Urban Development Bill

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to the committee for agreeing to consider this committee stage in one part, and I think it is a useful way to approach this bill, which gives us an opportunity to really ask some of the questions around—I want to start on this bill by asking the Minister in the chair, the Hon Phil Twyford, and thanking him for being available—the nature of the bill itself, this Urban Development Bill.

My first question for the Minister is that there are a number of processes outlined in this bill, leading towards the creation of a specified development project—so even before we get to a project being designated as a specified development project, there are a number of processes, and I’m not asking the Minister to outline every one of those processes, because they’re all there in the bill, but what I am interested in hearing from the Minister is the rationale for those processes.

💬 Erica Stanford: Madam Chair?

No, no. No, I’ve asked a question.

💬 Erica Stanford: I know, but he’s not standing up.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Erica Stanford.

So he’s not going to answer? I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson.

May I anticipate your point of order, and if I don’t address it, you’re welcome to have another go. The Minister isn’t required to address every point as they come up; it is expected that he will be answering all the questions. But if he doesn’t feel a need to answer yours as you go, then we could have another contribution.

💬 Hon Jacqui Dean: Thank you. I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. That leaves me a little questioning of the process, because, earlier today, in fact, when considering a number of committee stages, the Chair at the time suggested to the committee that this was more of a conversation, and that was—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Correct. What’s the point of order?

💬 Hon Jacqui Dean: The point of order is that if it is a conversation, then a question is posed and an answer given, and then the questioner has an opportunity to ask another question, and receives an answer. That’s the way a conversation goes.

Thank you. That’s not a point of order. You will find on occasions that conversations are more one-sided than you would find ideal. The Minister’s not required to answer every question as they are raised. The expectation is that he will answer them, and the member who’s had the call, who didn’t take the full entitlement of five minutes, will be expecting another call, and the Chair will be giving him or her another call.

Thank you for the Minister being in the chair. I’ve got some questions around Part 1, and I note there is a Supplementary Order Paper on the Table addressing this. I want to talk about the things in the bill that have been excluded, so protected land, parks and reserves, Māori customary land, land protected from use of certain powers without agreement—so there’s a whole range of parcels of land that aren’t able to be used for development. They’re specifically excluded—“Restrictions on developing certain land”. We went through that at the Environment Committee and understand and agree with all of those lands that are restricted from being developed.

The question to the Minister is: did he receive any advice on other parcels of land that, for example, have had, say, a recent Environment Court decision? So you may find there is a parcel of land that, under the Auckland Unitary Plan, was able to be developed, locals took that to the Environment Court, and the judgment was in favour of them. So this may have been quite recently, say in the last couple of years. Under this bill, technically—and I’d like the Minister’s advice on that—as far as I can see, that land could then be developed.

Now, I want to just run the Minister through an example. So in my electorate, for example, we’ve got Ōkura. It is on the banks of the Ōkura estuary. It is a pristine marine reserve. The area was, under the Auckland Unitary Plan, allowed to be developed with infill housing. The council actually opposed that, funnily enough, and so did all of the local greenie groups. So they all got together, took it to the Environment Court, and the Environment Court went and ruled in their favour. So this is a very recent decision on a parcel of a very significant land that was said, if it was developed in that way, to put the pristine marine reserve and estuary in great danger.

So I guess my question is that in this bill, as far as I can see, there’s no preclusion for that land to now be developed in contravention to that ruling of the Environment Court. So I just wanted the Minister to answer that to start with, if he would.

Madam Chair, thank you, and I want to thank the members for their questions. I take it that the member Jacqui Dean is really just wanting to have a general conversation about the processes in Parts 2 and 3, leading up to a specified development project. So those processes do form much of the substance of this bill, and a great deal of time has gone into considering the balance between, kind of, complexity and speed. The objective of this legislation is to bring large-scale, complex projects to fruition in the space of months or one or two years as opposed to sometimes a decade, which is what they would normally take under some of the existing processes.

So there are processes set out in Part 2 for the ability for local authorities or others to make proposals about specified development projects, and then a process for these proposals to be considered for the development of a plan for the development project. It sets out mandatory things that should be included in that plan, and then there’s an establishment process for an independent hearings panel. It’s true, I think, that much of this process was inspired by the independent hearings panel process that was used for the Auckland Unitary Plan. There’s a front-loading of public consultation, designed to give people in communities a say and to be able to shape the development plan at an early stage, and then everybody has a chance to have a say and make a submission at the independent hearings panel. But the critical thing is that there are appeals only on matters of law and judicial review.

