or will the Minister step in and make changes? But it is back to the rohe plans, and it goes on from my second contribution—and I am talking about section 58—in the second reading of this bill. I mentioned the existing iwi, I guess, mechanisms and co-governance or co-management arrangements that they have with councils. If I can just draw your attention to the regulatory impact statement prepared by the Ministry for the Environment. If I can point out paragraph 203 in the regulatory impact statement—the Minister’s own officials note that 83 percent of local authorities currently have existing arrangements with Māori, be it through memorandums of understanding, joint committees, advisory boards, and forums. So in terms of the gain that the Māori Party believes it has got for iwi it is interesting because there are already 83 percent that have some sort of arrangement right there in the regulatory impact statement by his own officials.

I also mentioned in my second reading speech the 124 iwi and hapū that through these Treaty settlements already have these existing arrangements. But it is not so much what I think; it is what iwi Māori submitters who came to the select committee presented to the committee. I want to highlight some of those iwi organisations, like Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu, and like our very own Hawke’s Bay Regional Planning Committee, which has nine iwi within my electorate of Ikaroa-Rāwhiti. Everyone wants a streamlined and improved Resource Management Act system and we understand that that is the intent of this bill, but what iwi Māori said in their submissions to the select committee was that they did not want their existing arrangements with councils undermined and put at risk with this bill. There is been no answer to how this bill and what part of the clauses acknowledge that the iwi and the hapū who have existing arrangements are going to be protected under this bill.

These are the questions that, perhaps, the Minister can address, because it was a serious concern raised by Maungaharuru-Tangitū, which is a recently settled iwi. But when you look through the bill you will also note that in addition to the risk, perceived or real, from the iwi Māori submitters that came before the select committee to ensure—Tainui was another entity that also submitted. So there is a real disquiet amongst iwi Māori, particularly the settled ones, around whether these Mana Whakahono a Rohe arrangements are actually going to enhance or put their Treaty arrangements under risk.

The other point that I want to draw the Committee’s attention to in the sections on the Mana Whakahono a Rohe plans is the issue around the place of iwi. As a committee member, I raised this in the select committee around officials getting absolutely clear that you can have iwi organisations—for example, Ngāti Kahungunu Iwi Incorporation, as guaranteed under the Māori Fisheries Act. But then you have got new post-settlement Government entities who may not be Ngāti Kahungunu. For example, it could Maungaharuru-Tangitū. So I have raised this several times, when we were reporting back from the officials, around potential confusion of who is actually supposed to be benefiting from this particular clause. And perhaps, again, I would invite the Minister to explain how he is going to manage entities that are iwi under one legislation but, for the purpose of Treaty settlements, have a different title.

Like my colleague David Parker said, there are other parts of the bill that I do want to address. But I wanted to start getting the Mana Whakahono and the ministerial broad powers addressed so that we are ensuring that we are acknowledging regional decision-making and that councils are protected, and that the Minister could, perhaps, identify where he would apply his broad-based powers, under what circumstances, and give some assurances to some very progressive local government organisations out there that enter into long-term plans—10-, 15-, 25-year plans—and that understand their region better than central government and need some assurances from this Minister, particularly, that those obligations and rights are not put at risk. Kia ora.

I welcome this opportunity for the Committee stage debate of this big bill, the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill. The reality is that the National Party campaigned on substantive reform of the Resource Management Act (RMA) in a two-phase process. When we first came to Government, we completed that first phase in our first term. We were not able to secure the parliamentary numbers in our second term, and we welcome the process today that enables these big reforms to be able to be progressed. I acknowledge the comments of the Chair that this is a big part, and I am keen to ensure that we do justice in this Committee stage to the 34 changes that are in this part of the bill.

The first change I want to highlight is the move to planning standards. I could put up a pile of plans taller than this Chamber, over 12 metres tall, of the Resource Management Act—over 80,000 pages of plans and rules; over 1,000 pages of plans and rules per district—and every member of this Committee would accept that that level of bureaucracy is excessive and needs to be addressed. This bill provides for planning standards so that we do not have 56 ways of measuring the height of a building and so that we do not have over 800 different ways of defining a residential activity. I challenge members of this Committee who are not supporting this bill to please explain for me why you do not support planning standards.

This bill also provides for a streamlined planning process. We did that process by special laws in respect of both Auckland and Christchurch, and they have worked exceedingly well. Rather than it taking over 7 years to be able to process a new plan, those streamlined planning processes have enabled huge plans for our two biggest cities—Auckland and Christchurch—to be able to be completed in 2 years. You will not find a resource planner in New Zealand who does not accept that that is a better process and a good way in which to be able to plan our resources.

I draw the attention of the Committee to a really serious issue: natural hazards management. After the quakes in Christchurch and Kaikōura, there should not be a member in this Committee who does not see the sense in adding, right into the principles of the Act, the issues of natural resource management as recommended by the royal commission of inquiry. When we look at a subdivision like Bexley, it is a tragedy that the issues of liquefaction, which were known, were not properly considered. That was because they are not in Part 2, and this provision makes change for that.

I think every member of this Committee has had the frustration of New Zealanders with minor consents who have to spend tens of thousands of dollars. Can I give a little example I had on the weekend: Rutherford Street Kindergarten, in my community, wants to move five doors down the road to a church, and faces fees of over $40,000 to be able to get consent for that. Forty thousand dollars for a kindergarten committee is a lot of money to not be spent on children’s education but on RMA bureaucracy. When I see the provisions in this bill that give the council the discretion to be able to waive the need for a consent, I say that that makes good sense. It is the same with the provisions in this bill that provide for a 10-day consent. It is the same with the provisions that enable us to build a deck when we can get the agreement of our neighbour without having to spend money. The provisions in this part of the bill will save thousands—thousands—of consents, and I am befuddled as to why members would oppose that.

I come to the issues of housing. Every member of this Committee knows the pressures that we are under to build additional homes. I do challenge members of the ACT Party and the Labour Party, who have railed against the RMA and understand that it is at the core of the housing challenges that we face. I say: why are they opposing the very specific provisions in this bill that require councils to provide for adequate growth of housing in their communities? Those provisions are essential in cities like Auckland and Wellington, and in my own community of Nelson. I challenge members as to why they are opposing that specific provision.

On the issue of appeals, a provision in this bill removes the appeals. Yes, absolutely, a community should have a say about whether an area is zoned residential, but after it has been zoned residential, why should we allow appeals to slow down the bringing of those—[Bell rung] Mr Chairman?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): The honourable Minister.

Why should we slow down the provision that will get those sections created and those houses built? I appeal to members to apply common sense and allow that.

I draw to members’ attention the dual process of charging for subdivision. We have got a regime under the Local Government Act called “development contributions”. Why should we double up with financial contributions under the RMA? That is a very important change, involving hundreds of millions of dollars of costs in the housing sector, that is addressed in this bill.

There are the new procedural principles in this part, which require councils’ plans to use concise language and for their processes to be efficient, cost effective, and timely, which I think this Committee should welcome.

I look at the new fixed-fee regime. Do you know that when you go to the council and apply for a consent, you have no idea what the cost is going to be to get the resource consent for your deck or your garage or the like? Is it not sensible that we have fixed fees for those sorts of activities?

I come to some of the environmental issues. Can the members in this Committee who oppose national regulations so that we can fence stock out of our lakes and rivers please identify themselves. Who is opposed to that? We are serious about improving water quality. Why would we not provide a provision that enables us to take that very basic step to improve the water quality in our lakes and rivers?

All of us, I think, would know that on the issue of offshore platforms, we do actually need to make sure that they have a decommissioning plan, because in other countries that cost has fallen on taxpayers. I draw attention—and I acknowledge the Māori Party—to the provision about water takes for farming, for stock water. At the moment the law says that if you are an individual, you do not need a water permit, but if you run your farm as a company—in the case of many Māori, they run them as an incorporated trust—there will be substantive benefits from that change. There are dozens of provisions in this part that make such good sense if you are committed to improved resource management laws.

I want to just quickly address a couple of Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs). Yes, there is an SOP in my name, Supplementary Order Paper 282. It is solely around issues of drafting from the Parliamentary Counsel Office (PCO). There are no policy changes. It is inevitable with a 300-page bill that following the report back from the select committee, the PCO drafters have identified some issues. I draw that SOP to the attention of the Committee.

There is also Supplementary Order Paper 281 in the name of the co-leader of the Māori Party, Marama Fox, in respect of the issue of the regulations in new section 360D, inserted by clause 105. Let me deal with the members’ questions on that issue quite specifically. Why do we need new section 360? It is because our Government believes in reducing bureaucracy. We do not want the RMA duplicating other Acts of Parliament, which just adds costs. For instance, there are numerous incidents where councils will say, in respect of building laws, workplace safety laws, fisheries law, marine laws, or telecommunications laws, that they want to put things in their plan or things on consents that duplicate other national regulations. That is why we want to have new section 360D.

The issue that has been raised by Marama Fox is that there are communities that have put in place rules in their plans to ban genetically modified crops in their particular area. I have to say that my concern—and I say it absolutely to this Parliament—is that if I look at the Auckland Council draft plan currently before the court, it would prevent the treatment of people with liver cancer—

💬 Dr David Clark: Wrong.

Yes, it is—well, that is what Auckland City Hospital says. That is what Auckland University says. That matter is currently before the courts. It is the view of the National Party that if a genetically modified organism (GMO) to treat liver cancer has been approved by the Environmental Protection Authority, we are not going to have councils have rules on GMOs in their plans that prevent people from being able to get that treatment. I stand by it.

Marama Fox has put the case, in the discussions we have had with our support party. They have said: “Yes, well, we’re not uncomfortable with that, but we are uncomfortable around the issue of crops.” That is why the Government will be supporting, as always occurs between support parties in an MMP Parliament, a compromised provision. We will be supporting Marama Fox’s amendments that will not allow new section 360 to be used.

💬 Grant Robertson: This is a shambles.

I hear Mr Robertson say it is a sham.

💬 Grant Robertson: Shambles.

Shambles, OK. Let me just challenge that member for a moment—[Bell rung] Mr Chairman?

I am going to call the Rt Hon Winston Peters—the Minister has had two calls, and he gets a burst of two. He has an unlimited number of bursts of two over a period of time.

Before the member, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, starts, I will just explain, because members have been going for the call, that it is slightly controversial. Normally, a member who has an amendment and is from a party of similar size would get priority, but in this case the experienced member, who is the leader of a party, will get the call first.

The National Party brought in the Resource Management Act (RMA), but you would not think so today. This Minister, Nick Smith, and his colleagues have had 8 years to modernise it, but you would not think so today. This Minister believes that every dysfunction in our economy and our society is due to the ineffectiveness of the outmoded RMA. The fact that, of course, he could not mention the massive demand from offshore immigration running at record levels—no, he had to come up with some lousy excuse that it is all to do with the RMA. Then he came up with a whole lot of red herrings, which a lot of people know to be red herrings, because they are not in disagreement with him, but he never mentioned what he told everybody when he first saw the shape of this former legislation, which was that it was “brownmail”—that it was “brownmail”.

I wrote to every MP in the National Party this morning and appealed to them, as fellow New Zealanders, to grasp this last chance to step back from a separatist abyss. This country’s very future is on the line in this matter, and on this matter only they, the National Party members—those members of Parliament, from all around this country, who say one thing in their electorates and something else here in Parliament—only they, now, have the power to do what is right for the entire country, and that is to suspend this bill’s passage, go back, and fix it up, and that is why I restate New Zealand First’s commitment to support comprehensive RMA reform, so long as that reform is based on the principle of one law for all.

I am sick of hearing Māori members and cultural fellow-travellers in this Parliament talking about the condition of Māori, when in places like Murupara and Kaikohe and Kawakawa no Māori ever has referred to these matters. No, they are concerned about the fundamental four things, like housing, health, education, and First World jobs.

💬 Marama Fox: Not true.

Marama Fox, if you knew anything about it yourself, then the vote of the Māori Party would not be so pathetic. It cannot even get 1 percent of the vote. Here is a tip-over member. She has the arrogance to come here—been here 5 minutes, expert on everything. Let me tell you what is going to happen at the next election. Not what happened on the stupid TV ONE Colmar Brunton poll that says the Māori Party is on 4 percent—no, no, we are straight back to 0.7 percent. That is the latest poll I saw, and it will get worse.

The second thing is that what we have got here is an attempt at parallel government—two forms of government, written into our law because the Māori Party is trying to win through legislation what it cannot get on the ballot box, either in the general seats, or the party vote, or, for that matter, the Māori seats—for that matter, the Māori seats.

💬 Marama Fox: That’s what happens when you’re at the table.

Oh yes, the Māori Party is at the table, they say. Oh yes, I have seen that before. I have seen people walk into the palace. I have seen people walk into the palace, sup with the King, and the next day for their people it is the pie cart. That is Marama Fox.

💬 Marama Fox: That was you.

She has got some idea—see, there is the Māoriness of Marama Fox. She is so Māori she thinks shouting and interjecting is the Māori way of behaving. No, it is not. Ms Fox, go on to the marae and you will hear one thing, and it is basically this—it is basically this: “When the hen starts crowing, wring its neck.” That is the Māori way. What Māoridom really means is this: that you would expect people to hear the other party out.

💬 Marama Fox: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson.

Oh, oh! OK, here we go. [Interruption] She cannot take it.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! A point of order has been called, and I am going to warn Craig Foss that when we are in this process, he zips it up, in the vernacular.

💬 Marama Fox: I believe that what I just heard was nothing short of a threat, a threat that if you speak too much—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): No, no, the member will resume her seat. I think we are all listening, and we all understood, and I regard that point of order as being frivolous.

Thank you, Mr Chairperson. This planning is based on the colour of one’s skin—or, dare I say it, looking at some people who claim to be Māori, not the colour of their skin but the ability to, even to the fraction of 1/512, say that they have got a Māori ancestor. This is a disaster. It is a disaster because the condition, social and economic, of Māori deserves far better than this. I know that there are a handful of elite, the “bro-rocracy”, who have come to this Parliament making all sorts of demands, and yet those same people cannot even fill a hall anywhere in any town in this country. They cannot fill one hall, anywhere, in any town, in this country.

Be in no doubt that planning and environmental law, just like our judicial system, must be colour-blind. My party, New Zealand First, refuses to support separatism, as this appalling piece of legislation represents, because it is such a retrograde step. For goodness’ sake, if you watch that great civil rights series in the United States called Eyes on the Prize, every black person in the civil rights movement wanted to break down the walls to white institutions, not start their own. That is why they ended up with a black President before anybody thought it was possible, but they never took their eyes off the prize that equality is born of effort and sacrifice and the best possible education and employment that any society can deliver. It is not based on different rules based on the skin and ancestry.

So just where has National’s “road to Ngāruawāhia” conversion into the European branch of the Māori Party come from? How did that happen?

💬 Marama Fox: Oh my God.

On this road to Damascus, or Ngāruawāhia, what happened here? “Oh my God.”, she says. I will tell you what, when you say “Oh my God.”—how many Māori have demanded a separate planning system? She cannot answer. Not a whisper, not a word. Not a syllable, not a sound. She gets asked the most basic of questions; she cannot answer. What research have members here today done with Māori that they want more separatism? Last year at another rotary club in Ōrewa I warned what the National Government was doing, and that was kowtowing to the Māori Party’s “brownmail”. Here we are now. This most accident-prone of Ministers, Nick Smith, described that speech as “typical Winston Peters mischief making”. He, of course, coined the phrase about this. “Brownmailing”, he called it, but all of a sudden he is happy with that, for reasons I cannot understand, and nor can hundreds of thousands of formerly National voters. Why, Mr Smith, are you selling these people out? Why, Mr Smith, are you going down the road with Marama Fox, who has been here 5 minutes and cannot get anybody in a telephone booth to follow what she thinks—cannot get a telephone booth full to follow what she thinks?

Decisions made by councils are going to be overridden, and bearing in mind Mr Smith described my warnings last year as mischief, what did we learn on 6 March, just another day that will live in democratic infamy in this country? Iwi will be given approval rights in resource consents and the ongoing monitoring of consents once they are issued. This is to be embedded within the National Government’s Resource Legislation Amendment Bill right now, as “Mana Whakahono a Rohe: Iwi Participation Arrangements”—just like that. So an unelected “bro-rocracy” will get a say not just on district unitary and regional plans but on consents and compliance too, and every year the same process will be followed by them. Here is one hint for the future. Say a person has got a farm or a business in Auckland. They need to apply for a new discharge consent. Auckland Council gives them the tick, but then one or more of the 13 Auckland iwi—yes, apparently now we have got a baker’s dozen of iwi in Auckland—who also need to be consulted start making noises that they will object. The farmer meets with them, and they demand mitigation. What does “mitigation” mean? Well, you can read that as a koha for consent—a koha for consent. That is “brownmail”. And then every year, regular as clockwork, council inspections are followed by 13 iwi inspections. True or false? It is a fact.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: False.

It is in the law. It is written there. These inspections become nothing more than a protection racket the Mafioso would be proud of, and it is fully, totally—if this bill goes through—legal. Mr Smith, if this bill passes, after 23 September this year we in New Zealand First are going to repeal it. Get that clear right now. Whether you are an overblown Minister or some planning officer downtown or some planning lawyer downtown, there is going to be a vortex and a limbo coming right now if this bill passes, because we intend to repeal it, and repeal it we will. This is a dystopian future National is creating through its seriously flawed Resource Legislation Amendment Bill. By taking the “k” out of “kiwi”, National used to stand for something, but not now—not with 13 layers of a new bureaucracy being added to the Auckland region alone.

