Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Bill

on behalf of the Minister for the Environment: I present a legislative statement on the Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Bill.

💬 SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

I move, That the Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Environment Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 2 December 2021 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 193, 195, and 196.

New Zealand’s housing crisis has not just cropped up in the last few years. It has been developing in our country over decades. New Zealand has simply not built enough homes in the right places to meet the needs of New Zealanders. This makes our housing increasingly unaffordable. Our Government firmly believes every New Zealander deserves to live in a warm, dry, and secure home. This bill deals with one of the barriers to boosting housing supply: overly restrictive council planning laws. Rules that have stopped density in our cities, have outright banned them, or have required lengthy and costly haggling with council in order to make them happen. We don’t for one moment think that this is a magic solution to all our housing woes in New Zealand, but we know that this is one piece of the puzzle that we need to put in place if we are to address our housing crisis.

New Zealand’s housing shortage is being made worse in our largest cities by the limits on the number and types of houses that can be built. They can be confusing and they can be arbitrary, causing expensive delays as people struggle to meet the expectation of individual council consent offices. We can’t just keep doing what we have been doing and expect different results. We can’t just keep doing what we have been doing for decades and expect that the housing crisis will solve itself. This bill makes one of the changes that we need in this country to get more houses built.

Evidence from here in New Zealand and overseas shows removing these rules results in more affordable houses being built. For example, a 2017 report by Superu and Sense Partners further found land use regulations contribute between 15 and 56 percent to the cost of housing in our cities. We need to do what many other countries have successfully done to deliver more housing supply and to cut the red tape to allow more density and affordable housing options.

Working across this Chamber, working with the National Party on this bill delivered stable, enduring policy on housing density. This gives homeowners, councils, developers, and investors certainty around enduring planning rules and laws. Last year, our Government took a step to address these overly restrictive planning rules by introducing the National Policy Statement on Urban Development, known affectionately in some circles as the NPSUD. The NPSUD is a powerful tool in getting more houses built faster. It enables greater housing intensification in our cities and directs councils to better plan for future growth.

Housing intensification is important because it fosters more housing variety in areas with access to jobs, transport, and community facilities. It also makes the best use of existing infrastructure, amenities, and services like public transport, and bolsters the efficiency case in more investment in this critically needed infrastructure. It also helps to address climate change through changing transport modes to meet our emissions targets. Cost benefit analysis by PricewaterhouseCoopers on the NPSUD intensification policies found that 72,000 additional houses can be expected by 2043 in the tier 1 urban areas of Auckland, in Greater Hamilton, Tauranga, Wellington, and Christchurch. PricewaterhouseCoopers now considers this to be a conservative estimate.

It will be in 2024 when the impacts of the NPSUD really start to be felt, but we need to do more now so that we can get more houses built faster. This is why this bill tackles two things: process and density. The intensified, streamlined planning process creates a new process to cut through red tape and speed up the NPSUD implementation. The tier 1 councils will be required to use this process, so new rules and policies allowing for intensification are in their plans by August 2023, at least a year earlier than under the current timelines. The new process is based on the Resource Management Act’s existing streamlined planning process, and key features include having a standardised set of process steps, using an independent panel to ensure a transparent and efficient submissions and hearing process, and removing all appeal rights other than judicial review. Primary decision-making sits with the council, with the Minister for the Environment settling any disagreements between it and the panel. We’ve made sure the new process supports Māori participation and engagement. Councils must consult with iwi authorities before publicly notifying their planned changes, and all decisions must be consistent with relevant iwi and Māori participation legislation or joint management agreements.

Secondly, the bill enables more medium-density housing across our main city. Tier 1 councils will need to change their planning rules so most of their current and future residential areas are zoned for medium-density housing. This allows more town houses and units to be built, but, importantly, it does not require it. This is enabling legislation that will give people in our cities more choice. The bill does this by introducing medium-density residential standards that provide a minimum level of development in these areas. What this means is people can, as of right, build up to three homes of up to three stories on up to 50 percent of most sites, without the need for a resource consent. Currently, most council planning rules may only allow for one home of up to two stories.

A wider range of housing types will be supported, including additional units for extended family living and those popular with first-home buyers, as well as bigger and higher homes than under current plans. It also reduces the need to get a resource consent when building, extending, or renovating a home, making it quicker, cheaper, and simpler for people to do work on their own home. The standards work together as a package. They are designed to be truly enabling of medium-density housing, and the recession plane standard as a good example of this. The bill states buildings must not project beyond a 60-degree recession plane measured from a point 6 metres vertically above ground level along all boundaries. This has been done to ensure three stories can be built on a variety of site sizes, something that has not always been possible in existing medium-density zones.