So some critics, I think, pointed out, and some people at the select committee pointed out, that the process was quite complex and quite weighty, but we’ve done our best to try and strike the right balance between a process that will facilitate good planning and good decision-making while giving people access to the rule of law through the independent hearings panel, and while also giving flexibility for the way that the different tools are used in putting together these projects. I’m happy to have other questions from the member on the processes around the specified development projects.

To Erica Stanford, the issue about whether there exists under these provisions the possibility that development in certain areas could go ahead after it’s been through some other process—and Ōkura was cited as an example—theoretically, yes, a specified development project could take place in an area like that, which has already, say, been through the Environment Court. We didn’t seek to preclude that possibility in the legislation, but there are a number of checks and balances that are built into this that are designed to make sure we get good decision-making, that everybody has a chance to have a say.

So local councils, for example—their view on the specified development projects must be sought formally and transparently. Hopefully, we’ll come later to the provisions around parks and reserves, but any reconfiguring of parks and reserves, for example, would have to go to Cabinet, to the Minister of Conservation. So there are a number of checks and balances, including the fact that these plans would have to go to an independent hearings panel likely to be headed up by an Environment Court judge.

The other thing, I think, to remember is that the provisions—Parts 6 and 7 of the Resource Management Act—are included in the principles and purpose of this legislation. So there are a number of different checks and balances designed to ensure good decision-making. But, yes, it’s true—just in the same way that a project like this could alter the designations and the consenting that exist within a district plan, they could affect a hypothetical block of land that had already been through some kind of process.

Thank you for that answer. I think that in his answer the Minister has put a huge amount of fear into so many local community groups, conservation groups, and residents and ratepayers associations around the country who have fought for decades and spent hundreds of thousands of dollars that they’ve raised themselves to get decisions to protect local land that is now, as the Minister has pointed out, under threat. This concerns me greatly. I know that the people who have fought for so long to protect Ōkura are going to be shaking in their boots.

I guess, firstly, I’d like to ask the Minister if he took advice or would consider putting some extra checks and balances or requirements for the panel to consider relatively recent Environment Court decisions, potentially, or whether the Minister puts himself in the shoes of a community who has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars and years of their time and energy and thought that they won a great battle like they did in Ōkura—and this will be replicated throughout the land—who are now sitting there with that answer going, “Everything we worked for—all of that blood, sweat, tears—is now under threat.” Is there not something—has the Minister considered anything that would ameliorate that, by perhaps making the panel take into account relatively recent Environment Court decisions?

I guess the other thing that the Minister has to consider is that he himself has said in the past that he wants to see the removal of the rural urban boundary. People in these communities are already feeling under threat by comments like that and now this bill, and the Minister has just said that the land that they’ve had protected is now under threat. They are feeling very, very vulnerable. I want to know what potentially the Minister might agree to in terms of additional checks and balances or things that can be put in place to make sure that recent decisions that have been put in place in protected areas, or Environment Court decisions that have ruled in favour of protecting land, could not be considered by the panel.

Further to that, has the Minister had any feedback or has he considered ruling out any greenfield development? Because if that was in the bill—I mean, we could put that in the bill today as an amendment. Is that something that the Minister would consider? Because that would then make all of those community groups and all of those people around the country feel a lot more safe and secure after all of the hard effort that they have put into winning many battles.

I note that there is a Supplementary Order Paper on the Table for protection of some land stock. Hell, I’m not familiar with it—I just picked it up—but, obviously, I’m not the only member in this committee concerned about this. I think there are potentially some ways around this, whether or not we put into the bill some requirements to take into account those Environment Court decisions or we preclude greenfield developments. I just want to know if the Minister would consider any of those or has considered them and taken any advice.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m interested in why the member would want to exclude greenfield developments from the provisions of this bill.

The thing, to the Minister, is that brownfield developments are the obvious reason to develop—a good place to develop. Greenfield, if it was excluded from this bill, would stop the concerns of many people in communities around New Zealand who are worried about a process that goes around the Resource Management Act (RMA), that has limited consultation, limited right of being able to fight it to the Environment Court, in areas that could be of extreme significant value and under normal circumstances would have the protection of that consultation and that process of being able to take it to the Environment Court. A greenfield development is very different than a brownfield development.