As for the business of water—he uses every lousy diversion and red herring, to try to excuse his appalling behaviour as a Minister. I know that the National members, on the backbenches and elsewhere, think they should get rid of this albatross, and now. But he is the Prime Minister’s mate. So they are both going to go down. That is the consequence, Mr Smith. I know something—I was campaigning for that member, back in 1990. Try to explain why a 23-year-old should get into Parliament. What a waste of time—[Bell rung] Mr Chair, can I just finish off my speech?

The member has had two calls.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Yeah, but there is a lot of enthusiasm for this message, Mr Chair.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): The member can have another go later. You are only allowed two at a time, according to the Standing Orders.

That is a little bit rich—a retrograde step—because exactly what that member, Winston Peters, has described is a retrograde step, straight back to colonisation. Oh my goodness! Lock up your children, cos here come the Māoris and we should all be very scared. Oh my gosh!

I do not understand why people are so worried about having a Māori voice come and sit at their table. What is the fear? What is the fear about that? I tell you what. They are the only ones who are protecting many parts of the environment in this country.

💬 Meka Whaitiri: They can do it now, Marama.

While the member Meka Whaitiri might want to say that they can do it now, that is not the standard across the country. It is variable. And if you are lucky enough to have your Treaty of Waitangi settlement signed, then you may just have some arrangement over a river or some arrangement over a mountain. You might have some co-governance arrangement if you are lucky enough to have that negotiated into your Treaty settlement—you might have that—but that is not consistent. It is not consistent for consenting over every wāhi tapu that you might deem to be sacred to you. That is not consistent across this country.

We believe that the mana whakahono arrangement, which has been written by the iwi—written by the technical advisers of the iwi, and we have negotiated with this Government to get it in. You cannot tell me they do not support it. I tell you now, they were willing to support this bill, without the carve-out for GE. They were willing to support—

💬 Denis O’Rourke: Where’s the evidence?

I can send you the email if you want to see it. But this is the iwi saying to the country: “You do not have to worry about this. Consent already requires consultation with iwi under the current Resource Management Act.” But, invariably, what happens is that local councils may forget to go and consult or notify; 95 percent of notifications do not even go to iwi. So I am not sure what the irrational fear is about, because if they are only being notified of 5 percent of the consenting issues and only being asked to consult over 5 percent of current consenting issues, then what is the fear?

This provides an opportunity, under mana whakahono arrangements, for those agreements to be nutted out at the beginning of the process and not left to haphazard local and regional councils, which decide when and when not they might want to consult. I can point to a number of different examples, like in the Wairarapa where the local council said: “I’m not sure. Should we be dispersing the overflow from our sewerage treatment plant into your river, into the local river, the awa tapu of Ngāti Kahungunu ki Te Wairarapa?”. When it went and consulted and the iwi said “No, you cannot be putting your sewage into our ancestral river.”, the council said: “Well, thank you for your consultation. Here’s a tick. We’re going to do it anyway.” And every family in the Wairarapa could have been protected, could have had the safety of that river upheld, could have been able to swim in that river, not fearful of whether they might get sick, and they could have drunk from it, like we used to 60 years ago when we lived on its banks. They cannot now, because iwi, while consulted, had no opportunity to sit at the table and agree, front up, that here are some places we would like you to at least come and talk to us about, have some agreement about, and take it seriously.

That is the variability that happens around this country on a daily basis. This is nothing to fear. In fact, this is an added protection measure, because before there was the Green Party there were Māori. Before there were environmentalists there were Māori in this country, born of Papatuānuku, their ancestral mother. It is up to them as kaitiakitanga, and we have secured kaitiakitanga—those sections that refer to that in this bill—untouched for the benefit of all New Zealand. That is value-add. That is not a retrograde step back to colonisation where you need to sit in the corner—thank you, “Māorima”—and not have any say whatsoever. That is what happened: 60 years ago we sat next to pristine water; 60 years ago we were struck out of the allocation model in this country. So we should worry about that—

💬 Meka Whaitiri: And the bill?

And the bill? The bill allows us, under the mana whakahono arrangement, to make that stipulation up front. Miss Whaitiri, you will be happy to know that Ngāti Kahungunu are wholly supportive. And so are just about every other iwi around.

The mana whakahono arrangement has been designed by iwi, written by iwi, and endorsed by iwi to ensure that we can at least have a say around the resource management in those areas, for our people. That is what it is about—all of us, together. We are part of the community too, but that may have been forgotten over the years, when resource consent processes go about but only 95 percent of them are notified.

So we have the opportunity to do this and, Mr Chair, if I can draw your attention to the actual part that the member was talking about, it tells you quite clearly that it is a collaborative process. It is not one person trying to assert their rights over the top of another. It is a collaboration, where we get to discuss and agree a pathway forward for the benefit of the entire region, where all stakeholders get to sit at the table. That is what a mana whakahono arrangement is. And to say this is a “bro-rocracy” of the elite of Māori—those Māori iwi chairs have been mandated by their hapū to represent them at a national table. So should we dismiss those hapū, those marae, who have mandated their iwi chairs to speak on their behalf? Are we going to tell Ngāhiwi Tomoana: “Sit down, sir! You don’t speak for us.”? Of course we are not. That is not an elitism. That is not a “bro-rocracy”. That is fair representation from the people who vote for their iwi chairs.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: What about the votes?

They have been voted for. They have been voted for in a far stiffer political process than this. We know that if hapū and marae come to the table, they get to vote for their iwi chair. Their iwi chair represents their interests, and they do so on behalf of all the people in the region, and I think it is disingenuous of the member to say that that is elitism. It is disingenuous of the member to say that that is a “bro-rocracy”. That is merely representation—representation of the people over whom they have the mandate to represent.

💬 Denis O’Rourke: Special rights.

Special rights? Let us have a look at what happened in the last 170 years. Oh, that is right, no rights. We need to remind members that we signed a Treaty that guaranteed us some rights to have a say over our resources. We have the ability to do that through a collaborative process where we can speak together as adults—kōrero ā-waha.

💬 Hon Member: You’re making it up.

That is not making it up. That is what the iwi chairs have put in here. The guiding principles in initiating, developing, and implementing a Mana Whakahono ā Rohe are that participating authorities must use their best endeavours to achieve the purposes, to use an integrated process, to have coordination of resources, and to ensure that we can sit together. That is what a Mana Whakahono ā Rohe arrangement is. It is about iwi participation at the table. It is to ensure that we add value to our regions, add value to local government, add value to the environment, and add value to this nation. It is not something to be feared. That fear is absolutely irrational. To say that it is a retrograde step is just merely catering to some stale, male, pale vote that they seem to go after. The member stood up at Ōrewa, made his speech to people 2 days after he had not said anything in that speech to the Māori people he stood in front of.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: What are you talking about?

I am talking about the speech that the member referred to in his speech, when he talked just before. So the Mana Whakahono ā Rohe arrangement is a mechanism to unite iwi and local authorities to join together to give, to agree, and to record the way that the land and resources are managed under this legislation. That is a huge achievement.

So if somebody has a problem about oil drilling, they have the opportunity to make that statement here in the Mana Whakahono ā Rohe arrangement. If somebody has a fear about fracking, they have the ability to do that under the Mana Whakahono ā Rohe arrangement. This is a place for them to have a voice. And it is something that people fear—to say that it is “brownmailing”. Or is it merely recognising that they have a voice? Because to bring up the civil rights movement from back in the day, to say that we are going back to separatism—this is not separatism. This is distributed democracy. This is giving a voice to minorities who otherwise would not have a voice. It is giving rise to the desires of a people who have been marginalised in their own country.

I welcome the opportunity to respond to some of the challenges that have been made by the Rt Hon Winston Peters. Firstly, I want to note that during the Northland by-election, Mr Peters said that he would support Resource Management Act (RMA) reform. So my question for—

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am not going to stand by while a matter that was very clear—I remember Michelle Boag making that claim, and I said—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No—[Interruption] No. The member will sit. These are debating points. The member will sit.

I contrast that. This bill is going to reduce the bureaucracy by tens of thousands of pages. It is going to give the council the opportunity to exempt consents. It is going to enable farmers in Northland not to require the bureaucracy of getting a resource consent for their stock drinking water. It is going to provide for a reduced number of appeals, simpler processes, and yet on every one of those provisions—and I am not sure whether Winston has read it. The New Zealand First select committee report—

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. My name is either “the MP for Northland” or “the honourable member”, but it is certainly not “Winston”. When he speaks to me in that way, he should call me “Sir”.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Thank you. That is not a point of order.

The New Zealand First minority report on this bill says that it opposes every single provision in the bill—every single provision in the bill. So it is simply not credible for that member to say: “Hey, if National had only talked to New Zealand First you would have got a much better bill.” It is opposing every single sensible reform.

I do want to challenge the member on his extravagant claims about the iwi participation agreements. I have got a simple question for him. Why did he vote—given that speech—for the joint management agreements in the RMA? They provide for iwi authorities to have the power to be able to grant consents. Under the existing RMA, that member voted for provisions that provide for all sorts of powers for iwi that go far further than the iwi participation agreements in this bill—

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: What year was that?

Sorry?

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: What year was that? 1991.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No, come back to the bill.

In 2005 that member—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! This is a debate on this piece of legislation—[Interruption] Order! Although one can refer back to previous legislation, the substantive nature of this debate is on this one. So come back to this bill.

The iwi participation arrangements in this bill do not give iwi the power to grant consents. They do not give the power for iwi to write plans. What they do do is provide, at the front end of the process, for iwi to be able to have input into plans. That is something that we explicitly campaigned on in 2014, because it will provide for a better way of dealing with the existing sections 6, 7, and 8 obligations for iwi to be involved in the process.

Winston Peters is doing what he does best—playing politics. Winston Peters offers absolutely nothing to Northland or to New Zealand. These are the practical changes that are required to the Resource Management Act so that we can have more houses, so that we can have more jobs, so that we can have less bureaucracy, and so that we can have a stronger economy.

Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. Thank you very much. Government members are not falling over themselves to take calls on this bill. They seem to be leaving it to the Minister for the Environment, Nick Smith, to defend this shambles of a piece of legislation.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: They’re too scared.

They are too scared, the Rt Hon Winston Peters says. I agree. We have in this bill—it has been a shambolic process. It has been pushed through the Local Government and Environment Committee. Negotiations have occurred with the Māori Party completely outside the select committee process. There has not been substantive debate within the select committee. We are not going to see a bill that is agreed to across the Parliament, the way the Resource Management Bill was when it was first introduced and passed in 1991. It has got a slew of Supplementary Order Papers on the Table. It shows that this Minister has failed to get agreement around major changes to our primary environmental law.

There has been a lot of hot air from the Minister in defending the bill. He says that we need it to keep stock out of streams. Well, it has taken 9 years, almost, to do that, when there are national environmental standards in a mechanism in the Resource Management Act (RMA), when, if he had been serious and the Government had been serious about protecting rivers from stock incursion, the Government could have put out a national environmental standard and ensured some consistency across the country in the rules that regional councils have developed. This is going to be too little, too late because a lot of councils have already developed their rules around stock exclusion.

The Minister is saying that the bill is needed to reduce bureaucracy, but what it is doing is reducing democracy and the ability of the public to participate in plan making. The Minister extolled the plan-making processes in Christchurch and Auckland. He obviously has not talked to residents in Christchurch because that district plan review process—which, yes, did happen in a very truncated way—has meant that only those who have had access to lawyers and experts like planners have really been able to participate. Laypeople have been shut out. That is what provisions in this bill are all about, in terms of reducing the ability for laypeople to participate, having a bespoke planning process, and the streamlined planning process that the bill introduces—reducing the ability of all of the community to engage in the plans that their councils develop and instead limiting that to development interests and those who have got access to money.

The Minister claims that we need the bill because there is duplication between the hazardous substances provisions under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act and the RMA. Yet he acknowledges that there is a case before the courts that will clarify this relationship. So why does the Government not trust the courts to make that clear?

The Resource Management Act was commented on earlier this week by a Hawke’s Bay barrister, Martin Williams, who said that the Act has been amended so many times by successive Governments that it has become incoherent. The Act was initially 383 pages; it is now nearly 700 pages long. This is a 248-page bill. It is going to make the Act even more complex and even more difficult to administer. It is going to reduce the ability of residents and communities to understand what the Act is all about and how councils apply it. It means that only those who have got the ability to pay lawyers to interpret it for them are going to be able to participate.

The bill is also unnecessary, because with the Productivity Commission, with its recent report on urban planning, and with the Government having commissioned the Ministry for the Environment to undertake blue-sky thinking on the RMA, potentially, all this becomes redundant in a couple of years. So why has the Minister put the public and all of the 700-odd submitters, who made quite detailed critiques of a lot of the legislation, to all of this trouble, to make it more complicated, when blue-sky thinking is under way about whether the RMA needs to be dismissed entirely and replaced with new legislation?

What we had from the Minister in his first speech was quite a lot of hot air around this bill. He claimed that the issue around natural hazards was important, and he is right there, in terms of section 6 of the Act—in my calls on the bill I am going to go through the bill. So, starting at the start, clause 5 amends Part 2 of the Act to insert “the management of significant risks from natural hazards” as a new matter of national importance. The Green Party agrees with that, but this is yet another example of the Government being all show and no substance, because the majority of submitters agreed with that becoming a matter of national importance. Certainly, in Christchurch, there were large areas that were prone to liquefaction during the earthquakes, when they had been zoned for subdivision despite the fact that the regional council had identified these areas as being prone to liquefaction. That was not a matter that was taken into account.

So it is obvious that we need this as a matter of national importance, but it is not enough just to put it in the “Matters of national importance” in Part 2 of the principal Act, because the bill goes and creates very permissive provisions around subdivision. GNS Science—our Crown research institute—which has all of this expertise on natural hazards, made it quite clear in its submission that there also need to be changes to sections 106 and 220 of the principal Act, and that is because it is those sections that specify the circumstances in which a consent authority can refuse a subdivision consent, and the conditions around which a subdivision consent may be granted. At the moment, section 106 allows a consent authority to refuse or conditionally approve a subdivision consent in only quite limited circumstances around specific hazards. They are: whether there is going to be material damage to the land or structures from erosion, from falling debris, from subsidence, from slippage, or from inundation. It does not talk about seismic hazards. It does not talk about rising water tables. It does not talk about sea-level rise.

So if the Government was genuinely serious about recognising natural hazards in planning instruments, then it would have done what the regulatory impact statement suggested and gone ahead with the amendments that were originally proposed to those two sections, to allow councils to actually put conditions on subdivisions and those consents. But, no, this bill is going to make subdivisions permitted once the land has been zoned residential. So, once again, it is an example of all show—“We put something in section 6.”—but no substance. And I guess the only thing we have to be thankful for in this bill is the fact that it was widespread public opposition from environmental organisations, other community organisations, and others that stopped the Minister from taking an axe to sections 6 and 7, to completely undermine all the bottom lines in Part 2, as his predecessor, the Hon Amy Adams, had proposed. It was that opposition that had the Government running scared on doing that.

Nevertheless, there has been a fundamental broken promise on this bill, because the Prime Minister at the last election promised that there would be an exposure draft. He gave people the impression that there might be some genuine consultation on the bill before it was introduced. That did not happen, and it has been a shambolic process through select committee to get to the stage that we are at at the moment.

The other issue with the natural hazards is that there is no definition of “significant”—what constitutes a “significant risk” from natural hazards. The Minister has promised a national policy statement. There is still no national policy statement on indigenous biodiversity despite the fact that that has been a matter of national importance under section 6(c) from the time the Act was passed in 1991. It has been promised by successive Governments and has not been developed and implemented. So I have no confidence that a national policy statement on natural hazards will be developed any time soon.

Our major concern is, again, around these streamlined planning provisions—the bespoke planning process—that that will cut the community out. And when you are dealing with natural hazards, when you are dealing with how communities assess risk and what action should be taken as a result of that assessment of risk, you need everybody involved. But the planning processes that the Minister is going through with the national planning templates, which have now become national planning standards, and the streamlined process will mean that there is much less likelihood that people will be genuinely involved. I will take a number of other calls to highlight the Green Party’s opposition to many other clauses in this bill.

This is the first of several calls that I intend to take. I want to start with two process points that I think are important and highly relevant to Part 1 of the bill. The first of those is the process of the bill itself, and I will give the Minister one piece of credit: he has a unique ability to bring New Zealanders together. Because he has brought together Federated Farmers, Fonterra, infrastructure operators, airports, Fish & Game New Zealand, the Environmental Defence Society, Forest & Bird—unlikely allies, it would be fair to say—in opposition to this piece of legislation. So I will give him that.

But the process that this bill has gone through in order to come back to this House is less than optimal. And we have got to take ourselves back to 3 December 2015, because that is when the bill went off to the select committee to begin its consideration. The process concern that I have got is that hundreds, if not thousands, of New Zealanders have engaged with this piece of legislation. They have gone and given submissions in person—137 submissions in person. Those hearings were finished on 2 June 2016. There was a departmental report, which I am going to return to in a moment, which was produced towards the end of 2016. And then things ground to a halt.