Additionally, this bill also makes changes to the NPSUD to clarify some intensification requirements and to reduce the workload of councils. The NPSUD is very directive about the need for a minimum of six storeys in areas walkable from rapid transit and city metropolitan centres. These are often the areas where housing density has the most benefit and we get the most value out of infrastructure investment. What is trickier for councils, and what we heard in feedback from councils, is the requirement to assess demand and accessibility across all of their urban areas and then up-zone accordingly. No one has policy 3D, and in the bill this would provide odd results, such as enabling six storeys in high demand but relatively inaccessible areas. So to make it easier for council, the bill removes the demand assessment criteria.

So there is no silver bullet to solve the housing crisis that has been so many decades in the making, and it will take time to fix it, but these changes complement other pieces of the puzzle. Other initiatives our Government has under way to address the housing crisis, including a $3.8 billion Housing Acceleration Fund, $460 million—

Order! The member’s time has expired. The question is that the motion be agreed to.

I stand today in proud support of the Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. This bill is a win-win. It enhances the rights of property owners today, and it will, in time, enhance the choices and options available to those currently locked out of property ownership in this country. It is a bill that is the product of an unusual bipartisan process in which we in the National Party have constructively engaged with members opposite to develop what we think is a pragmatic piece of legislation built on important principles. I want to acknowledge National Party leader, Judith Collins, who in January kicked off this process by writing to Prime Minister Ardern, acknowledging the sheer emergency we face in this country around housing. Judith Collins put to the Prime Minister that we will not make sufficient progress in addressing that emergency unless we amend the Resource Management Act (RMA), which so badly constrains development.

In late June, Ministers Woods and Parker wrote back to the National Party and took us up on the opportunity to work constructively together on amendments to get rid of some of those barriers, and here we are today. I want to thank Ministers for their bipartisan approach and I want to thank the officials and all of those who worked in a way that I believe will help the New Zealanders we are here to serve. I acknowledge fully those who say, “Well, Nicola, you didn’t come to Parliament to work with Minister Woods.” And I would say, “Well, actually, I came to Parliament to serve not only New Zealanders voting today, but those who will be here for future generations.” It is incumbent upon all of us in this House to work together constructively where we can.

The important principles in this bill—the first is: it cuts red tape. It comes from the perspective that Government regulation at all levels can prevent good outcomes. Whether it’s well intended or not, it can create consequences which run contrary to policy goals. So this bill removes some of the resource consenting processes that currently add cost, time, and complexity for those wishing to add more dwellings, more homes to their sections. It removes Government regulation.

The second principle that brings National to support this bill is that it clarifies and enhances property rights by creating a default right to build. It takes power away from town planners and gives it back to the people they serve by clarifying the circumstances in which they can add homes to their own land. And, thirdly, at a principled level, this bill will create more competitive markets in which supply of housing is better able to respond to the demand for where that housing should be, that is: it will allow cities to grow and have more housing where people want to live.

So having established those principles, I turn to the mechanisms in the bill that will deliver upon them. The first is that I acknowledge that it’s hitched to the RMA wagon and the RMA is not a piece of legislation that we on this side of the House love, but we acknowledge that the replacement process for it is long and, in the meantime, we must act. So this is a pragmatic response to that.

It first strengthens and speeds up the National Policy Statement for Urban Development, which already allows for some intensification in our cities. I want to acknowledge the National forefathers who first promulgated a national policy statement for urban development capacity, and which this builds upon. It brings forward the good things in that policy statement and then it creates a new medium-density residential zone. Now, I call these zones “the right to build zones”. These are the places where everyday New Zealanders can expect that, where it makes sense to do so, they can build granny flats, they can build apartments, they can build townhouses. It then allows for rezoning of land for greenfields development. It does that by allowing councils to adopt and incorporate private plan changes within their intensification plans and to progress them through a fast-track process. That fast-track process is incredibly important because, right now, even if councils want to zone more space for development—and there are councillors and councils out there who want to do that—they say to me, “I am stopped by the delays caused by the appeal process and the planning process, which the Resource Management Act requires of me.” This bill creates a mechanism to fast track through all of that. Finally, the bill clarifies, in the national policy statement for urban development, the requirements on councils in order to make changes. In simple words: it makes it easier for councils to do that.

So I want to acknowledge those stakeholders in the community who have reacted so positively to these proposals. I quote Oliver Hartwich from The New Zealand Initiative who said: “This is great news for landowners. Rather than having to spend time and money navigating regulatory hurdles, they can focus on developing their property. It is equally great news for anyone wishing to buy or rent a home with fewer planning restrictions. More houses will be built.” That is the critical thing here: by enabling these changes we will allow more homes of a variety of types to be built in the places where people wish to live.