The Government wouldn’t consider that as a possibility. It’s our strong view that our towns and cities need to be able to grow up and grow out. Actually, greenfield development is, as long as it’s well supported by infrastructure and is well planned and has good transport links, one of the main ways that our communities grow. This legislation is designed to cut through the red tape, to speed up development and allow our towns and cities to grow. We need to build more houses. We need to build strong communities up and down this country. That’s what this bill is trying to do. It’s pro-growth. It’s pro-development.

Now, we want to build high-quality developments, urban intensification in our towns and cities, but that’s not the only kind of growth we want. We need our cities to grow up and grow out. So we would not contemplate the idea of excluding greenfield developments. You know, the development at Drury in Auckland southern suburbs is exactly the kind of development. A town the size of Napier built around two new railway stations and a town centre with great roading connections would be exactly the kind of candidate that could benefit from this legislation, and that is a greenfield development. The member asked whether or not we would consider requiring in the bill that the independent hearings panel take into account things like recent Environment Court decisions. That would be the ultimate in telling Environment Court judges how to suck eggs. It would be an obvious and logical thing to do. They operate under the RMA. They will operate under this legislation and they will be setting out to make good urban planning decisions. And taking into account the intrinsic biodiversity or ecological qualities of a reserve and taking into account recent Environment Court decisions would be exactly the kind of thing they would do when they make their decisions.

Sorry, last one for now. Can the Minister, then, stand here today and tell me categorically that land at Ōkura, which has been very recently protected by the Environment Court, will not be developed?

Much as I don’t want to play into the member’s scaremongering, I’m not going to stand here and list a series of land parcels around this country that will be excluded from this bill. Our Government believes in development. We believe in growth. We believe in building more houses. Now, that’s the point of this legislation. Now, if the member wants to put a Supplementary Order Paper on the Table listing a series of suburbs and communities and villages around this country that will be excluded from this legislation, I invite her to do that, but she won’t get support from the Government for that.

Madam Chair, thank you very much. I have done just that—I have put forward a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that identifies a parcel of land that I think does need protecting. And I’m sorry to hear the Minister is carte blanche ruling out any SOPs about parcels of land. Can I ask him, because I have to ask questions: would he be willing to consider my SOP 515, because I think it’s quite a good one? Oh, OK, I’ll come back.

I would not, I’m sad to say. I know the member feels strongly about this, but to start in an ad hoc way, listing a whole lot of neighbourhoods or communities that would be excluded from this bill would fly in the face of the very purpose of this bill. If the members choose to read the bill, they will see that it is full of checks and balances. It has been carefully designed to ensure that we get high-quality decision-making that will deliver quality urban development. Those are the checks and balances.

I’ve already talked about the independent hearings panel. I’ve talked about the consultation process, the requirements for councils to be fully involved and have their views sought and formally included in the process. There are also checks and balances that require the powers that are being exercised by Kāinga Ora in these specified development projects to go up to Cabinet. So there is a democratic accountability. That’s the way to deal with this issue and to ensure we get good-quality decision-making; not to just rule out a list of different communities around the country from intrusion.

It may fly in the face of the purposes of the bill, but I have to ask: why does the Government care so little about the interests of local communities where members of Parliament would be able to identify parcels of land which are important to those local communities—in some cases, I’d say, quite sacred to how local communities feel. The member for the East Coast Bays raises an area in her electorate. And I think what the National Party should be doing is putting forward Supplementary Order Paper on areas that are important for their particular communities.

I have also to ask the Minister why the Government has come here with this type of bill when, yet again, we’re seeing some add-ons to the Resource Management Act (RMA) over and over again—and successive Governments have done this—which just highlights very clearly that the Resource Management Act is broken and needs to be overhauled and fixed from scratch. If the issue is that you can’t get developments through the process fast enough, do something to make the process faster. If the Environment Court is so slow to process appeals and that’s the very reason why we want to abandon the access to the Environment Court, do something to make the Environment Court faster. Has the Government done that? No. Did the last Government do that? No. We just go through the Parliament and tack on new bits to the RMA, make it more complex, make it more difficult, and, effectively, override community rights.