They ground to a halt because the National Government—the Cabinet Ministers—did not know what to do. It could not get the legislation through. The Local Government and Environment Committee was trying to do its job. It was unable to do that and we ended up with a bill coming back without amendment. That then went away again, and now we have got a situation where the bill and the numerous Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) that are in front of us today actually have not had proper public scrutiny. The opportunity to go through quite different proposals has been denied because the Government, having mucked around and faffed about, have now come back to us with this bill and it is substantially different and submitters have not had the opportunity to have proper input into this.

The Minister may well say that these ideas have been out there for some time. This process has been so shambolic, so confused, and so contradictory that no member of the public—even those most engaged with it—would be able to put their hand on their heart and say they know what is happening with this piece of legislation. That is the major process flaw that we now encounter in trying to debate the bill. The Minister said when he stood up that the ideal behind this bill was to simplify the legislation and make it more efficient. There is absolutely no doubt that what this legislation does is make the Resource Management Act (RMA) less effective, more complicated, and, potentially, more expensive for those people who engage with it. It is a complete failure in the goal that it set itself, let alone the Minister’s somewhat odd claim, when he stood up, that this was the answer to the housing crisis. I am sure my colleague Phil Twyford will have something to say about that.

The second process point I want to make is actually about Part 1. Part 1 of the bill contains 161 clauses. This document is the departmental report that covers Part 1 of the bill. I did not sit on the select committee. I am trying to do my job as a member of Parliament in scrutinising the bill that has been returned to us today, and it is so poorly laid out now that within Part 1, rather than grouping together issues that have some connection to one another, the Minister has come in as some kind of time lord and said: “Right, we’re going to have the things that come into force right away—they’re one subpart. Then we’re going to have the things that come into force in 6 months. Then we’re going to have the things that come into force in a year.” It is utterly incoherent.

I know that there are committees of Parliament considering the way that we debate bills, and in that regard I will just refer members to the departmental report, because the departmental report does what the Minister could not do. It actually structures how the bill works. So it covers off national direction, plan making, consenting, courts, process changes, and minor and technical amendments. That would have been the way to do it. That is what would have given us the ability to coherently work our way through this bill. But instead we have the hotchpotch of amendments and changes that the Minister has decided that he could come up with.

Just finishing in this call on those process-related elements—I do want to take another call on more substantive elements—we have an executive-dominated process that has led to the incoherent piece of legislation in front of us today. The Minister has only himself to blame for that.

I do then want to come to some substantive matters in Part 1. As I say, I wish we were debating this in a way where we were following on from each other, but it is very hard to know what calls we will get, so therefore we just have to put up with it. But I do think we could do significantly better. The biggest concern I have got, as somebody who has interacted with the RMA in multiple different ways—as a person who helped draft some of the numerous amendments that occurred in the early 2000s, and then has been on both sides of it, working with constituents—is that a couple of the core elements of the RMA are being compromised here.

One of those core elements was around the proximity of decision making. Who are the people best placed to make decisions? The RMA did something really important when it put together the bits of the Town and Country Planning Act and the bits of the National Development Act, which is that it located that decision making as close as possible to the place that it was relevant. What we have got here in Part 1 is the unpicking of that. This is what has led Geoffrey Palmer, one of the authors of the RMA, to say that due process is replaced by executive fiat. That is essentially what is happening here. So the two elements that were core were: get decision making in the right place and have a process that is clear and understood by everybody. That is where this bill goes horribly, horribly wrong.

The example I am now going to give is around clause 105 and the changes there. I am sure many people are going to talk about this. This is, among other things, the proposing of what was initially called a national planning template. Here is how you know just how incoherent this piece of legislation has become, because that has now been renamed as something called a national planning standard, or, I hate to say it, an “NPS”. We have already got them in the Act—we have got things called national policy statements, as opposed to national planning standards and national environmental standards. So the Minister has created some kind of hybrid thing called a national planning template or national planning standard.

It is interesting to note in the departmental report that on this clause there were a total of 230 submissions—three were neutral, 18 were in support, and 209 were against.

💬 Phil Twyford: So, pretty balanced.

Yeah. So, clearly, there were some concerns, and the overwhelming number of submitters—the departmental report tells us—were concerned that the Minister was creating far-reaching powers to determine land use and that the Minister was doing things that were contrary to constitutional law and the rule of law principles; not providing for an adequate public participatory process; creating additional costs and complexity for local authorities; not providing for cohesion in the resource management system; and that it could be used to regulate GMOs, which is obviously a matter dealt with by one of the SOPs.

Submitters contended that the decision-making criteria here, in terms of the role the Minister had, used phrases like “not reasonably required”, “undesirable”, “in the Minister’s opinion”, “necessary”, etc. All of that is the creation of uncertainty and complexity within this law. Rather than finding, under this process, the way in which we could use the tools that are already in the Act—national policy statements and national environmental standards—as a way of giving guidance to local authorities to make the decisions, the very thing that the Act was set up on is totally compromised here by the Minister.

The Minister has decided it is not easy to create national policy statements or national environmental standards, so he is going to override them. That is, essentially, what he has done. After 8 or 9 years he has been so ineffective at creating national policy statements, in this particular example, which I am sure my colleague Phil Twyford will talk about—around urban form and urban design. He has been so hopeless at doing it that he decides the only way through is to override it. That is wrong. That is why we are opposing this legislation. It is not the way to do this. It undermines the fundamental principles of the Act, which are about decision making occurring where the people who know it best are, and that there is a clear and coherent process.

The Minister had an opportunity here. He could have developed a piece of legislation that was widely supported. He has failed because he has created major powers for himself.

If this bill was, with fair and adequate advice and description, submitted to the public of New Zealand by way of a referendum, it would not have a snowflake’s hope in hell of being accepted by the people of the country. It just would not have a chance. The reason for that is that this is actually not going to solve anything, while, at the same time, it is going to cause a lot of problems. I think that if you take the three main issues—what I think are the three main issues that you would put for such a referendum—the people of the country would reject them.

The first is this: why is it necessary to have all of these many and various sections that are going to be introduced into the Act, through this bill, relating to iwi participation agreements, iwi representatives on panels and boards and all the rest of it, and all those other special provisions that are provided in this particular bill? What would be the explanation to the people of New Zealand for why that was really necessary? It is a very weak description of why that is necessary that I have heard from Minister Nick Smith and from Marama Fox—very, very weak indeed. I have heard no such justification at any point for why that is necessary. Furthermore, there was reference, by Marama Fox, to the Treaty of Waitangi. Well, that Treaty did not contain anything—directly or indirectly—that would have been intended to give Māori special rights in respect of processes like those set out in the Resource Management Act (RMA). That is the first issue.

The second main issue for people, if they were to decide this directly rather than through their representatives in Parliament, would be just this: would they be willing to accept the marginalisation of local government, which is, essentially, one of the main purposes in this bill? Would they consent to that? Very, very few people would do so. The truth is that this bill, in plan making and also in respect of decision making when it comes to, especially, major consents—people would not agree to the kind of thing we see in this bill, which actually marginalises local government. They would not agree to that.

Thirdly, nor would they agree to the introduction of such excessive additional executive power for Ministers in place of local decision-making, which we see in this bill. They would not tolerate that for a moment. They believe that they should have effective and democratic local government—not dictated to by Ministers in Wellington in respect of the matters that are referred to in the bill.

I also want, in the last couple of minutes of this first contribution, to say this in response to some of the things that the Minister said. He indicated, rather absurdly I think, that it is actually the RMA and its provisions that are one of the main problems for why we have a housing crisis in New Zealand—and he is nodding his head, he is actually nodding his head—whereas the people of this country know that the main driver is immigration. It is the net 70,000-plus people a year who are coming into New Zealand; in the last 5 years 188,000 additional people in Auckland alone. That is the main driver and that is the one thing the Government is not doing anything about. It is not the Resource Management Act, and these provisions are not necessary for the purposes of tackling the housing crisis. If it did want to do so, the Government should invest directly in housing. It does not need to make these kinds of changes to the Resource Management Act.

I would say to this Minister: yes, we do oppose each and every part of this bill, because it is either bad law, for the reasons that I have already indicated, or, in fact, it is poorly—very, very poorly—thought-out. I want to go on in a bit more detail to talk about the iwi participation agreements and why they should be needed. I listened very closely to Marama Fox to try to glean from her why the Māori Party thinks that iwi participation agreements are so necessary. It is only because of that deal between the National Government and the Māori Party made behind closed doors, not through the committee process and certainly not through the consultation process with the general public—it is only through that devious process behind closed doors that we see some of the main provisions in this bill.

So, as I said, I listened very carefully to find out why these iwi participation agreements and related issues were needed. One of the things Marama Fox said was “Councils often forget to consult.”—often forget to consult. Well, that is simply not true. The consultation undertaken by virtually all—if not all—councils in this country with Māori on all of the issues that affect them is very well known, and I would challenge the Minister or Marama Fox to provide evidence to the contrary of that. The truth is that Māori and iwi, as representatives of the tangata whenua, have more than adequate facility in the RMA as it now is to be consulted, to give advice—especially on cultural issues—and to object to proposals and plans that are to be made under the RMA as it now is.

I will give you an example. I was closely involved in the applications for the Central Plains Water scheme—a very difficult scheme to consent, and one that certainly needed the cooperation of the iwi concerned. They were engaged at the beginning, they gave advice, they objected to some things, there were changes made, and, ultimately, at the appeals stage, there was a negotiation with them that led to the consents being issued by consent of all parties.

The point I am making is this: especially on all major projects, if any person or organisation thinks that they can get those through without proper consultation by seeking advice and by listening to objections from iwi, then they would be dreaming. Every major applicant in this country actually knows that, and they go and get that advice from local iwi. They listen to that. They try to deal with—and they do, in fact, deal with—the objections. All of that already happens, so why are these particular provisions in this bill really needed? I ask once again why they are needed. I would like Minister Nick Smith to tell us why he thinks they are needed other than it being simply getting the votes of the Māori Party to get the bill through, because that is where it really is at.

So I have got only a few seconds left, but I will say this. These provisions for iwi participation agreements and all the other provisions relating to these special rights for Māori do nothing more than add another layer of bureaucracy. The Minister says this is about removing bureaucracy; this actually adds more. It will add more delay and it will add more expense, and there will be little or no benefit to show for it. If the Minister thinks otherwise, he is deluding himself, but he will not pull the wool over the eyes of the people of this country, who know that what I have just said is true. If he feels otherwise, I challenge the Minister to show why all of those new provisions relating to iwi participation agreements and all the other special provisions for Māoris would not add to more delay, would not add to more expense, and would add some real benefit to the process that is not already there. The truth is that iwi already have more than adequate opportunity in the process as it already exists.

Of course, what we really know in the background to all of this—and one of the things that will be driving it from the point of view of the Māori Party—is this whole question of water. Freshwater management is one of the really big issues that are facing us now and in the future, and we know that demands have already been made by many Māori iwi in the country concerning special rights for them in respect of water. This legislation is going to give them a big, big advantage when it comes to providing them with special rights for water that they do not already have. The Minister says no, that will not be the case, and that all they are going to do is have an upfront opportunity, but, in fact, they are going to get special rights and that is wrong.

I want to make some comments about clause 105 but, if you will allow me, I want to provide some context to this discussion. The first thing, for people who have not paid a lot of attention to all of the public debates around the Resource Management Act (RMA), is that it is important to note that the RMA provides a framework for all of the planning, consenting, and land-use decisions that happen in our country. The actual decisions are made by councils. They are made by the elected local representatives in those communities. But the drafters of the RMA always assumed that there would need to be a balance between local decision-making, local knowledge, and local ownership of those decisions, and national direction and guidance from central government about matters that are in the national interest, and things where there is a need to have consistency and order across the country, and not just letting a thousand flowers bloom.

The Minister in the chair, Nick Smith, and his very, very good friend the Prime Minister, Bill English, have spent the last 10 years blaming the RMA and blaming councils for expensive housing. It has been their main alibi, their go-to alibi, for having a failed housing policy over the last 8 years—blaming the councils and blaming the RMA. But the real culprit here—and we differ with some of the other parties in this House, because we believe that having an overly restrictive planning system is one of the root causes, if not the primary root cause, of the extraordinary housing problems that have beset this country. But we need to be really clear that it is the failure to provide national direction on questions of land use and planning. That is at the heart of the problem we have got—

💬 Meka Whaitiri: In housing.

—in housing—and Nick Smith has been blaming the RMA and blaming councils for 8 years but has done precious little to address that problem. He finally, after 7 years in Government, brought out a national policy statement, which was a wet bus ticket. It simply put in place a bureaucratic mechanism that directed councils to release little bits of land into the supply—land that could be used for housing development, every time after measuring the projected demand. It was an incredibly bureaucratic mechanism, which would do nothing to address the fundamental cause of a speculative urban land market caused by highly restrictive planning practices.

So that is the problem we have got, and that is the necessary context for a consideration of the housing-related aspects of this bill, particularly in clause 105. A failure by this Government to provide national direction to councils about the parameters and the limits, and what should be in their plans and their consenting decisions—a failure by this National Government to do that. And then, an unfolding “Nick-tastrophe”—and I have to credit the member Fletcher Tabuteau from New Zealand First for coining that phrase, because that is what it is. It is a “Nick-tastrophe”.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No, no.

And then what we see is that the Minister brings—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No, I just ask you to keep it seemly, thank you.

And then the Minister brings this bill to the House, which does everything but address the core problems caused by a failed and overly restrictive planning system that has spawned the worst, most unaffordable house prices in the world, according to the magazine The Economist. So we are going to go into a lot of detail about the clauses in this bill, but, actually, it is really important to note that what this bill does not do—and we have some Supplementary Order Papers on the Table that do address the core problems—is put the conditions in place to create competitive urban land markets. That is the core problem. Particularly in our biggest city—in Auckland—we do not have competitive urban land markets, and all that this bill and the Minister’s national policy statement on urban development do is put layer over layer after layer of tinkering.

I want to talk about clause 105, because that is a classic example in this bill, from Nick Smith. Instead of actually dealing with the core problems of the lack of national direction and the need to deliver competitive urban land markets by freeing up the planning rules that stop cities growing up and growing out, what this bill does is it actually gives the Minister arbitrary and excessive regulation-making powers. I have already made the point that using the existing instruments in the RMA, like a national policy statement (NPS) and like national environmental standards, but, in this case particularly, a good, well-crafted NPS with clear, directive language, could actually have achieved, years ago—years ago—what is so desperately needed. What this bill does is it gives the Minister a raft of other arbitrary powers that I think have other unintended consequences. We can see from the departmental report, and from what happened at the Local Government and Environment Committee, a deluge of criticism from very credible and informed stakeholders, who had some pretty savage things to say about the provisions in clause 105.

What does clause 105 do? It gives the Minister regulation-making power to permit particular land-use activities, to prohibit some planning provisions, and to override other planning provisions that restrict land use in a way that is not reasonably required to achieve the purpose of the RMA—nothing that could not be achieved through a national policy statement.

So let us see what stakeholders said at the select committee. First, they pointed out that other national direction tools exist. These excessive and arbitrary powers that the Minister is, effectively, handing to himself to override local plans and local decisions are not needed, because the drafters of the RMA put those tools, those instruments—a national policy statement and national environmental standards—into the RMA. They are much more elegant, they are much more constrained by due process, and they do not represent what clause 105 embodies, and that is a huge transfer of arbitrary and unchecked regulation-making powers into the hands of the Minister. Fonterra said to the committee that there is no demonstrable need for this additional power to reside with the Minister. The New Zealand Planning Institute said that there are other mechanisms to address these concerns.

Secondly, a number of submitters, including the New Zealand Law Society, described the provisions, the regulation-making powers, in this clause as a “Henry VIII” clause. It would empower the Minister to make regulations that would, effectively, override the statutory powers of local councils to control land use through the imposition of planning provisions. The Law Society pointed out that these kinds of decisions should be made by the Parliament, not by the executive, and that, I think, is a very important principle.

There are so many other criticisms relating to this, such as the undermining of local decision-making. Federated Farmers pointed out that these powers, regarding matters that are otherwise delegated to be managed at local governance level, are excessively heavy-handed. People said that these powers would create additional costs and complexities. The New Zealand Law Society said that costly analysis would be required to interpret the inconsistencies between the plans and any regulations made under the new section that is imposed under clause 105, section 360D.

I think this provision really speaks to the fundamental flaw in this Minister’s approach to RMA reform. In 8 years in Government, he has not used the very tools that were put in place in the RMA to allow central government to provide national guidance on these issues. He is using this bill to transfer huge regulation-making powers that are unjustified, that will make the bill more costly, more expensive, more complicated, and more of a burden to the people who rely on it.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am flattered and amazed to see that David Parker and Denis O’Rourke—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No, no—what is the point of order? This is not a discussion. Specifically, I am giving you the call on a point of order. What is the point of order?

I was just about to get to that, Mr Chair.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Well, I want you to get to it now.

—have directly, word for word, except for one possibly typographical mistake in the case of Denis O’Rourke, plagiarised my amendments.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No, no, that is not a point of order, that is a—[Interruption]

I seek your guidance.

No, I am, and the guidance is simply this—[Interruption] Order! The member will sit. The member will sit, please. This is a debating point, and it is not a point of order. When you get a call, you could bring that issue up. That is a debating point about someone else who may be using that material; it is not a point of order in terms of the process of the House. So that is my ruling, and I am calling the Hon Dr Nick Smith.

💬 David Seymour: Mr Chairman?

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Is this new material?