Now, I acknowledge the concerns that have been whipped up by some, and I want to address those. First of all, there will be design standards. Nothing in this bill changes anything in the Building Act. These homes will be required to be of the same quality currently required. Second, there are sensible development requirements in this bill, and, for those who are ignorant of that, I encourage you to look at Part 2, which sets out in quite clear detail the parameters in which new development can occur, including things like having a 50 percent site coverage maximum. Third, this bill does set out qualifying matters, which councils will be able to demonstrate in order to exempt some areas from development, whether for environmental or heritage reasons. The difference is: whereas at the moment councils have carte blanche to do that—just about—this bill will require them to prove why that is necessary and to set that out. The burden of proof has switched.

To those who have said, “Yes, housing is a crisis in this country. Yes, it saps the economic productivity of our country. It saps the hope of a generation of New Zealanders. It leads to a distorted market, and, yes, we need a circuit breaker” but who have somehow found other reasons to oppose concrete progress, let me address those arguments. One of those arguments is that we already have enough zoned land. Now, if you’ll forgive me, I’ll give you an analogy, because at its simplest I would say, “More competition leads to more choice”, and it is the same for land; the more land available for development, the better choices people can make about where development should occur. But I would give you an analogy of our education system, where it would be perfectly reasonable for the Minister of Education to say, “There’s already enough room in our schools. There’s already enough ability to build more classrooms and provide more spaces for pupils.” I would say to the Minister of Education: “That doesn’t mean you should rob people of choice.” The market should be able to respond where people want to have their kids educated, and the housing market should be able to respond to where people wish to build homes. Where we can remove Government regulation, we can. To those who are concerned about infrastructure: I would put to you that a core responsibility of local government is to fund the pipes, to fund the footpaths, and to ensure for the growth in our cities that is necessary to them being flourishing processes.

I welcome the select committee process. I think it is very important that contributors from local authorities, existing homeowners, and existing interest groups have their say on this legislation. I also acknowledge, as the Minister did prior to me, that this is not a silver bullet. There is so much more work to do to enable more greenfields development, to encourage more investment in housing, and to ensure that more people get that first rung on the property ownership ladder within sight. But this is a great step forward. We must not let the perfect be the enemy of the good, and I am pleased to support this bill.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m delighted to rise to speak on this bipartisan—for National and Labour—bill that we have in front of us today. I want to start by talking a little bit about my childhood, which was in a villa, and I’m wearing a villa necklace today. A villa is a beautiful thing that I was pleased to grow up in, except, of course, it was Dunedin and there was no insulation, so there was a little bit of bronchitis there.

But, over time, my parents have done up that villa. It is now insulated, there are heat pumps, and it’s a lovely place to be, and if Dunedin was a tier 1 authority or if this villa was in Auckland, there’d be no need for that villa to be torn down and replaced with these buildings. But it is an option for that villa owner to develop that land in the future. As the Minister said, this is “enabling legislation”—it doesn’t require that sort of thing. Also, as the Minister said, this is important climate legislation, because, in fact, when we can all live close to public transport modes, where we have very good active transport, that is a good thing for climate.

So what this bill does is two things—two prongs, and we’ve heard about it from both the previous speakers to some degree—and both avenues really use zoning as a tool. So the first thing is that it’s speeding up the implementation of the National Policy Statement on Urban Development—the NPSUD, it’s referred to—and so that is to increase growth and densification. Then it’s doing the second thing, which is inserting these new medium-density residential standards. There are some caveats—as the previous speaker just spoke to—about those medium-density residential standards, and they are called qualifications in the bill. They include things like open space, designations, and heritage orders. Now, these medium-density residential standards are found in new Schedule 3B in Schedule 2 of the bill, and, as the previous member said, that’s a very good part of the bill to go and look at if people are interested in what this legislation is really enabling.

So what will happen is that if you can comply with those standards that are in Schedule 3B, then your activity will be permitted, which means no resource consent is needed. If they don’t comply, then it’s a restricted discretionary activity, which means a resource consent is needed, but the discretion of the consenting authority is restricted to that matter that’s not being met. So some of the things in Schedule 3B include a maximum height of 11 metres—so that’s the three storeys—a 2.5-metre front yard, 50 percent building coverage, and 60 percent impervious surfaces, along with a number of other factors as well.