At the heart of this, “specified development projects” are, effectively, private plan changes. It’s a similar way of doing it. The process that was set up by the last Government around the independent hearings panel for the Auckland Council was done that way so that we could avoid large-scale appeals. Part of the reason why we wanted to avoid large-scale appeals was because getting through the appeals is so slow. But appeals, particularly when an organisation that is not the local authority is not democratically elected by the local authority, has the ability to come up with plan changes or specified development projects—we’re moving the decision making around what a community looks like further and further away from the people who actually elect the decision makers, and, in this case, with plan changes, its local authorities.

If it is so logical and obvious that the independent hearings panel would take note of Environment Court decisions, why don’t we just put it in there? If it’s so logical and the Minister thinks it’ll happen anyway, then let’s just put it in there because it is logical. And there are communities around the country that care deeply about how the plans look in their area. They care deeply about the fact that through the Auckland plan process Housing New Zealand left, right, and centre were throwing appeals in whenever they could because they didn’t like the fact that local communities were standing up for themselves. Housing New Zealand and now the Kāinga Ora, they have an agenda which is about forcing mass-scale huge developments on local communities. They want to override what local communities care about and this bill will enable this.

The very reason why I’ve put up this SOP—albeit not in my electorate, but very close to it; an area I used to represent when I was on the city council—is because I’ve seen for years and years Housing New Zealand attacking the ability for locals to try and protect that area. Now we’re all local community—most of us are local community MPs, electorate MPs. We all at some point in time would have had someone talking to us about the issues with the plan that the council has, development issues that are coming our way. Whether we like it or not, view shafts are important to people—how their local community looks to them. Local people care about green space in their community, the ability under this bill to wholescale remove community objections.

Yeah, sure, there’s an independent hearings panel. Yeah, sure, there’ll be judges chairing them, but that’s not good enough. Why is the Minister and why is this Government so anti-community when it comes to suggestions and ideas from members of Parliament that are in touch with the communities that wish to put these up? Why is this Government also not coming forward with a proper Resource Management Act amendment bill which would speed things up properly but still maintain community democratic rights? That’s what we’re losing here. That’s what this bill does. I’m not anti-development, but I am pro-community and I don’t think this bill does that.

I thank the member for—I think there are three points that are worth responding to on that. So on the member’s last point about the RMA, he’ll be pleased to know that my colleague the Hon David Parker is well advanced with a comprehensive reform of the RMA, including the urban aspects of the RMA. The member will see shortly proposals that are emerging from that process that do tackle the fundamental problems of the RMA: that it, for instance, doesn’t protect the environment very well, it costs too much, and it takes too long. And so the member should look forward to seeing those proposals.

In relation to Stockade Hill, which is the subject of the member’s SOP 515, the member’s SOP would amend the bill to exclude Stockade Hill and a zone with a 1 kilometre radius of Stockade Hill’s summit from any exercise of the powers in the bill, thereby excluding them from acquisition and development under the bill. That would have the effect of locking up land in a far more Draconian way than currently happens under the Auckland Unitary Plan and that’s certainly not the objective of our bill.

Third, the member seems to think that the motivation or the policy intent for this bill is slowness of appeals to the Environment Court under RMA processes. That’s not the main intent. The purpose of this bill is to allow the Government, councils, council development agencies like Panuku, iwi, and private developers to undertake large-scale complex developments that would otherwise be far too complex and risky and uncertain for the private sector to do on their own. Fragmented land titles are often complicated, and outdated network infrastructure, three waters and roads, remediation issues—these are things that actually make large-scale urban development projects, particularly in brown and greyfield settings, far too complex for the private sector. And what happens then? They simply don’t happen.

So this is about giving councils, the Government, and the private sector, and iwi the tools to do the very large-scale high-quality developments that we need in our big cities—that cities in Australia, and in the North America and Europe have been doing for decades, using public authorities like this to get through the complexities of large-scale urban development. So it’s not about the slowness of the Environment Court. It’s about bringing together all of the tools and the powers that currently exist within the law but are scattered across 20 different statutes. Councils asked for this. They want these powers because the existing proliferation of different statutory powers is so complex for them and so time-consuming. What this bill does is that it brings them all together in one place. It’s streamlined, it’s expediting, and it’s designed to make development much easier.