Well, put it this way: I will move that the Speaker be recalled if that is your ruling, because I do not think that is fair at all.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Well, I have ruled your point is out of order—

Would you allow me to speak a little bit further to the point of order, Mr Chair?

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No, I will not, because it is not a point of order; it is a matter of debate between what someone else may have used in terms of their material and what you consider to be your material. Those are debating points. It is not a point of order in the sense of the process of the House—all right? That is the ruling that I have made. Now, David Seymour has sought that the Speaker be recalled. Are you asking for the Speaker to be recalled?

Absolutely, because I do not think you have properly understood what I am saying.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Well, you need to move, then, that the Speaker be recalled.

I move, That the Speaker be recalled to give a ruling on the matter.

Motion not agreed to.

I just want to make a brief intervention to respond to a couple of points that members have raised. Mr Twyford challenged the Government on the use of national policy statements (NPS) and national environmental standards (NES). I would point out to that member that this Government has achieved seven of those, as compared with just two under the previous 9 years. This Government has made more extensive use of NPSs and NESs than any other Government.

The second point I wish to make is that Mr Robertson made the claim about the process. Actually, this is a 300-page bill, there is only one Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) in my name, and it makes no policy changes; it simply addresses some of the—

💬 Grant Robertson: That’s pretty disingenuous about the process of the bill.

Well, I will give a reminder to the member. He may remember, in the dying days of the previous Government, it introduced a 900-page SOP under urgency on the emissions trading scheme bill that it passed through all stages. Actually, this has been a very thorough process.

Can I quickly deal with the issues of new section 360D. One of the difficulties is that the Resource Management Act (RMA) is so wide that councils see it as a mandate to be able to, for instance, overrule Parliament’s decision around what is an earthquake-prone building. Parliament decided it was 34 percent of new building standards; some councils say: “Well, we don’t agree with that, and we’re going to use the RMA to set a higher standard.” I have got other councils that do not agree with the five-star insulation standards and that want to overrule that. I have got other councils that are using the RMA to get into the areas of fisheries regulations, making different decisions around telecommunications. New section 360D actually does what I think is absolutely essential to this reform, and that is that we avoid duplication with other Acts of Parliament. Being able to use new section 360D to be able to pass regulations to ensure that those issues are not relitigated, either in plans or in consent conditions, is actually at the core of what we want to achieve with this legislation—good quality environmental regulation, but not duplicating other areas. That is why that provision is included in the bill.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Tēnā koe e Te Whare. Tēnā koutou e te whānau o Te Whare Pāremata, tēnā tātou katoa. Members, I just want to point out at the beginning of this session that the Committee stage of this bill, or of any bill—the Committee stage of the House—is about discussing submissions that came before the select committee, it is about speaking to Supplementary Order Papers that may be in, it is about asking questions of the Minister in the chair, and it is about speaking to the clauses that are currently under debate. We have a campaign later on in the year; that is not for now. Those sorts of speeches are for the first, second, and third readings of the bill. This is the Committee stage of the bill, and I intend to make it so.

I understand that the hapless member for Epsom accused me of plagiarism in respect of Supplementary Order Paper 287, requiring that a national policy statement on urban growth be prepared. I have before me the record of the debate on the Housing Legislation Amendment Bill, dated 6 September 2016, where this exact—this exact—provision is also found, drafted by me. That particular amendment went down by how many votes?

💬 Hon Members: One.

One. Who voted against it? David Seymour. What a—look, I think that is what I would call a “Nick-tastrophe”. To be caught out with that level of duplicity, coming here, taking your salary as an MP for Epsom, saying you stand for freeing up urban boundaries in order to increase land supply—which is necessary, and we in the Labour Party agree with that, to address one of the causes of the increase in house prices in Auckland. But to suggest that it is the Labour Party that is plagiarising is too galling even for me to accept. So, David Seymour, I have put in, again, the same amendment on the Supplementary Order Paper that you voted against last time and that you are now putting up in your own name. Perhaps you could take another call to correct the record.

I have got another question for the Minister. I have read the Māori Party sell-out clause, which gets its vote to take this bill across the line. I understand that it says that in order to get those members’ votes, you and the National Government are going to vote for this minor limitation on your wide regulation-making power, and it says that you are not allowed to apply your regulation-making power to knock out “rules or types of rules that regulate the growing of crops that are genetically modified organisms.” I want to ask the Minister, if he is going to vote for this amendment, or the Māori Party, if it deigns to take a call, what “the growing of crops” means. I presume it would mean GM maize, but what about GM clover? What about GM ryegrass? If ryegrass is grown as a seed crop to plant more ryegrass, maybe it is a crop—if it is a seed crop. But is it a crop if it is just being grown as pasture?

I think, once again, the Māori Party—you know, those members have never plagiarised me in the way that David Seymour has attempted tonight. But their incompetence on this issue is, I think, being shown through, because they have been sold a pup. They have been told that they are satisfying the concerns of the anti-GE group in the Hawke’s Bay by getting the Minister to agree to this amendment, except that you can still have GM ryegrass, you can still have GM clover, and you can have other cultivars that I do not think are crops.

So can the Māori Party please take a call to explain why it is supporting this appalling piece of legislation on the basis that it gets some derisory increased right of participation for Māoridom, given that everyone in New Zealand has rights of participation under the Resource Management Act anyway, and given that there are already meant to be agreements—and there are many agreements arising under Treaty settlements—that further enhance those rights. Why those members think they are justified in voting for this bill, I cannot understand, when they have not explained to the Committee what a crop is, because it sounds to me like a crop is peas, beans, corn, or—

💬 Rino Tirikatene: Pūhā.

Pūhā—pūhā. There are plenty of other crops. But I do not think pasture species for grazing are crops.

So Minister, if you can tell me—we will be voting for this anyway, because I do not mind any narrowing of these regulation-making powers that are overreaching by the Government. Any little thing, we will take. But it does not make really any difference to the terrible bill—it is not a significant difference. We still will not be voting for the bill overall, even if this amendment is passed. But I do make the point that the Māori Party has done in the eye the Hawke’s Bay growers.

Can I apologise for the intemperate address from the member for Dunedin North or Dunedin South, or whichever one it was—David Parker. He is a little bit intemperate because he got called out at a debate on Saturday morning, but I am sure that he will recover soon enough. It was beautiful. Scott Simpson was there. It was great fun. He really lost his rag.

Anyway, back on the issue at hand, I want to respond to some of the comments that the Minister made, which, really, I think, could be best summarised as putting lipstick on it, and thickly. He was at great pains to stress, for instance, that there will be a schedule of fees and a simplification of planning templates and measurement techniques, as if these reforms, noble and perhaps useful as they are, are really equivalent to what is needed in Resource Management Act reform; as if these reforms or these amendments are going to be any more effective than the previous 17 times that the Resource Management Act has been amended in its 26-year history.

The truth is that the amendments to the Resource Management Act that were proposed by Amy Adams in 2012 and 2013 were far nobler and far more substantial than anything proposed today. Those reforms accepted that the crux of the Resource Management Act is the principles section—Part 2, sections 5, 6, and 7. It is those principles that underpin the Act and create so much of the mischief that is an enormous handbrake on the New Zealand economy and, in particular, upon our housing market. By refusing to reduce the level of requirement and stipulation placed on the councils, which are those persons using powers under this Act, he has ensured that nothing that is done, no amount of lipstick that is put on, no amount of attempting to reduce the way that councils impose upon citizens when they try to meet the overly onerous requirements in sections 5, 6, and 7, and no amount of tinkering at this point is going to fix the fundamental problem. If there was going to be serious reform of the Resource Management Act, it would not start with trying to constrain the way that councils behave while addressing the issues or addressing the requirements placed upon them by the Resource Management Act; it would have been somewhat more substantial.

But not only is this reform ineffective, it is actually a step backwards. I am at pains to understand why it is that despite having had for almost a year, since 13 April in 2016, when Peter Dunne and I went to Prime Minister John Key, as he then was, and put before him the option of passing this legislation without the Mana Whakahono a Rohe clause, or iwi participation arrangements as they were at that time, Minister Smith has pushed on and will include arrangements within this legislation that are not just—as he has attempted to sell it—the possibility that it will be easier for councils to know whom they are supposed to consult when it comes to plan making. And they do not just pertain to plan making any more, either. They now give iwi in the rohe of a particular council the ability to initiate an iwi participation agreement and an expectation that when planning is done—and, perhaps, even, when consenting is done—there will be within 30 days of a council election a new arrangement initiated between the local iwi and the council.

That was the expectation in the iwi participation agreement, and now, under this new post - select committee version of the bill, the expectation is actually that the iwi themselves can initiate—not just expect to have initiated, but initiate. So what this means for democracy in New Zealand is that we are going to have a one person, one vote election followed by a totally undemocratic arrangement where some of the most important decisions in the community are put under a new arrangement.

💬 Marama Fox: It’s not undemocratic. It’s not undemocratic.

Marama Fox is here saying: “It’s not undemocratic.” Well, if one person, one vote is not democratic, then I do not know what it is; if having some people with greater influence over the political process by birth is not undemocratic, then the fact of the matter is that I do not know what undemocratic is. This arrangement is absolutely wrong, and I know that every backbench National MP and front-bench National MP is getting it in the neck at every single electorate meeting they go to. Scott Simpson is nodding maniacally, but he knows it is not true. I know they are getting their email boxes absolutely filled because New Zealanders recognise that this is a substantial departure from our usual constitutional arrangements. It is, effectively, introducing co-governance to the entire country, and that is wrong.

I have an amendment to the bill, Supplementary Order Paper 266, that would remove all of the clauses in this legislation that establish Mana Whakahono a Rohe. It would remove those clauses for the simple reason that they are wrong. I am very flattered, and I look forward to the support of the New Zealand First members who have submitted an almost identical amendment, but they have got one of the sections wrong. So if New Zealand First members do pass their amendment, they will be amending a section they had no intention of amending. So I recommend to members that if they are inclined to remove Mana Whakahono a Rohe from this legislation, they vote for David Seymour’s Supplementary Order Paper 266, rather than the New Zealand First amendment plagiarised by Denis O’Rourke.

But why stop there? I am in total agreement with Denis—oh, with David Parker. That was close, but let us never get that close. I am in total agreement with David Parker when he says that giving ministerial veto to a particular Minister over the plans of councils when they believe that there is a conflict with other areas of legislation—no matter how noble it may be in the mind of the current Minister, if he was a real custodian of New Zealand’s laws and traditions he would be thinking “What about the next Minister?”, because the people who passed the Economic Stabilisation Act in 1948 did not anticipate Sir Robert Muldoon or the abuse that would go on under him using that legislation.

I would put it to the Minister that new section 360D is a major mistake, and the last-minute negotiation with the Māori Party, dubious as it may be, to exclude only some types of crops are far, far away from the kind of lawmaking people would like to see in this House. The fact of the matter is that those members have been sold a pup and they actually have not excluded what they think they have excluded, but that is why you should not make laws at the last minute just because you got called to account because the National Government was bullied in public to reject the ACT - United Future option. So we need to get rid of these section 360D powers. It is wrong for a Minister to be able to override the law. I have another Supplementary Order Paper, Supplementary Order Paper 275, and that amendment will remove the section 360D powers so resented by people around New Zealand.

But I have one more Supplementary Order Paper, which has been, sadly, plagiarised by David Parker most recently—most recently. I did not say he was the only person who plagiarised it; he is just the person who has plagiarised it most recently. That particular amendment, Supplementary Order Paper 274, which has been on the Order Paper, or at least associated with this bill, all week—unlike David Parker’s johnny-come-lately effort, which was tabled at 4.36 p.m. today—would do a number of things. It would remove the rural - urban boundaries, which have created a famine of land on which New Zealanders can build houses.

Kia ora, Mr Chair. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. I want to start by asking a question. This is a real question relating to this bill. Imagine if someone went up to a Resource Management Act (RMA) commissioner and said “I want to build a power station running on gas, which comes from fracking, which is going to release 425,000 tonnes of greenhouse gases a year.”—to put that in context, that is the same as all the cars in Palmerston North driving for a year—and the commissioner had to say: “Well, I can’t look at climate change because the law prohibits me from doing it.”

This problem is not a theoretical scenario; it is a real one that we have seen last year with the Nova Energy power station. It is a real issue that relates to this bill, because the major environmental law that cannot consider climate change you cannot call a major environmental law. Look, it is like playing soccer without a football. It is like telling the fire brigade it has got to ignore certain types of fires because that is the way the law has been written. I say this because my colleague Eugenie Sage has Supplementary Order Paper 283 in front of this Committee to deal with this exact problem. It is absolutely ridiculous and it is ludicrous that our major environmental law cannot consider climate change.

We saw it with Nova Energy’s application for a 360 - megawatt power station in Ōtorohanga. We have seen it before. It is absolutely ridiculous. It is incredible that in 2017, when 190 countries gather from around the world to sign a binding commitment in Paris to reduce our emissions, our major environmental law cannot consider it. It is not a foresight or an accident; it is because of deliberate decisions made, and this Parliament has an opportunity to fix it. This Parliament has an opportunity to amend section 70, as Eugenie Sage’s amendment does, to fix this problem.

This is my challenge to all parties in Parliament. We have an opportunity to fix this problem of the greatest environmental crisis that is facing us.

I want to challenge the National Party members on this, because up until now they have shown their credentials when it comes to the environment. They have shown they are a pro-pollution party. They have shown that they will act like environmental vandals, risking some of our most special, pristine places. Just this weekend I was at Lake Te Ānau where the Government—Judith Collins—has opened up an oil block right to the shores of Lake Te Ānau. This is a place featured on the “100% Pure New Zealand” website, yet National is allowing oil rigs, seismic surveys—all the pollution and stuff that comes with it. It is an absolute scandal. It is an outrage, and it shows, once again, the links National will go to trash our environment.

Those members have an opportunity to show that they are going to do something—the right thing—on the greatest environmental challenge facing us. Our resource management law must include climate change. We have a party that has stood up on the side of polluters but, luckily, the people of New Zealand know that there is a party that is standing up on the side of protecting the environment and protecting our climate for our kids. That is why I am proud to stand next to Eugenie Sage, who has put forward this amendment.

The Green Party, with our values of protecting the environment and of making sure we are not leaving a mess for future generations, has provided the solutions to this Parliament to vote on. We have shown throughout our detailed technical studies that major emission reductions are possible, but it will not happen if companies like Nova Energy get away with getting consents for massive polluting power stations and if climate change just cannot even be considered. My challenges to parties are that if you are serious about climate change, make sure you support this amendment so our major environmental law can actually finally consider climate change.

I rise to take a call on the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill. I would rather not debate the merits of whether or not iwi or the Māori Party should have navigated the iwi Māori down this particular pathway. I want to focus particularly on some of the information and detail in the clauses of the bill. Namely, clause 38 and new section 58M(b)(ii), which talks about the coordination of the resources required to make sure that negotiations and any kind of meeting after a notice of intention to work with local authorities—I wonder exactly what that means for the likes of Ngāpuhi, the biggest tribe, or Ngāti Hine, the biggest hapū within that tribe, who actually do not have the resources to front up to those kinds of meetings. They have not been able to settle their Treaty claim.

I want to say this to the House: there is a reason why this Government, despite its hard-fought efforts in settling Treaty claims, has been unable to settle with Ngāpuhi. What it is suggesting with this type of bill is that one iwi authority or one hapū or any collection can come together and work with the local authority with issues regarding resource management—the Resource Management Act (RMA). Let me put it to you like this: there are 55 hapū in Ngāpuhi—55 hapū. Are we suggesting that under new section 58M(b)(ii), the coordination of resources required for either one of those hapū, a collection of those hapū, or an iwi like Ngāpuhi will be able to come to the table with the local authority on an equal footing, knowing full well that the local authority might be able to speak for a small district such as—I do not know—Whangarei?

Ngāpuhi are able to claim Mount Manaia, which falls in the Whangarei catchment—the local body authority. They claim Manaia as one of the pillars of the house of Ngāpuhi. That means that the organisation based out of Kaikohe will then be down in Whangarei working with the Whangarei council. There are numerous—at least a dozen—hapū within that particular catchment. I see that one of them made a submission on this particular bill. Patuharakeke live around the Bream Bay or Marsden Point area in Whangarei. They made a number of, I thought, good recommendations in their submission where they thought that this particular bill could work for them. I notice, as I read their submission and the recommendations that they made, that they are not in this bill. In fact, quite a different pathway was pursued compared with the kind of solid and robust submission that Patuharakeke made on this particular bill.

I am concerned when I consider within my electorate of Tāmaki Makaurau that there are big issues made around iwi and hapū. After years of fighting for an urban voice or urban recognition within any of the types of settlements or future aspirations of Te Iwi Māori—the Māori people—I wonder where the urban voice is.

I wonder, too, where that might fit in the very complex web that exists in Tāmaki Makaurau. You have the Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau Collective Redress Act, a settlement Act that acknowledges the tribes within Tāmaki Makaurau. Some of those tribes have already settled on their own—Te Kawerau ā Maki, Ngāti Whātua ki Ōrākei, and others. What about the third biggest tribe in this country: urban Māori—those who do not actually affiliate to either Ngāti Whātua ki Ōrākei or Te Kawerau ā Maki in Tāmaki Makaurau? Is it the responsibility of those tribes—Te Kawerau ā Maki, Ngāti Whātua ki Ōrākei—to engage with all of the Māori who live there? I do not think that it is their responsibility. I think that is quite an unfair expectation.

I also, equally, think that it is important that urban Māori have a particular voice and have a particular say within this piece of legislation. So that raises concerns. How are they expected to come together to the table on an equal footing on such an important issue?

I want to continue with clause 38, and new section 58N(4)(b). It is this particular part that I think supplements—or supports anyway—my notion around who is going to be in and who is going to be out. Who is in and who is out? In particular, we will find that situation in Tāmaki Makaurau. I have already spoken about those who have settled under the Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau Collective Redress Act. I have already spoken about those who have currently already settled their bills—Ngāti Whātua ki Ōrākei, Te Kawerau ā Maki. What about those who have not yet settled their particular Treaty settlements? Where is the scope for them after, if by a miracle, the organisations or the iwi and hapū within Tāmaki Makaurau are able to rally together to be able to negotiate and work with the local authority on an equal footing? Where are those people expected to come in? I see that it does say that they are able to add to the conversation or add to the particular negotiation at some time later, but I wonder whether they will agree with those things that have already been organised and agreed to between the parties—iwi, hapū, and their local authority.

It is all of these types of issues that we think have not actually been thought through clearly enough. I think it is rich for members on the other side of the Chamber to say that iwi Māori or Māori leaders support this pathway that is being pursued by the Māori Party and the National Party. Read the Ngāti Whātua ki Ōrākei settlement. Read the submissions. They all say there are some serious concerns. In fact, some make recommendations that are not even considered in this bill, yet already express concerns about the kind of pathway that we are heading down with the proposed changes supported by the Māori Party. Let us be clear that the Māori Party is saying that the tribal leaders have all supported this. I have already named Ngāpuhi, the largest tribe in the country. I do not see any of the Ngāpuhi submissions being made. I do not see any of the Ngāpuhi reo being chased in this particular bill.

Just to reiterate my point, urban Māori are of great concern to me. Those Māori who live in Tāmaki Makaurau might not necessarily have a direct say over the resources that are shared in Tāmaki Makaurau, but what if they want to build on their house or extend their house? They have to apply through this particular process with the RMA. I wonder whether urban Māori can collectivise as an authority to be able to vouch or advocate for issues regarding simple things like house renovations for themselves. I am not too sure. Those types of issues are questions I will leave with the Minister and his advisers in the hope that we can get some sort of clarification.

I recall the words of my colleague Marama Fox with regard to stepping backwards in time towards colonisation and leaving Māori out of the conversation. Well, times have changed since the 1840 signing of the Treaty of Waitangi and I would argue that there are a lot of Māori in Tāmaki Makaurau who are being left out, with the proposals being made in this particular amendment bill.

I will finish my contribution by asking the Minister for some clarity around those complex webs that have already been set up with Treaty settlements. I named Ngāpuhi, who have not settled yet but have well over 55 hapū within that particular large tribe, and I ask whether or not that will cause some complexities and some issues into the future. I look forward to hearing from the Minister on the matter.

I want to talk about clauses 11 and 12 in Part 1. What they do is introduce a new function for councils, regional councils, and territorial authorities under the Resource Management Act (RMA), requiring those bodies to ensure that there is “sufficient residential and business development capacity”. That is clauses 11 and 12. The idea behind this is that the councils will be required to ensure that there is a pipeline of development-ready land through the medium and longer term. I think it is designed, in the eyes of Minister Smith, at least, to ensure that there is a sufficient quantity of development-ready land to make urban land markets more competitive. But what I want to say is that this illustrates the kind of poverty of thinking behind this Minister’s approach to urban land markets and reform.

💬 David Seymour: It’s a famine.

A famine—a famine of good ideas and good policy thinking. That is right. I want to also in this contribution speak to David Parker’s two amendments. Supplementary Order Paper 287 basically inserts a requirement for a national policy statement on urban growth, and the second amendment is about introducing infrastructure bonds. I want to explain why these two amendments must go together, and why they are a far superior alternative to the approach contained in clauses 11 and 12 in Part 1 of the bill.

Clauses 11 and 12, as I said, are designed to ensure that there is enough of a so-called pipeline of available development-ready land. That approach is also reflected in the Minister’s National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity. But the fallacy behind the thinking is the belief that that by requiring councils to provide a pipeline of future urban land, somehow that is going to increase the supply and therefore bring prices down. What we see in Auckland shows that this approach will not work, and that is why, when the Minister published his National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity, Auckland Council—and, in fact, all the other high-growth councils—said “No problem. It’s basically business as usual. It won’t change what we do.”, because, in the case of Auckland, it is often said the council has zoned land the size of Hamilton, and therefore we are fine.

💬 Hon David Parker: What did the Productivity Commission say?

Well, it is not fine, because, as the Productivity Commission and other commentators have said, all that does under the current policy settings is drip-feed bits of land progressively into what is a supercharged, speculative urban land market, and it makes no difference whatsoever to the cripplingly high urban land prices that are at the heart of the problem that we have got.

The solution that is embodied in David Parker’s Supplementary Order Paper 287 on a national policy statement on urban growth is to create a superabundance of development opportunities, both for people to build up and also for the city to grow out, in order to make room for growth. It is only by creating that superabundance of development opportunities in an urban land market like Auckland’s that there is any remote possibility of actually bringing urban land prices down. What David Parker’s Supplementary Order Paper would do is require Nick Smith to do something that he could have done, and should have done, years ago. Instead of putting the House through all of this, and all the other expensive and complicated tinkering that the Minister has applied to the RMA over the years, it would require him to publish a national policy statement that would direct high-growth councils to get rid of the urban growth boundary and replace it with more intensive spatial planning. That would protect areas of special value, ecological and otherwise, that would acquire land for future infrastructure, transport and otherwise, and that would set aside public open spaces for future generations, and that would then allow development to take place in the growth corridors, as long as—and this is the big proviso—the infrastructure costs of that new development can be fully carried by that development, so that the taxpayer and ratepayer are not being asked to subsidise development in places where it might be expensive to develop, like far out on the fringes.

That is why the companion amendment on infrastructure bonds is necessary. We need to find ways of financing and allowing the provision of infrastructure to support new development, because the current system is broken. It is not possible to get rid of the urban growth boundary and replace it with a smarter way to manage urban growth unless you crack this problem of infrastructure financing. It goes right to the heart of it, because, after all, the urban growth boundary is a proxy for the difference between land that is serviced by infrastructure, or can be serviced by infrastructure, and land that cannot.

I am sure David Parker was very flattered, actually, that David Seymour, having voted against these two amendments back on 6 September—this is the Journals of the House of Representatives that I am holding up, and according to the Journals of the House of Representatives those two amendments failed by one vote. A single extra vote would have meant that these two amendments that have now resurfaced as David Parker’s amendments would have been passed into law on the night of Tuesday, 6 September if David Seymour had voted for them. Through some strange rip in the time-space continuum, those same two amendments have reappeared in the name of David Seymour on the Table of this House tonight. It is very disconcerting that this kind of thing can happen. It questions all one’s assumptions about the way the universe operates.

But never mind about the plagiarism of David Seymour. If he has come tonight willing to vote for David Parker’s amendments to get rid of the urban growth boundary and replace it with a smarter way of delivering urban planning that protects the built environment but opens up a superabundance of development opportunities, that would drive down urban land costs—something that, if National Party MPs paid attention to it, they would probably want to support. But this Minister, who has spent the last decade blaming the RMA for expensive urban land and expensive housing, for some reason does not support this policy. I do not know why. I do not know why, but he does not. But Labour does. We stand for more competitive urban land markets, because we know there is a better way—

💬 Hon David Parker: So does the Productivity Commission.

—of allowing our cities to grow. The Productivity Commission advocates—advocates—more competitive urban land markets. It wants to see better, more competitive ways of financing infrastructure for development. It wants to free up the incredibly restrictive land-use rules and zoning practices that are responsible for driving up the cost of housing and the cost of land.

For the life of me I cannot really understand why Nick Smith and Bill English do not support these policies. They would, if implemented, make a massive difference in solving the housing crisis that has given our biggest city what The Economist magazine calls the most expensive housing in the world.

So I call on members tonight to support and vote for both of David Parker’s amendments on infrastructure financing and requiring the Minister to publish a national policy statement on urban growth, because they would fix the problem that is at the core of our failing ability to manage urban growth—particularly, but not only, in our country’s biggest city. They would do it in a way that is much more effective than the kind of tinkering that we see in clauses 11 and 12 in Part 1 of this bill.

I want to say that in spite of my having described the commissioners as right-wing, supply-side dinosaurs many years ago, the Productivity Commission and the work that it has done in the last few years on urban growth and urban planning is hugely impressive. It has assembled a reform agenda that will be incredibly useful for the next Labour-led Government.

Kia ora koutou katoa. Ngā mihi nui i tēnei pō. Thank you very much for the opportunity to take a call on the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill. Part 1 takes me back. For the young and innocent who were not born pre-1990, I and others were part of the original resource management law reform consultation process. It was such a different story from what we see today.

During that process, not only was it about the processes of Parliament but there was also a genuine and deep conversation across this country about what really needs to happen. How are we going to create the most effective resource management legislation the world has ever seen? As a much younger person, it was very interesting that the Ministry for the Environment invited us to come to Wellington with our kuia from Ngāti Whanaunga, from Manaia, and from the unashamed anti-mining organisation that was currently blocking roads at the time, and it actually thought that those of us who were deeply concerned enough about the environment and were prepared to stand our ground in non-violent, direct action also might have a view on better law.

Can anyone imagine that happening now? There is no way now that the conversation is being held with the people who are the most passionate, not only about law but about standing their ground in communities. What is disturbing about Part 1 is that this is so far from the original spirit of the Resource Management Act. It is about limiting and restricting citizen rights. It is extraordinary because our communities rely heavily on the ability to participate in this stuff. They already struggle with the increasing limitation that has been imposed through the many amendments to the Act since the 1990s, and now it is going to get worse.

What the Government has done is shoehorn into Part 1—alongside the agenda, which is supposedly about housing—a whole lot of other things. It has been a great opportunity to further restrict the rights of people to participate in planning issues and consenting processes. For those of us who, for example, are working at the moment on water, which is incredibly important and a contested space, this law not only is confusing but is actually stripping us of the opportunities we need for some very, very major issues and very specific issues to be addressed.

I do have some questions for the Minister about the content of the national planning standards, and how on earth they relate to the national policy statements, how on earth they relate to the clean water plan that has just been released, and how on earth all of that is supposed to fit together into a coherent statement that regional councils, communities, and tangata whenua could possibly interpret. More words does not mean better protection of the environment if the underlying agenda is restricting the right of people to participate in the concept of fast tracking. Deeply embedded in Part 1 of this bill is the idea of fast tracking both planning and consenting processes that actually prevent people from having a say on critical matters.

I was just going to talk about water. For example, this is not theoretical all around the motu. This is a live issue—for example, for the Ruataniwha Dam. So there is not only the court case associated with the land swap but also incredible court cases that have gone on, to talk about the nitrate issues in the Tukituki River. If the rights of the national environment groups, amongst others, are restricted, as they could be under this legislation, as not being “directly affected”—depending on how that is chosen to be defined—people cannot participate in their responsibilities as citizens for a major issue like the Ruataniwha Dam.

Then there are issues like the Tarawera River, where a company has a consent for another 20 years to pollute a river, and the only thing that stands in the way of that being an ongoing situation is the activity of citizens who are trying to get review clauses into the consent. Then next time, in the 2030s, when the company still wants to use the river as a drain then and it has got no plans to get out of that river, how will the citizens participate if they are not directly affected parties?

My partner and I have spent 30 years working on that river—30 years of his life, and I came in a bit later. We participate in all the processes as much as we can. We are not going to be seen as affected parties, because we do not live next to the pulp mills. We do not live next to the river.

Another example is Waikoropupū Springs, where the water allocation issues upstream of that wāhi tapu—the important issue there is the ability of communities to participate in deciding how those springs are going to be protected. If you go through the clauses around the restriction of powers that are being imposed through Part 1, you can see that the ability of those people, if they are not the farmers affected and if they are not living next to the springs—you can see how much more difficult it is going to be.

Mount Aspiring National Park—the water-bottling debacle from taking the most pristine water from Tuning Fork Creek and pumping it through Jackson Bay and into a ship. Already the Resource Management Act has been restricted to the point where very few parties locally knew this was going on and very few could participate. But the point is that this bill will make that worse. It will restrict participation in the planning processes that create the frameworks for participation, and then in the actual ability, if those planning processes fail the communities, fail the environment, to actually participate in the consenting processes. The bill, as our minority view says, gives the Minister sweeping powers to go against the community’s will and impose his decisions on our cities, towns, and countryside.

Water is just one example. There are many others. We have seen in the news, just in the last day, that the One Plan, which was a good piece of planning that was undermined by implementation, could be taken to court by national environment groups. Will that still be the case if the restrictions for participation are narrowed down? These are really important questions. The expertise that has been created through hard work and precedent and practice by national groups—if that is restricted from participating in these apparently just local decisions that only affected parties, under narrowly defined criteria, can participate in, we have serious problems.

We do not support the idea of the fast tracking of restricting participation in any of these issues. If it takes a bit longer, let us get it right. We have only one planet. We have only one country. Whatungarongaro he tangata, toitū he whenua.

[Each generation passes in its turn, but the land remains.]

There is actually no future without the environment, and this bill undermines the kaupapa of the Resource Management Act, which was designed originally, as I was saying earlier, to create the opportunity for the environment to have a really strong voice. We lost section 5 in Part 2. We did not want to see at the time, in the 1990s, the myth of balance, because there is no balance if you destroy the environment. That is our major concern about this bill.

Then it comes to the biggest environmental issue of our entire planet, being acted out, may I say, right across the world right now, with horrifically destabilised weather conditions, including events in our own country, which must make people question what our part in this is and what we can do, rather than just throw our hands up and say: “It’s the weather.” It is the climate, but we cannot discuss it in the Resource Management Act.

If this bill goes through, it continues to exclude the most important issue that everyone in this House believes, or most of them do—hopefully, everyone by now; I have not really done a tally lately—is real, even if they are not prepared to act on it. We are supporting Eugenie Sage’s Supplementary Order Paper 283 because all of these issues—climate, water, as well as the housing debate, the urban debate, and the article 2 issues, which do need to be strengthened in the right way—are important. But if we are going to shut out the voices of people, including those of us who helped to write the original legislation because the Government of the day was welcoming and open to the public voice, what have we done in this Parliament?

We are no longer going to be at the forefront of resource management legislation in the world. We are now going to be right back down at the bottom of the heap, where anything goes so long as there is money in it and so long as development can go ahead. We can have all of these labels and all of this complicated rhetoric, such as there is, but basically it is a fast track to nowhere, and the Green Party cannot support that. Kia ora tātou katoa.

I am sure the Minister, Nick Smith, will in fact, appropriately, come after me, because I have got some questions for him. I want to focus my intervention here on clause 37, especially, around the question of the artist formerly known as the national planning template, now called the national planning standards. But before I do, I have got a specific question around Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 281 in the name of Marama Fox, which has been debated a number of times already in the Committee.

This is the deal, as it were, to make sure that the rules around regulations that prohibit or remove certain rules do not apply to rules or types of rules that regulate the growing of crops that are genetically modified organisms. I just want to be clear on the definition of the word “crop”, as to whether or not that actually includes—

💬 Hon David Parker: Good question.

—thank you very much—ryegrass or pine trees, for instance. Are they crops? Certainly around pine trees I know that would be one of the concerns that was being raised when this matter was put forward. The definition of the word “crops” is a little hard to find. Marama Fox has just arrived in the—sorry, I should not say that. Marama Fox might now be able to respond to me. I am just looking for some assistance from the member for her SOP 281, perhaps through the Minister, as to what the definition of the word “crop” is and whether or not that does include things like certain types of grasses, ryegrass, or particularly pine trees.

I do note that in a quick search of other legislative definitions of the word “crop” I have come across one in a regulatory bill for 1999 that says that “ ‘crops’ means crops, whether matured or otherwise, and whether naturally grown or planted, attached to land by roots, or forming part of trees or plants attached to land;”, then it says “but does not include trees”—

💬 Hon David Parker: What about pasture?

—or pasture. I think that is quite an interesting clause because it specifically excludes trees from the definition of “crops”. So if the intention of Marama Fox in SOP 281 has been to cover GMOs generally in the environment, I think we have clarified a little bit today that we are not talking about GMOs in the lab—good. But now we are talking about excluding crops here. I for one, looking at this SOP, want to be sure that (a) we know what we are voting for, but (b) that it meets the concerns of the groups that have been advocating for this. As I say, I know from previous work in this space that GM pine trees are definitely one of the issues that has been put out there.

💬 Hon David Parker: And GM ryegrass.

And ryegrass, as well, Mr Parker. That is right. So I am sure that the Minister, the officials, or the member who has drafted the SOP will be able to help us with that definition of the word “crops”, lest we be misleading members of the public as to the extent of the exclusion for GMOs within those plans.

To return now to clause 37—as I said, the artist formerly known as the national planning template, now called a national planning standard. In the submission process, nearly the majority of submitters actually supported the concept of having a planning template. That is understandable because that kind of guidance is actually useful and important. But the concern that submitters raised throughout the process, having got their heads around the idea that there would be a template—77 percent of submitters actually had problems with its implementation. The Local Government and Environment Committee clearly gave quite significant consideration to this and basically tore apart clause 37 and put some other bits in. But I do not think it has solved two of the fundamental problems, which I want to talk about now, and perhaps the Minister can help enlighten me on this.