Thank you. I have several questions for the Minister for Urban Development. The first question was in response to a comment that the Minister himself made with regards to a question from another member around Resource Management Act (RMA) reform. To paraphrase, the Minister noted that the Hon David Parker was well advanced in his RMA reform work—I do paraphrase. Does that mean that Minister Parker has been in receipt of the independent report into the Resource Management Act; and, further to that, has the Minister himself seen that report? If not, to both parts of that question, then, is, in his knowledge, David Parker advancing an RMA bill or RMA work ahead of receiving that independent report, which was due to land on his desk, I understand, at the end of June? There will be a great deal of interest, so I just pose those questions.

The reason I ask those questions is because my colleague Erica Stanford has raised an excellent point around RMA reform and the greater context within which this Urban Development Bill sits. While it does provide, in the Minister’s view, a consenting process for large-scale and complex projects, there are provisions for that in the RMA. We all are dissatisfied with that—that is completely understood—which is why David Parker and ministerial colleagues did commission an independent report into the RMA, has expressed the view that there needs to be a wholesale reform of the RMA, and has told the House in the past that, I understand, he awaits the report with interest; well, as do we.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): I wonder if the member would like to move on to the Urban Development Bill now.

Oh, thank you so much. Thank you, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): I’d appreciate it.

That’s exactly what I’ll do.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Good.

Thank you so much for your advice.

In the context of this Urban Development Bill, I do think the RMA and its development does bear referencing, because it is going to be the statute that will still be in effect for every other project, apart from the post-COVID RMA consenting projects and these large-scale and complex projects, which fall within the purview of the Urban Development Bill. So we have, in effect, a chocolate box mixture of legislative pathways into development.

I want to know, before I move on to more detail on this bill, how those different chocolate box selection of pathways which are being developed—there’s the COVID19 (Fast-track Consenting) Act, we’ve got this Urban Development Bill, and we know we’ve got another bill well advanced; thank you very much, Phil Twyford, for alerting us to that. So we are very interested in how business will regard that. These are the people who are the ones going to be investing in our economy post-COVID, and, if they have such a great selection of consenting tools to choose from, is that going to add to certainty for investment? If there’s one thing we’ve learnt in New Zealand, it’s that stable Government—which we haven’t got now—and certainty, in providing certainty, as I say, for investment, does not seem to be prevailing in this country either, with a mix-match of different types of “let’s get around the RMA” solutions rather than advancing reform of the RMA. Well, I see that’s happening, but we’d like to see the report first.

So that is my first question, and I have more to ask.

I move, That the question be now put.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I wanted to talk—well, I would like the Minister in the chair, the Hon Phil Twyford, actually, to talk about his Supplementary Order Paper (SOP). I know I’m only a new member, but I haven’t in my time—which has only been three short years—seen an SOP like this. It looks to me like a tidy-up SOP. I mean, for the people who are listening at home and can’t see this SOP, there are many things like, “In clause 100(3), replace “remains” with “is”, “after ‘consents’ insert ‘within a project area’ ”, and it goes on and on and on like this for many pages.

Apart from, potentially, the first part, there doesn’t seem to be anything substantive; rather, just a tidy-up. So if the Minister could run us through this SOP—I think it’s important; this is the first I’ve seen it—and just run us through some of the more substantial parts of this SOP and the reasons for that, but also then just if he could clarify: why all of these changes? We spent a long time in the Environment Committee going through the bill, and I wasn’t aware of the fact that there would need to be more amendments made to the bill. So it would be really useful if the Minister could run us through those, I think.

Thank you. I do invite the Minister to provide an answer to my question. I’m quite happy for the Minister to take advice if he needs, but the question, I think, was relatively simple, and has been flagged within the context of the Urban Development Bill. What is the context of this bill within the wider Resource Management Act framework? That’s the question. So I really am very happy for the Minister to take advice on that.