I now want to refer particularly to what is now new section 58C(3)(a) in clause 37, which talks about what a national planning standard may do. It may “specify the structure and form of regional policy statements and plans:”—absolutely fine. Subsection (3)(b) says “direct local authorities—(i) to use a particular structure and form for regional policy statements and plans:”. Here we start again to get into the overreach of the Minister. We talked about this earlier on, in clause 105—that the regulatory power was going too far. Here we have got moving beyond what is a template to actually the content of that template.

We then go to subsection (3)(b)(ii), which says it may also direct local authorities “to include specific provisions in their policy statements and plans:”. That is not a template any more. That is a direction from the—Mr Chair? You should probably ring a bell. Mr Chair?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Righto. Grant Robertson—final call, I think.

It was so enlightening, Mr Chair, that you were gripped by my words. I understand that.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: It’s called insomnia.

Ha, ha! Insomnia with his eyes open, Minister. But, yes. So in subsection (3)(b)(ii) we have a national planning standard that may direct local authorities to include specific provisions in their policy statements and plans. This is the very kind of overreach that we are talking about today, where the Minister is taking powers that should or would lie in the hands of regional councils and using an instrument that he has called a template to do that.

That is not what the submitters who actually favoured this were looking for. In fact, they were quite clear in the concerns that they raised. A number of them, if we look down at the opposition—so 77 percent opposed its implementation. The reasons for that include a lack of evidence for a new planning instrument of this type—that came from district councils and iwi—and then the erosion of local democracy in decision making. That is exactly what this section does.

Just look at the groups that actually opposed this: Stevenson Group, the Kaikōura District Council, Local Government New Zealand, the Resource Management Law Association, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Genesis Energy, and Fish & Game. You would hardly get all of those people in the room all at once at the same time without some sort of barnyard brawl, and here they all are, telling the Minister that he is overreaching again and that he is actually putting in place a measure that will erode local democracy and that will undermine the very premise of the Resource Management Act—that the decision-making power should be held at the local level, close to those who know how to solve the problems.

If the Minister gets up and tells me “This is about guidance. This is about making sure that there is consistency.”—that is what national policy statements (NPSs) and national environmental standards are about. That is the very purpose of them. So for a piece of legislation that is allegedly here to make things easier and more effective and more efficient, it is just another layer. It is another layer, and it is so poorly developed that it is another layer that ends up with the same acronym as one of the layers that already exists. So now we have got two types of NPSs. We have got national policy statements and national planning standards and national environmental standards, so it is some sort of weird, hybrid, morphed body of the two that has emerged out of the select committee as it tries to clean up the mess that the Minister has created for it. So there are real concerns about the implementation of this template or standard.

I want to just mention the submission of the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council because I think its submission sums up where the good could be in this but where it goes off the rails. It has said that “The template”—or now called a standard—“should be limited to a pattern or plan format that identifies: (i) The plan format and layout, … E-planning provisions including for both text and the associated planning maps”, matters that the council should address, provisions that must be included as a result of existing rules and plans and NPSs, and a glossary of terms. That is actually a useful set of things that will help guide and make more efficient and more effective the way in which plans work at the moment at a regional and local level.

💬 Meka Whaitiri: Smart people come from Hawke’s Bay.

They are—very smart people from the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council. But, sadly, despite the best efforts of the select committee, we have not actually seen sufficient changes to address those ideas.

I just want to mention in the time that is remaining to me some further concerns around the implementation of the template and, in particular, submitters who were very concerned about the amount of power that was given to the Minister to decide on template content. Submitters were particularly concerned that there was no requirement for a hearing and no avenues for appeal.

Again, this is just a good example of the way in which the Minister—if we give him credit—was trying to find a way to make the Act more effective and more efficient but has actually just ended up making it more complex and more difficult, and has added a layer of uncertainty and confusion to the planning process. We could do so much better. I think everybody in this Committee knows that there are ways to improve the way that plans are drafted. There is the odd element in this bill that does that. The national planning template could have been a good idea, but unfortunately its implementation is deeply flawed.

I am happy to take a quick call just to answer a number of the questions that members have raised. Let me work through those. Grant Robertson has raised concerns. He keeps referring to it as a planning template. It is a planning standard.

💬 Grant Robertson: Well, it used to be called a planning template.

That is right. But here is the bit: everybody wants the omelette; no one wants to break the egg—that is, if we are serious about reducing the 80,000 pages of Resource Management Act (RMA) plans and policies across New Zealand, we do not need for New Zealand 800 different classifications of residential zones. We do not need 55 different definitions on how you measure the height of a building. What you are doing in terms of those planning standards is actually saying it is for councils to choose where residential and where commercial activities will be, but we need to standardise them across the country, and that makes good sense.

In respect of Catherine Delahunty’s concerns about participation, she makes a very flawed assumption, and that is that the environment wins from slow processes. We have had a Resource Management Act since 1991, and yet we have only two councils out of 16 that have rules for excluding stock from streams. Slow bureaucratic processes when we are dealing with environmental issues actually do not help, and that is why, actually, the measures to speed up plan making is good for the environment.

In respect of Mr Twyford, he had a question around development bonds. He has missed the boat. This Government made changes to the Local Government Act 4 years ago that allow there to be bonds for infrastructure. It is in the Local Government Act. It is already in the law. And the part that I found ironic about Mr Twyford’s contribution is that every time it comes to an actual housing development, whether it is Point England, whether it is Three Kings, or whether it is Māngere, he is opposed. So he wants more houses, but, actually, every time we have a housing development, he invents some cultural, landscape, or other reason as to why he is opposed.

Mr Peeni Henare raised a question in respect of the issues around the iwi participation arrangements and how they interact with Treaty settlements. There is a very specific provision in the part that says that Treaty settlements are sacrosanct and do not override those iwi participation arrangements.

The most ironic contribution came from Gareth Hughes. He had moved an amendment before the House that wants to put climate change effects back into the RMA. The interesting thing is that I have the Hansard before me from 2004, when the Green Party voted to take it out. In fact, I have got the speech before me from Jeanette Fitzsimons, who voted for the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 4) in 2004, which distinctly took climate change out of the RMA. So I think it really does show a confused position.

David Parker has asked the question as to how “crops” is defined. I would simply refer him to the Oxford Dictionary—and it is not the only bill that would refer to crops—and that is that they are “produce of cultivated plants such as cereals, vegetables, or fruit”.

The last question I wish to answer is in respect of David Seymour. David Seymour asked the question that he could only support an RMA reform bill that dealt with the issues in the principles of the Act in sections 6 and 7. Well, Mr Seymour, it is a simple problem.

💬 David Seymour: That’s not what I said.

No, you said that your biggest concern about this bill was that you could not support it because it did not make changes to sections 6 and 7. There is a simple issue of arithmetic—there is not a majority of members in this Parliament who support changes to sections 6 and 7. I would wish him well for the election coming up on 23 September. In the event that we have a majority in the Parliament, we would welcome your support at that time, but I am disappointed that you have chosen not to support over 20 other amendments that actually make a real difference in terms of both housing and the economy, and making processes work better.

Finally, I would say to Mr Seymour, in respect of new section 360D, that he expressed his opposition because he was concerned it may end up like the Economic Stabilisation Act and end up with regulations that would be excessively used. Can I tell you where the member is mistaken. New section 360D can be used only for reducing regulation—it can only be used for reducing regulation, by definition.

💬 Denis O’Rourke: That’s not what it says.

Yes, it does. It can only be used—and to the member who interjects, and I challenge Mr Seymour, give me any example under new section 360D where it could be used to increase restrictions on owners. What it does do is appropriately—new section 360D is a mechanism for reducing duplication of regulation, and I am very surprised the ACT Party is opposed to it.

Thank you for that opportunity to respond to a couple of points that the Minister Nick Smith has just made. At face value, he is correct that the only way you could use new section 360D, inserted by clause 105, is to strike down regulations made by council. But I think what the Minister does not understand—this is a systemic problem about the depth and level of thinking that he has brought to this whole reform process—is that it is about what is the long-term equilibrium.

It starts out that the Minister can veto some things that a council would like to do, but once a Minister has that power, the long-term equilibrium is one where the Minister can also suggest to the councils that perhaps the councils should do other things that the Minister likes in order that he not use his veto power on other things that they like. If anybody doubts that, they need only look at the relationship between the President and the Congress in the United States Constitution. The fact of the matter is that introducing ministerial power by regulation to strike down plans and planning decisions made by councils is the beginning of a long and winding road towards an erosion of our constitutional arrangements in New Zealand.

But that is very much the difficulty with so much of this resource legislation—the Minister tends to think in static terms. He thinks about what he can achieve by simply dictating that a certain template will be used, dictating that a certain standard—as he likes to call it—will be used, or dictating that a certain measurement system will be used when he is not getting at the real problem, which is that the Resource Management Act (RMA) is already a long list of requirements that must be met by councils and, as a result, councils eager to meet the many statutory requirements put on them by this House end up taking so much constituents’ time. If we wanted to make a better RMA, we would be reducing the size of it, not enlarging the size of it. We would be reducing its complexity, not increasing its complexity as this bill does.

But seeing as this is where we are, I will start where I left off before. As I mentioned, I have an amendment eerily similar to the one more recently submitted by David Parker in this Committee. It would require a prohibition on urban growth boundaries. There is no question that we have a situation in New Zealand where we are 0.8 percent urbanised, and yet we have created a shortage of urban land upon which New Zealanders are able to build. That is the primary reason why we have a shortage of housing and why we have sky-high house prices and why we have housing-driven poverty in New Zealand. That is the fundamental problem and this amendment laid out on Supplementary Order Paper 274 I have put up on the Table—just in case you would like some variety; one by a different David—so that we can get rid of these urban growth boundaries, which have stifled the supply of land for New Zealanders.

I just say to Phil Twyford, if he really wanted this bill to have passed on 6 September last year, all he had to do was pick up the phone. If you want to pass something in this House, you have got to hustle. You cannot send someone an email and call them 2 hours later and say “Why didn’t you vote for my bill?”; you actually have got to hustle. Pick up the phone and call me next time, Phil. I know you have got my number now.

I have got another Supplementary Order Paper on the Table now—Supplementary Order Paper 273. What this would do is change some of those principles sections, which are so important. Those are the ones that regard the protection of private property rights. That would be inserted into a new section 6(i). We need the effective functioning of the built environment, including the availability of land to support changes in population and urban development demand. If we are going to have so many considerations so deadly to development and we cannot take anything out, let us put some positive things in. Let us put the efficient provision of infrastructure into the principles of the Act, and let us put the efficient use of development of natural and physical resources, including the benefits derived from their use and development, into the Act. Let us put some positive values into the RMA that will actually help a new generation of New Zealanders build homes, if that is the best that we can do.

I have a number of supplementary order papers—let us just call it Dave’s emporium. There is Supplementary Order Paper 273 if you would like to supercharge infrastructure and improve the principles of the Act, Supplementary Order Paper 274 if you would like to get rid of urban growth boundaries, Supplementary Order Paper 266 if you would like to get rid of iwi participation arrangements and if you would like to improve other aspects of the bill, I am sure I have amendments for that too.

But it does fill me with great sadness to stand here tonight and look at the Minister, a fellow engineer, who has had so much time to improve this critical issue—perhaps the most important issue facing New Zealand—and I have to say that the Labour Party, the enemy of free markets and usually the people who have the fewest ideas about how to make public policy better for all New Zealanders, is making more sense on this bill than the Minister, whom I usually support. That is a great shame. It is a great shame that in the last year Nick Smith would not pick up the phone and talk to us about how we could have made this bill better. For a year’s time—since 13 April last year—John Key, Prime Minister as he was then, knew that he had the votes to pass the Resource Management Legislation Bill with United Future and ACT. But he made his choice on behalf of National and he went with the Māori Party. He went with iwi participation arrangements and he went with Mana Whakahono ā Rohe.

I have actually never been able to understand how it was that the Labour Party won six out of the seven Māori seats. It certainly could not be on individual talent, with the rare exception of Peeni Henare. But while Peeni Henare was speaking I came to understand it. I came to understand the priorities for Māori that the Māori Party has, vis-à-vis the Labour MPs—or at least Peeni Henare; I am not sure about the others. On the one hand you have Māori seat representatives who know that with only 40 percent of Māori owning their homes, the most important priority is not to ensure that the elites and the elders are consulted or have the right to go to a council and ask that they be consulted—Mr Chairperson, I am speaking to my Supplementary Order Paper 266, in case you had any doubt. Their most important priority for Māori in New Zealand, and poor Māori in New Zealand especially, is to actually start building some homes so that we can reduce poverty and increase health. Yet the Māori Party, in its participation in this particular bill, rather than helping us to build more homes, has dragged out this legislation for 2½ years, and it has actually failed to negotiate a bill that would do anything substantial to improve the performance of our land markets and make housing more affordable.

Nick Smith said one thing that is right: there were not enough numbers to reform the principles section of the RMA. That means that he could not get any support from the Māori Party to reform the fundamental sections that underpin this Act. He could not get its support to change the way that we do land use regulation in New Zealand. He could not get support to change the abundance of land on which New Zealanders—Māori and Pākehā alike—are allowed to build, because he could not find any support in the Māori Party for just about anything other than ensuring that there would be mandatory consultation and iwi participation arrangements, or Mana Whakahono ā Rohe—call them what you will. The only support he could find from the Māori Party was from the elites.

So thank you, Peeni Henare. I finally understand why it is that despite the dearth of talent, vis-à-vis Marama Fox, six out of seven Māori Party seats are won by the Labour Party, which is focused on the needs of urban Māori and the real economic needs, rather than the spiritual ones.

That is, in conclusion, a very sad resource management legislation bill, but if members are concerned about making it better at this last-ditch attempt—particularly my friend Marama Fox, who I know, deep down, is concerned about making housing more affordable for Māori—then come to Dave’s emporium. Come to Dave’s emporium, where we have Resource Legislation Amendment Bill amendments that will put property rights, infrastructure provision, and land supply at the forefront of the RMA, and will remove the Mana Whakahono ā Rohe provisions, which are seriously damaging to the constitutional arrangements in this country. Thank you.

I hope Marama Fox was listening to the response from the Hon Nick Smith, because when asked what “crops” means he said, essentially, “plants that produce crops, such as cereals, vegetables, or fruit”. That is what it means. Therefore, it does not mean pasture, and it probably does not mean forestry.

💬 Marama Fox: Carry on. I am waiting for my turn.

Well, Marama Fox is signing the death warrant of the Māori Party at this election if it votes through this bill.

💬 Marama Fox: Oh my God!

That is what—this is it. The only reason that you have pushed this hard—or that your party has pushed this hard—for this amendment is that you know that your party will be held to account by the electors of Hawke’s Bay, Northland, and throughout the country for selling them down the drain in respect of GM pastures, which can now be knocked out as legal, and will be by this Minister—if in power to do so after the election—if this bill passes. Marama Fox, that is what the Minister said, that is what the dictionaries say a crop is, and that is what most of us understand a crop is. People do not understand a crop to be a bit of grass or a bit of pasture growing. They understand a crop—

💬 Marama Fox: Yield me some time and I can answer your question.

Well, that is what the Minister said. The Minister, I am sure, will—

💬 Marama Fox: Just yield me your time.

It is in Hansard. You read Hansard. You read a dictionary. Marama Fox, you are consigning your party to history. That is the seriousness of what you are contemplating, and we will cause you to be held to account for your egregious passage into law a bill that confers regulation-making powers on the Minister—[Interruption]

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! I would like to hear what is being said, and this constant barracking is unacceptable. Tone it down.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. I have made my point. The political consequences of this will be visited upon the Māori Party at the next election. A crop, as the Minister said, is something that produces crops, such as cereal, vegetables, or fruit. That is what he said, that is what the dictionaries say, and that is what most people will think this clause makes. This is big politics for the Māori Party, and you have got it wrong. You have got it wrong. The only reason you are back here supporting this is because of this amendment, and this amendment does not do what you are telling your voters it does do.

The Productivity Commission suggests various improvements to resource management processes, which largely align with where the Labour Party stands on the need for freer rules re land availability for housing, mechanisms to make sure that the inefficiencies of infrastructure use are visited upon those who cause them—if they put the subdivision in the wrong place—but, none the less, overcoming the problems of the drip-feeding of land through councils and land bankers at the moment. This legislation does not achieve those purposes. It further complicates the Resource Management Act (RMA). It hands too much power to the executive. The Minister, essentially, says: “Trust me in respect of my rules to overrule the substance of plans. I am not going to use them, except responsibly.” That is what he is saying, but, actually, the power goes far broader than that and does allow central government to override local decisions made under plans.

There are many other provisions in this bill, so I am going to make a slightly procedural point. Here we are with the Government constructing amendments to every part of the RMA, which is a very long document, and every one of us is restricted to four calls. In a call we can really make only one or two points, and in respect of important points such as that which I have just been making, you have got to actually use more than one call on that one point. So through the Government whacking all of these changes to the RMA in one part, you are effectively frustrating this Parliament having a decent debate about so many other details that are flawed in this bill, from the long-term detriment of the environment to the increased costs to those who have to wrestle with this section. I have not had time to talk about the flawed collaborative processes or the other—

Finally, the opportunity to address the claims that are coming from the Opposition. Let me just start with this. When we—

💬 Tracey Martin: Well, actually, it’s the guy next to you—it’s that guy.

Would you like to hear the answer? When we negotiated this Supplementary Order Paper (SOP)—I am referring to SOP 281 in my name—we did so with Pure Hawke’s Bay. We had its people on the phone throughout the entire drafting of the wording of this Supplementary Order Paper. We negotiated the terminology. We asked whether we should use “crops for pasture”, “crops for human consumption”, “crops for animal consumption”, “crops for forestry”, and so on and so on and so on. In their words they asked us “to use ‘crops’ and not determine them by their individual parts, because then, if there is a bit that we missed out accidentally, it is specific in the law and it is too late.”—their words. We had to negotiate to get those in. They were actually more happy to do that, and Pure Hawke’s Bay asked us to do so on its behalf.

Therefore, we went and we said: “OK. Well, we need to make sure that this does, in fact, cover the things that we believe it covers, because I don’t want a thin slice of pastrami; I want a carve-out that we can bake on.” But here is a point first, before I go to what I believe that that carve-out does give us: even if we did not get a carve-out for GE, the iwi chairs’ technical advisers were happy to go with it. That was because in order to enact new section 360D powers—and, remember, we have already got our sections 360A, 360B, and 360C—the Minister is obligated to prove that there is a duplication of law. He has to prove that. It is subject to judicial review.

So when he does that, he has to notify the public and the relevant local and iwi authorities of what the Minister proposes to do. He has to create a process that considers all the parties and gives them adequate time and opportunity to have their say. He needs to receive the report from that process with the recommendations and feedback, and then give an evaluation report of that for everybody to see. Having done all of that, to ensure that there was transparent and robust decision-making, the Minister must have particular regard to the evaluation report that then comes to him and make that public, and all of that is subject to judicial review.

So there were members of our negotiation team who said “Well, actually, if it is that onerous, a lockdown would be very difficult for the Minister to ever enact—ever.”, and we said: “Well, I’m not so sure about that. I want a carve-out, please, because I don’t believe that that is so.” So I can see that it is all there and it is subject to judicial review, and those are all of the exact steps from the law that he has to go through.

So then we get the wording, as approved by Pure Hawke’s Bay—shall I say that one more time: Pure Hawke’s Bay—and we had it—

💬 Kris Faafoi: They’re not the judge.

Well, that is all right. You have asked me to answer the question. You have put the question before me, and I am simply attempting to answer. So then these are the terms we have agreed with the Minister’s office that we can use for words—for our lines—about what that means: “The Māori Party supports these amendments on the understanding that, as negotiated with the Government, they preserve the region’s ability under local plans to regulate all types of GM crops in their territories, including forestry and grasses and any activities involving the growing of GM crops, whether for commercial or other purpose.” Thank you. Shall I say it one more time, or are we clear now?

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: Where is it? Where are those words?

Well, they are here in my hand. These are agreed lines that I am allowed to use in relation to this Supplementary Order Paper. I have just read out from the law the process that, under section 360D, the Minister is able to use. So here, in our SOP, that is what we determined “crops” means, including grasses and forestry. Those are in my notes. So that is our Supplementary Order Paper. This is determined by Pure Hawke’s Bay and, therefore, with the agreement that we have been able to get, we believe that does get to have it covered. Obviously, that might be up to judicial review in the future, but the Minister would have to act only if he believes that there is a duplication of the law, and he has to prove that through judicial review, having already gone through those onerous steps.

So, it is up to you, actually, I say to the Labour Party—and specifically to Meka Whaitiri, because this is your region—whether you want to disagree with Pure Hawke’s Bay and vote against my Supplementary Order Paper. Take that on board. That is completely up to you. You can choose to do that if you wish, and you can explain yourselves to those people because they have endorsed it. I have been to seek the approval of the iwi and they have endorsed it. I have been to seek the approval of the chair of the iwi of Ngāti Kahungunu, and he has endorsed it. So if you would like to vote against it, you go right ahead, and you can explain why you would do that to the region of the Hawke’s Bay. And let us include the Northland people as well, because they are very concerned about it, and include every other GE-free organisation that has sat in my office over the last year, whom we have consulted widely with throughout this entire process.

I know that there are some people who are a little bit annoyed about that, but we have attempted to ensure that collaborative planning processes can happen in regions with iwi and with all groups concerned about the betterment of their region to enact what they believe is necessary for the growth and development and protection of the resources in their region. Mana whakahono arrangements do it. They do it through collaboration with iwi. Local governments are able to do it, and if the Minister would like to enact, he has to override and prove—prove—that there is a duplication of legislation. So the onus is on the Minister to prove that. Local government and regional councils can feel assured that their decision-making ability in their territories has been upheld.

We have not sold them down the river. And, yes, historic the Māori Party is, because nobody would have thought that this Māori Party would have the influence over a right-wing Government to allow it to have a voice. I am appalled—I am appalled—that the Labour Party, which purports to represent the interests of Māori, would dare to vote against the voice of those people who carved out this agreement by our side. [Interruption] Oh, no, do not worry—Mr Chair, thank you—I think the people have well and truly seen that there is an overwhelming backing down from supporting iwi to have their say, which is coming from different parties in this Parliament, because there is some sort of irrational fear that a mana whakahono arrangement in conjunction with the collaborative planning process of their own local and regional council cannot be upheld. I think that is irrational, and I stand amazed.

I stand amazed at New Zealand First, which rolled out the “Iwi/Kiwi” debate just in time for the election. But, do you know what? Carry on, because every time you do, your old people, who listen to you belittling Māori, are turning around and saying “Why did we do that? We are coming home.”—coming home to the party that is representing their interests, in collaboration with the iwi that those members pretend to support.

So I do believe that the Supplementary Order Paper that I have presented tonight does include a carve-out for crops, as described by me in this speech. You can check the Hansard if you are a bit sceptical about that, and quote me, if you like. But vote against the Supplementary Order Paper at your peril if you come from the Hawke’s Bay, Northland, or any other region that thinks GE is important to it.

I am very pleased to be able to take a call in this debate. It will be my first call in this debate, because I have spent the day being the MC for the New Zealand Planning Institute (NZPI) Young Planners Congress, which is taking place in Wellington. Of course, with my planning background, this is an issue that is very, very dear to my heart.

Minister Nick Smith might recall that 2 years ago at the NZPI conference, I asked him then whether he would consider a royal commission of inquiry, or some sort of broad-based inquiry, into the Resource Management Act (RMA), as had been called for by one of the Act’s original authors, Sir Geoffrey Palmer. At that time the Minister said: “Oh, no, we wouldn’t want to do that. Of course, the Opposition would be very happy with a commission of inquiry, because it would slow down the process.”

I think that the Minister is far too cynical, and what he has not realised is that 2 years later, now that this bill—which is really a bit of a shambles—is coming to the House, it has not really addressed the fundamental, underlying issues with the RMA that I am sure all New Zealanders would agree need to be addressed. Some of those were drawn out by the Productivity Commission recently in its report Better urban planning. So I would put it to the Minister that if he and the National Government really wanted to fundamentally fix the issues with the RMA, it would have been better to get broad-based support from all parties in the House and to do it through an independent process, like an independent inquiry, so we could actually get to the bottom of the issues and not just gloss over them and treat them in a narrow, ideological sense.

This bill—just like many other bills that his Government has brought to the House since it has been in Government—by trying to tinker with the RMA, is actually making the Act more and more difficult and less likely to deliver on the objectives that we actually want. What New Zealanders actually want, I am sure everyone would agree, is to protect the environment—they care about the environment—and to ensure that we have sound urban planning in place, so that we have complete communities.

Although it is vitally important to address the housing crisis, we cannot do it simply by removing all regulation and allowing developers to subdivide and build a bunch of houses out in the middle of nowhere, because houses in the middle of nowhere are not of any use to people. People do not just want an affordable house. They need a house that gives them access to jobs and gives them access to amenities, and it needs to be where they have close proximity to parks and where there is decent stormwater infrastructure, so there are not going to be problems with flooding in the future, because we know that there are going to be increased floods as a result of climate change in some places.

Minister, I think it is unfortunate that you did not take the opportunity that you had, having been in Government now for nearly 9 years, to have that broader-based inquiry into the RMA. Although the Minister has regularly accused the Greens of opposing changes to planning rules that would enable more development in affordable places, I think he can quite clearly see the constructive contribution from the Greens that I have brought to him on many occasions. In this particular debate it is in my Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 288, which proposes to amend SOP 274, which is in the name of David Seymour.

Some of the most costly planning rules that have resulted in unaffordable housing, inefficient use of land, and terrible congestion in our towns and cities are the rules that require huge numbers of car-parks for every new development. Of course, there are far more efficient ways of managing car-parking in a way that means that people can actually access the parks when they need to get somewhere, but, more importantly, the valuable land in our towns and cities is used in ways that are actually good for people. Whether that is homes or businesses or schools or shops or parks, the things that really make our communities worth living in are not tied to storage for motor vehicles.

If we can use less of that land—because at this point in time there are about three empty car-parks for every one that is being used in New Zealand, so that is a massive oversupply of car-parking, and most of that land is valuable urban land that could be used for more productive uses. Simply by adopting the SOP that I have proposed, it would mean that councils could use far more effective, management-based approaches to managing demand for parking, rather than oversupplying the land for parking.

That is just one simple step that the Minister’s Government could adopt, by working proactively with councils to use far better management practices for managing parking, which would free heaps of valuable urban land. That is only one small step, because there are a whole lot of other things his Government needs to do. But in order to do so—to truly address the housing crisis—we have to let go of that ideology that says Government cannot do anything, because in the housing markets that are working well, they do not have a lack of environmental protection or a lack of planning rules or a lack of collaboration. In fact, they have the opposite. If you look at Germany, it has highly collaborative planning practices, which means that the community actually gets input into new developments. If you get the community on board early on, even if it makes the process seem a little bit slower, in the end it is a far better outcome because everybody has participated and you get something that has the buy-in of the entire community.

I know that the New Zealand Council for Infrastructure Development—not an organisation I normally agree with—went around consulting and proposing this after it did a study tour in Europe, and suggested that for major infrastructure projects it would be better to have a more collaborative process, rather than one that gets drawn out in appeals. [Interruption] But, no, what is proposed in this bill is not taking us in a direction of more community input, and it certainly is not taking us in a direction where the Government is actually going to be more proactive about master planning. That is what is needed.

Developers have their place, but if you leave it to them, they are just going to maximise profit from a particular piece of land. What we have seen is that they are not providing integrated communities, which is what people need for the long term. The only place where that is happening right now is in Hobsonville, and that is because it was an initiative of central government under Labour with the Waitakere City Council and Housing New Zealand. They master-planned it, they got community input, and they actually provided a complete community with a range of housing options, with schools, with public transport, and with all of the infrastructure that you need to have a good place to live. That is not happening anywhere else right now in New Zealand because of this ideological approach taken by the National Government that says: “Government does nothing. We just stand aside. We remove the red tape for developers, and we let them go wild.” They maximise their profits, but where is the long-term community, the place for people to live and for them to work that is truly affordable?

The Minister has continually gone on about land supply, but not all urban land supply is equal. Houses on the fringe are far more expensive in terms of transport and access to jobs and amenities and the infrastructure that has to be provided by local government. Until his Government acknowledges that transport and housing affordability go together, and the Government needs to be leading the way with infrastructure first and by supporting development, coordinating development, and having a master planning process for new developments and redevelopments, and by then allowing the private sector to develop within the parameters of what the community wants—but, most importantly, the lost opportunity was that when his Government came in, in 2008 and 2009, all the building slowed down, and there were people who lost their jobs. That was the perfect time for the Government to invest in housing and State housing.

Counter-cyclical building is what every other country with a well-functioning housing market does, and his Government did not do that. That is why we have a shortage of supply right now. It is not to do with the RMA; it is to do with the lack of action on the part of the National Government to build at a time when the private sector was not going to build.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Come back to the RMA.

The Green Party has made numerous constructive contributions. We would have liked to see a royal commission of inquiry, to get broad-based support, and I think we are still going to need that if we take seriously what the Productivity Commission has said.

I do not believe that this bill as drafted is going to take us at all in the direction that all of the planning experts know will work to deliver affordable, quality development for the long term. What New Zealanders really want is environmental protection and for development to be able to happen in a long-term way, in a way that—you know, do it once, do it right. That is not something we have done in New Zealand for a really long time, but we can again if we change the Government.

It is a pleasure to take my first call here. I want to talk to two of the Supplementary Order Papers (SOP)—

💬 Kris Faafoi: Of many.

—yes, that is right, Mr Faafoi, the first of many calls—that seek to make amendments in Part 1 of this legislation. The first is to return to the definitional debate that seems to have broken out over what a crop is. I would just like to make the point that, actually, throughout Government we do have very tight definitions within our research, science, and technology system of what a crop is as opposed to a pasture. For example, I was once an employee of Crop and Food Research. We certainly did not delve into pasture or forestry; that that was seen as an entirely different enterprise and, in fact, research that was undertaken by other research institutions because it was seen as so separate and so different. We have a very accepted definition of what a crop is in this country—it certainly does not include pasture, and it certainly does not include forestry.

I would also like to respond to what was perhaps one of the more interesting attempts to bring someone over to vote for an SOP that I have ever seen in the House, and just remind the member Marama Fox that, actually, Labour will be supporting this SOP 281 that she is putting up. We do not actually think that it is going to achieve what it needs to do, but Labour will in fact be voting for it. In terms of the allegations that we are not voting for it, I would just like to correct those and make it clear that the Hon David Parker had made it clear that we would be voting for that SOP.

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: She wasn’t listening.

Perhaps my colleague the Hon Ruth Dyson is correct that she was not listening.

I would also like to speak to Supplementary Order Paper 283 in the name of Eugenie Sage that has been put forward, and to signal that the Labour Party will be supporting this Supplementary Order Paper. What this amendment to the legislation does is it would “enable the Minister and consent authorities to consider greenhouse gas emissions and the effects of climate change when deciding applications for discharge consents and marine consents, and developing national environmental standards, regional and district plans, and regulations.” We think that it is vitally important that any piece of legislation that is meant to be the centrepiece of how we practise sustainable management in this country, that when we are amending it in the 21st century, here in 2017, we are having due regard for climate change and ensuring that we are making sure that the Minister can consider the effect of greenhouse gas emissions on there. Though the Supplementary Order Paper is a very well-crafted Supplementary Order Paper, and I would like to congratulate the member who has put it forward, it does not alter the current provisions of the Resource Management Act, which do allow the decision makers to consider the effects of climate change for the benefits of renewable energy. What it does is it puts further amendments into this legislation where more consideration could be given and where, actually, more difference could be made.

So I hope that parties across the Chamber are looking at this Supplementary Order Paper, Minister, and thinking about the benefits that this could bring to bear. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s thoughts on this and whether or not the RMA is indeed a tool that we could be further using to fight the effects of climate change. I would be very interested in the Minister’s thoughts on that. It “amends clause 13 of the legislation to add climate change and greenhouse gas emissions to section 32 of the RMA.”, which seems a very sensible way to do that. “Sections 70A and 104E of the RMA limit consent authorities’ consideration of the effects of proposed activities in increasing greenhouse gas emissions”, so new clauses introduced under this Supplementary Order Paper would change that. It seems to me a very sensible way to do it. “The amendment to clause 4 would make it clear that contaminant, as defined in the Act, [does indeed] includes greenhouse gases.” Because if we are thinking about what a contaminant is in the 21st century, I think all of us would need to think about greenhouse gases and what that can do as well.

I think that this is a good Supplementary Order Paper. It is one we are supporting. I would like to remind members to perhaps listen to speeches in this Chamber, that it is a fiery debate, but actually be correct when you say what people are voting for. There is no quicker way to lose support for a Supplementary Order Paper than the speech such as we saw. Labour will be supporting both of them.

I want to talk about the Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) too—in particular, my own proposed amendments. I want to say straight away that I am a little sorry for David Seymour that my proposed amendment to delete all of the most objectionable parts of the bill is longer than his. Size does matter in this, as my list is actually more complete than his was. So I am sorry for him about that. But I would remind him also that, as I said in the first reading speech to this bill, New Zealand First would never support what is now called the Mana Whakahono ā Rohe provisions—the iwi participation provisions in this bill. We are sticking by that commitment, as stated quite clearly by the Rt Hon Winston Peters today.

The other thing that my proposed amendment does is to delete clause 105, which inserts the objectionable new section 360D. I did want to refer to the exact words of that provision because I think it is important. What it says is: “The Governor-General may, by Order in Council made on the recommendation of the Minister, make regulations—to prohibit or remove specified rules or types of rules that would duplicate, overlap with, or deal with the same subject matter as is included in other legislation.” The Minister has sought to argue that this is quite a narrow provision that is quite limited in the way it can be applied, but, in fact, if you look at what the bill actually says the meaning of those words is actually quite wide. Regulations are available for many things, not just in relation to genetically engineered crops but also would be available for a wide range of other things as well, provided the Minister considers that there is some kind of duplication, overlap, or dealing with—“dealing with”, how wide could you possibly get? It is a very wide provision and not nearly as narrow as the Minister argues.

I also want to read new section 360D(4) because what that says is “Regulations made under this section may require that rules inconsistent with those regulations be withdrawn or amended …”. The Minister tried to argue that all this was about is an ability to chop things out, but he can require amendment. How far could that go? I am arguing that it could actually go quite a long way. Here he goes again. He is shaking his head as though what I am saying is not true, but I have just read what the bill actually says and most people, Minister, do understand that the word “amended” goes a lot further than just a power to take something out. It can require something to be put in as well. So I think he is quite wrong about that, and that is why New Zealand First will certainly move the deletion of clause 105.