My question in this intervention refers to clause 33 in Part 2, wherein the clause sets out what Kāinga Ora would need to do when assessing a project selected in accordance with clause 31. So within that subclause (a) which would require Kāinga Ora to identify, at a high level, the constraints and the opportunities that arise for the project—and this is information for the Ministers. So it could be argued that it’s critical that that information is at a very good quality. During the select committee process, of course, the phrase “high level” was replaced with the words “in general terms”. So given the fact that this is a project assessment being undertaken for the information of Ministers for what is potentially a very large scale and complex project, I would like the Minister to answer the question: what does “in general terms” encompass?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ve been listening to the debate with some interest this afternoon on this Urban Development Bill and, indeed, I have a few questions for the Minister in the chair, the Hon Phil Twyford, who knows a lot about housing or maybe a lack of getting houses built. I do agree in part with this bill that it should streamline land to allow houses to be built, but we have some concerns about it.

The question that I do have is in the section about acquiring land. Could the Minister highlight to me about how that process will work and, in particular, about compensation for the land that may indeed be acquired. What happens, indeed, if this land is acquired and then not utilised? That’s commonly called land banking, and that’s been a bugbear in the past.

💬 Hon Ron Mark: Yes—for nine long years, it carried on and on and on.

For longer than that, Mr Mark, and even in Carterton. So the former Mayor of Carterton, I’m sure, knows a lot about it.

The question that I have specifically for the Minister about this bill is: what happens, indeed, if Kāinga Ora actually acquires the land but then doesn’t get around to developing it? That is an interesting point. Of course, the Minister will probably stand up and say, “No, no, that’s not going to happen, because we haven’t built enough KiwiBuild houses and we need to get on and build the houses.”, but I am interested, and I can see his officials running off the bench to give him the answers now. It would be interesting to know if this Crown agency is going to go around acquiring land and then sitting on it unnecessarily.

I’m interested in the compensation and I’m interested to know what is the process of them acquiring land, and is there a time frame, indeed, after the land is acquired when that development actually needs to get started? Could this bill actually work for Ihumātao? That’d be an interesting question. Has the Minister said to his officials that this bill could be applied to that?

It would be an interesting question for the Minister to enlighten us on as to where that process is up to, because here was a development that was going to mean 480 houses were going to be developed not too far from downtown Auckland. It had been through a process, Fletcher’s were under way, and suddenly it’s—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Is this within the scope of the bill?

Yes, it is, because it comes back to the point about building houses. The development process was signed off by Auckland Council, the Government has its fingertips all over this, and here we have a bill that is meant to streamline it. Could this bill apply to Ihumātao? That’s a question for the Minister.

Has the Minister had any correspondence or discussions from the Mayor of Auckland, Phil Goff, because what I’m hearing happening is that this new Crown agency is paying more for staff than the council is prepared to pay. It’s raiding technical people out of Auckland Council and is prepared to pay them more, so I’m interested to know: has there been any discussion with Phil Goff through to the Minister—a sly text, a phone call here or there, a meet-up at the cafe or wherever it might occur? Is the Mayor of Auckland worried that he’s losing his staff, or his chief executive is losing staff, through to this Crown agency? So I’d be very interested to know the Minister’s answers to those specific questions.

Let me start by responding to Erica Stanford’s question about clause 33, “Project assessment”. The reason that the drafters have replaced “at a high level,” with “in general terms,”—I know it’s probably a subtle distinction, but in this clause, which is basically about doing due diligence on these projects, the desire of the drafters was to make sure that there was as much flexibility as possible given to the people doing that due diligence work.

In response to Nathan Guy, I would say that the powers in the bill that are around acquisition of land, essentially, apart from deviating in some key aspects, largely mirror the powers of the Public Works Act that are used routinely around our country for roads and motorways and network infrastructure.

💬 Hon Nathan Guy: Do you think that’s enough?

Well, in fact, what we have done with this bill, based on a lot of deliberation, has been to constrain and roll back some of these powers. So the powers that Kāinga Ora will exercise on land acquisition are quite significantly restrained, particularly in relation to Māori land.

On compensation, exactly the same provisions apply as exist under the Public Works Act. The member anticipated correctly that I don’t expect Kāinga Ora would acquire land and leave it sitting around for a long time, just as I would not expect Waka Kotahi, the Transport Agency, to do that. I can say to the member that I am not aware that there has been any thought given as to whether this Urban Development Bill could be used in relation to Ihumātao, and while I have had much correspondence with the Mayor of Auckland, he’s never raised with me the fact that their planning staff are being paid high salaries at Kāinga Ora.

I move, That the question be now put.