I want to go on to talk about SOP 286 moved by David Seymour, because he, very strangely, in this SOP wants to add a new section 6(h). This relates to matters of national importance. What he is trying to persuade us to do is to believe that the protection of private property rights, whatever that may mean in this context, is a matter of national importance. He is also trying to argue that what he calls “the effective functioning of the build environment” is also a matter of national importance—the “build” environment; he has not even got his grammar correct. He goes on to say similarly that “the efficient provision of infrastructure” should be added to section 6 as a matter of national importance. These things simply are not at that level, and he ought to know that. This SOP should certainly not be supported for those reasons.

The last one, “the efficient use and development of natural and physical resources, including the benefits derived from their use and development.”—these are actually duplicated elsewhere in terms of the management of national resources in the Act already. So that is a SOP that is not well thought out and should not be supported.

Moving on, however, to David Parker’s SOP, which New Zealand First will support, and that is the one relating to—

I move, That the question be now put.

I am going to call Steffan Browning.

Sorry—I got a bit dizzy standing up and sitting down so many times. I rise to speak to the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill. The particular parts that I do want to speak to are the issues around forestry, and whether it is a crop, and the parts to do with genetic modification. I am pleased to be able to support Marama Fox’s view around forestry. The Forestry Rights Registration Act 1983 defines a crop as a single crop of one or more species or multiple crops. If she has made a deal and thought that forestry was in it, well, the Forestry Rights Registration Act 1983 certainly supports her. It is supported in law as a definition of crop.

But I am concerned about where this is going and what the Minister’s intent is. The Minister tried first to get it through the National Environmental Standard for Plantation Forestry—and that was in its umpteenth iteration—to try to deal with the sedimentation that is coming down into our rivers and spoiling our fisheries and the like, and we are waiting to see this latest iteration. But the last time it was slid in that GE trees, if approved by the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA), would be put in as permitted activity in all regions, including Hawkes Bay, Northland, and Auckland, where they had very, very clearly said they did not want it, 18,000-plus people submitted against that clause in the National Environmental Standard for Plantation Forestry, and here we have, it almost seems, an intent to slide it through, yet in a different way. There is no vision going down that track. New Zealand going down a GE track would be lacking vision, and this legislation, if it takes us down that track, would be a failure.

The Minister has got his man at the head of the EPA—the chief executive. He would be the one that puts these things through—Dr Allan Freeth. When he was with Wrightson—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! We are on the RMA. Come back—[Interruption] Order! I am on my feet. Come back to the RMA.

Thank you. The aspects of decision making that new section 360D and clause 26 would be referring to would be about how decisions made by the EPA could be imposed by the EPA and its staff’s decision-making processes through to the Minister, and so it is important as to who is staffing there. It is absolutely critical. And if they are puppets for the industry, it is incorrect.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! I will terminate the speech if you carry on like that. I have told you to concentrate on the RMA—what is in the bill. We do not get into personalities of people who are working in different organisations.

The Environmental Risk Management Authority, and now EPA, has made various decisions around genetic modification, and every one of the consents had been breached. Controls in every one of those field trials had been breached. It is hard to have confidence that this legislation will protect regions, will protect the country, from further breaches, and then we would have to ask who is going to look out for the vision for New Zealand if we go down that track. The grasses that we think need to be included in the crops have had more than 50 million—it will be going on towards 100 million—of resources from the taxpayer, and they have not been proven to work. We must move away from that.

Just picking up on my earlier contribution, I want to draw the Committee’s attention to clauses 11 and 12.

I highlight that this clause, clause 11, requires the councils to provide for development capacity. There were, obviously, several submitters who raised some issues around trying to express exactly what we mean by “development capacity”. Does it mean “up” and “wide”, in terms of—sorry, just to explain this particular clause, it is to enable councils to have a long-term take, I guess, on housing needs.

In these two clauses—submitters were concerned about being clear around what they actually mean. There are some questions that I do want to put to the Minister in the chair, Nick Smith, but the concerns that submitters raised in regard to these particular clauses are around defining whether it is intended to build up, or out, and whether we include business and commercial property, or it is just purely residential. Also, they made a point around how you would measure sufficient long-term and expected demand. My question to the Minister in the chair is: what does he mean by “development capacity”, and how the heck does he measure sufficient long-term and expected demand, as was raised by the submitters?

The other part of this clause is about reverse sensitivities. Again, this was raised by Agriculture New Zealand, the Stevenson Group, Fulton Hogan, and Fonterra, which were seeking protection on their significant infrastructure, such as electricity transmission, water infrastructure, and transit infrastructure. Again, to the Minister: can he guarantee that existing development capacity—for example, electricity transmissions—will be protected in his amendment?

There is another part of the bill that I want to ask the Minister questions on, and that is clause 131, subclauses (1) and (2). This part—and no other speaker has actually raised this point, but it relates to there being no appeals to the Environment Court for certain activities. I just want to bring the attention of the Committee to the proposed insertions here—which is section 128A of the Act. The Environment Court appeals in respect of decisions on subdivisions, residential activities on a single allotment in a residential zone, and boundary infringements will be precluded unless the activities to which the decisions relate have non-complying status.

The concern for me there, obviously, is how are we ensuring that the public can actually take their concerns to the Environment Court when we have this particular clause in the bill? Maybe the Minister can allay our fears that this particular clause makes it really clear that in this case it would not be permitted. Again, the clause introduces new limitations on the scope of appeal, such as that a submitter will be restricted to appealing only those methods that are raised in their submission. Furthermore, there will be no right of appeal for submitters in the event that their submission is struck out under new section 41D, inserted by clause 120. I believe that these particular clauses deserve a response from the Minister, to ensure that the public can raise appeals in the Environment Court for certain activities.

My major question is—and I did want to take a point of order when Marama Fox was speaking, when she was reading out her Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 281. That is my third important point that I want to raise in my contribution tonight. She read from a piece of paper in relation to her particular SOP. She mentioned in her paper that her SOP covers, I believe, grasses and forestry. I wanted to ask, with all due respect—I have gone away and have looked at the SOP, which the members of this Committee have, and there is absolutely no mention in that SOP of grass or forestry. But it does talk about the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act, and I have gone away and got a copy of that Act, in case the definition—

I am really disappointed that Government members are moving closure motions. In terms of this major change to the Resource Management Act (RMA), individual members of Parliament will get only four calls, or 20 minutes, to speak on such fundamental changes. That is a gross undermining of democracy, and it is even worse when the Government is trying to shut down the debate prematurely.

I have a few things to say. In terms of all the debate around genetically modified organisms (GMOs), that of course is on clause 105, inserting new section 360D—the regulation-making powers of the Minister—that goes into the Act. There is a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) in my name, and I would encourage members to support that SOP, No. 277, because clause 105, with the major regulation-making powers for the Minister, was substantially criticised by everyone from Fonterra to Federated Farmers to Forest and Bird because of the huge increase in the executive’s powers. Originally, in the bill as introduced, that would have given the Minister the power to permit certain land uses and to prohibit or override planned provisions that restricted land uses for residential development. The extent of the opposition was about the concentration of executive power, the undermining of democracy, and the attack on the rule of law—because you have the Minister able to make regulations that cut across the powers that local authorities have under statute to control land use through their plans developed with their communities.

There was major concern as well about the very subjective decision-making criteria in clause 105, because the Minister could make these regulations where he saw certain things as undesirable. But, because of the strong opposition, the Government was convinced to wind back the powers in clause 105. Now what we are left with is the Minister still having the power to make regulations to prohibit or remove specific rules or types of rules that would duplicate, overlap, or deal with the same subject matter as in other legislation. Of course this is a regulation-making power around getting rid of provisions in our plans that deal with GMOs and that deal with crops that have been genetically modified. There has been major concern about that. My SOP 277 is much clearer than the Māori Party’s one because it strips out that regulation-making power completely, so there is no need to argue whether crops include grass because it removes the Minister’s power and it returns the Act to as it is at the present time when regional and district councils can include planned provisions that make it clear that areas are to be free of GMOs. That is a much clearer way of doing it.

I would like to comment too on another SOP, and thank Megan Woods for dealing with SOP 283 in my name around climate change. Once again, this Minister was being incredibly misleading with his comments around what Jeanette Fitzsimons did in 2004. He seems not to have read the Jeanette Fitzsimons Resource Management (Climate Protection) Amendment Bill, which was introduced on 15 March 2006 and went to select committee. That did very similar things to this SOP 283, because it put in the ability of councils to control greenhouse gas emissions when they were dealing with resource consent activities for land uses, discharges, and the like.

The Green Party believes that the protection of our climate is absolutely fundamental. We had a cross-party report by GLOBE NZ in terms of Vivid Economics just recently. It is our belief that if you have got our major environmental law and activities happening under that—land uses, air discharges, water discharges and the like, and activities like new gas-fired power stations, which are going to generate climate pollution, then there should be the ability for decision-makers under the RMA to control those emissions by either declining the activity or putting conditions on it in relation to protecting the climate. That is what this SOP seeks to do.

One other thing, in the limited time I have remaining, is just that even though there have been significant changes to the Minister’s regulation-making powers in clause 106 through select committee, they may have been stripped away but they have really reappeared under national planning templates, now called national environmental standards, because the national planning template provisions or standards give the Minister enormous power to put provisions directly in plans. There was a lot of support by submitters for a genuine template around the structure and format of plans and having a consistent definition of terms. The majority of submitters wanted templates, now called standards, limited to that because it would help reduce planning complexity.

But there was opposition to the Minister being able to insert content in plans because that cut across the ability of councils with their communities to develop plans that responded to local and regional needs. So although the Minister is theoretically reducing his executive powers in one section, the significant powers that he or she has in relation to these national planning standards mean that he or she has the ability to just override local communities. There was a lot of concern in submissions about the process by which these national planning standards would be developed, and the fact that there is no requirement in the bill that the Minister has to have a hearing of submissions. KiwiRail said that there was little certainty as to meaningful involvement in the development process.

Minister Smith has not responded on that other than to say that the bill will continue with no provision to require a hearing. There are big issues with the process and time frames around the development of our standards, and they can apply to specific parts of New Zealand. So on the one hand the Minister is saying we need national consistency, we need the standards to do that, but the standards can apply only to particular regions. So are we going to see provisions put into plans so that they favour more intensive land use, more irrigation development and water use, as we have had in Canterbury? That undermines the argument around consistency.

There is also an enormous amount of flexibility in the way the Minister can develop these national planning standards. There is no ability for an independent panel to actually have the final decision-making role. That rests with the Minister. There is no ability to appeal these standards to the Environment Court. There can only be judicial review, and that is very expensive. So we have got the national planning standards really picking up and consolidating executive power, which is what this bill is fundamentally about.

In the remaining few minutes I would just like to talk about another reason the Green Party is opposing this bill: clauses 11 and 12, which change the functions of regional councils and territorial authorities. They remove their functions around hazardous substances. We had a lot of submissions from health authorities and councils highlighting that there is no overlap here between the hazardous substances and new organisms (HASNO) legislation and its role with hazardous substances and the Resource Management Act (RMA). There were submissions, also, from groups like the New Zealand Planning Institute, because HASNO legislation does not address how activities involving hazardous substances affect people and the environment. We have got in the Taranaki, for example, major new oil and gas wells being drilled there, and it is incumbent on the district council to actually regulate those activities so that you have not got the risk of explosions injuring people and communities and damaging property. Yet the HASNO legislation does not deal with those land-use controls. The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, in her June 2014 report on drilling for oil and gas in New Zealand, said “HSNO controls alone are not sufficient for managing the risk of spills and leaks at oil and gas sites.”, because they do not cover all the substances that are involved with oil and gas activities.

The Minister is shaking his head—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No, come back to the bill.

This is relevant to the bill, Mr Chair, because these powers allow the Minister to get—well, the bill takes out the ability for a council to control these activities. That power is needed so it can control the impacts of hazardous substances on people. It is not duplication.

I move, That the question be now put.

Where I left off was with clauses 38, 13, and 16, which require councils to invite iwi to engage in voluntary iwi participation arrangements, or the Mana Whakahono ā Rohe, and enhance consultation requirements. We, on this side of the Chamber, support the engagement of iwi. We want to see the voices of iwi at the table, making these decisions, but in the departmental report on page 105—I want to express what is noted here by officials, in that when it comes to these councils requiring iwi to engage, we have this point that sends a few alarm bells, for me; that is, if an iwi authority does not respond within a specified time frame, the local authority is not required to suspend the preparation of the policy statement or plan, or any other part of the plan-making process as prescribed under section 1 of the Resource Management Act (RMA).

Tonight we have heard the gains that the Māori Party has achieved for our people, but that particular clause, as many of the submitters that came to the Local Government and Environment Committee said—I recall Tainui themselves came up and raised it in the select committee, and it was a question of resourcing. Who will resource iwi who do not have the capacity to participate as provided under this provision? Who will do it? The councils themselves? Local Government New Zealand, in its submission, felt that this is a Crown obligation, so the Crown should resource it. This is a good question to the Minister. Can he tell the Committee whether he will resource iwi who do not have the capacity to fulfil this obligation? Because that is what the Māori Party has said that it has gained for all Māori—not just for some; for all. But the reality is his own departmental report actually counters that. It actually says if iwi are unable to meet the time frame of getting to the table, then the planning process will continue. I believe that is a real concern in this bill.

I want to go back and address what Marama Fox said about this side of the Chamber supporting her Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 281. I am glad my colleague Megan Woods had clarified that—that we do support the reducing of the Minister’s regulatory powers. But there is a concern about whether the Māori Party has been asked to swallow a rat, because we cannot determine whether the crops, as per Marama Fox’s SOP, include pasture and include forestry. Therefore, when the member spoke and read something out from a piece of paper, I think it was incumbent on her to table what she read. Having something on a piece of paper that says that it includes this, but it is not in the SOP that she is tabling—there is something fundamentally wrong. There is something fundamentally wrong. She should be able to table what she read, because this is what we hear all the time from the Māori Party: “We are on to it, we are doing it, we have written it.”, but we do not see the results. That is where it will be judged: with its support of this contentious bill that nobody wants—that nobody wants.

As a very hard-working MP, like a lot of my colleagues in our electorates, I know my organisations. We know Pure Hawke’s Bay and the iwi that she has talked about, but we have also moved on. Iwi Māori have moved on. We have got very, very high levels of representation and people on local councils, for example. We have senior managers in a lot of council organisations. We are not living in the Dark Ages. Iwi are absolutely active, and so the point around the gains—I will say again, as I said in my second speech, that the gain to me feels like it has been a rat that the Māori Party has been asked to swallow. Why? To support and prop up a bill that is unpopular with so many people around this country. I have yet to hear the value that they have gained in relation to clauses 13, 16, and 38 of this bill, to ensure that those iwi who are unable to participate—will the Minister resource them to do so?

I would welcome the Minister responding to those questions that I have asked. I think they deserve a response, to ensure that the concerns of the iwi, who are watching and have participated in this process, have been taken on board when it comes to the issue of resourcing. Kia ora.

I move, That the question be now put.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I know you have taken the closure motion, but can I point out that the Chairperson in the Chair at the very outset of this debate noted that he expected it to be longer. I note that it has gone on for some time, but I would ask that—I have been in the Chamber, and there are three Māori caucus colleagues of mine who wish to make a contribution. I do not believe that they have been able to make a contribution, and this piece of legislation, as was said in the last contribution, does relate to the iwi.

I thank the member. The debate has gone on for just under 4 hours—3 hours and 57 minutes, in fact—with 46 calls. What I have done is that those who have sought calls and have been on the Local Government and Environment Committee have actually had calls. Some of them have had their full allocation of calls. It is not for me to decide whether the Committee accepts the closure. That is for the Committee of the whole House to decide. I am going to accept Stuart Smith’s closure motion, so I will put it, and then members can decide whether the debate continues in Committee.

We move to the Hon David Parker’s amendment inserting new clause 30AB as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 287. The question is that the amendment be agreed to. Those of that—

💬 David Seymour: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I apologise. I would have liked to register a vote on the previous Supplementary Order Paper 281, and I seek leave—and I suspect some of my colleagues might like to seek leave—to have the vote corrected.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I announced the result. The only way that that can be done is by leave. If you wish to have your vote recorded against, then seek leave, because I have already announced the result.

💬 David Seymour: Well, I seek leave of the Committee to have my vote recorded.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Leave is sought for the ACT Party to cast a vote opposed to Marama Fox’s amendments. Is there any objection to that? There is no objection. The record will be amended accordingly.

💬 David Seymour: That it is opposed.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): As opposed, yes. So I will just announce the result on that now. [Interruption] Sorry, anyway, it is recorded and the record will be amended accordingly.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 287 in the name of the Hon David Parker to clause 30AB be agreed to.

💬 David Seymour: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. As I raised with you earlier, this precise matter—word for word, clause for clause—has already been dealt with by the Committee and voted against.

No, that is not the case. I have scrutinised the amendments, I am putting the question, and the Committee will decide whether it proceeds or not.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 287 in the name of the Hon David Parker to insert new clause 30AB be agreed to.

I have been advised that we need to put the vote on Marama Fox’s earlier amendment, which was passed but then there was an abstention from David Seymour. I need to put that one.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 281 in the name of Marama Fox to clauses 26 and 105 be agreed to.