Now, these medium-density residential standards are only applying to tier 1 local authorities, so those are the councils of our biggest cities. They do not include—relevant to my part of the world—Dunedin or Queenstown. These are both tier 2 authorities, as is already set out in the existing NPSUD. However, should a tier 2 authority—and these are set out in the bill—have an acute housing need, then they can talk with the Minister and the Minister can make regulations to make them part of the system.

So there’s a streamlined planning process, and we’ve heard about that. There are no rights of appeal, and the Minister can make final decisions if there’s a difference of opinion between the independent hearings panel and the council.

As the deputy chair of the Environment Committee, I’m very pleased that this bill is coming to us, and we will pay very careful attention to it. We look forward to the submissions, and I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a rare thing for me to say in this House it’s a pleasure to follow the deputy chair of the Environment Committee, but on this occasion I am, because I think she’s very neatly and concisely outlined the broad detail of this piece of legislation. It’s because on this side of the House we believe in the principle of limited government, it’s because on this side of the House we believe it’s about individual freedoms and choice, it’s because on this side of the House we believe in competitive enterprise, and it’s because we believe in sustainable development and strong families and communities that we have accepted the invitation that came from the environment Minister, David Parker, and the housing Minister, Megan Woods, to engage with the Government on a piece of legislation that will be quite instrumental in years to come in solving what has been a decades-old housing emergency—some call it a crisis. Whatever you like to label it, it’s a real issue for many, many New Zealanders who simply haven’t been able to have an opportunity to buy their own home in some of our largest cities.

So this is a piece of legislation that cuts red tape, as others have indicated. What it really does, in terms of National Party principles, is that it frees up the rights of property owners, existing property owners, to release the capital in that property which they own. Now, previously, and under current settings, that has largely been the preserve of professional developers. In order to build large properties with a higher density in our urban environments, actually you’ve needed a very large bank account, the support of probably independent funders and equity providers, and then you’ve had to have the fortitude of doing battle with the existing Resource Management Act (RMA)—its rules, its complicated processes and regulations—and then, on top of that, the myriad of planning and consulting and council interactions that have limited so much of the building development that has been needed in our cities. So freeing up that ability for mum and dad investors in property who already own a property to now develop further on their existing property, I think is a good thing. I think that speaks very much to National Party base core principles.

Back in January of this year, when the National Party leader, Judith Collins, wrote to the Prime Minister and offered bipartisan support, that was an initial very good step, because essentially what this bill does is it’s very close—it’s almost identical, in fact—to policy matters that we campaigned on in the last election. Judith Collins wrote to the Prime Minister, didn’t initially get a reply, and then, when a reply came, it was vaguely dismissive and we thought, well, that’s just politics. We had not forgotten about it, but we had certainly continued to move on. And then it came as something of a welcome surprise to receive letters from the Minister of Housing and the Minister for the Environment to myself and to our housing spokesperson, Nicola Willis. That was an offer to work collegially on some of the aspects that they had in their minds for some of the issues that are in this bill and to use much of what was in our policy and also a member’s bill that Judith Collins had put into the ballot. So that was sort of the genesis of how it how it arose.

Now, many people listening and maybe watching on television will think that this is quite unusual, for the National Party and the Labour Party to be working collectively and collaboratively. But I want to assure members of the House and those that might be listening that, actually, sometimes very good things can happen when party politics is put to one side and a greater good is recognised and a need for positive change. I’m sitting next to a colleague who had quite a bit to do with the zero carbon legislation, Todd Muller, and I was involved in that process as well. We saw there a situation where the greater good for future generations will be achieved by collaboration, cross-party support, and I absolutely am convinced that in years to come, in generations to come, this piece of legislation will achieve results for people of my children’s generation and my grandchildren’s generation that simply would not be possible if this legislation did not proceed through the House.

So we are supporting it, on this side, and we do so with a degree of pride and enthusiasm, because we’ve felt for a very long period of time that the answer to much of New Zealand’s housing emergency lies actually in our own backyards. That if we can get a greater density of building and homeownership in some of the larger sections in our metropolitan areas, well then, that’s a good thing, because this piece of legislation is going to give people choice about design and style and size that they previously haven’t been able to achieve, simply because of the red tape that’s imposed by the RMA.

We saw the portent of this, actually, in the aftermath of the Canterbury earthquakes in Christchurch, where very similar enabling legislation was passed at that time for an urgent need that was a crisis—Canterbury and Christchurch needed new homes built quickly. So the kernel of this model of fast tracking and removal of red tape—actually, the genesis of it was back then. And then subsequently, my former colleague the Hon Dr Nick Smith tried on a number of occasions to achieve the same kind of result. Now, regrettably, he wasn’t able to secure cross-party support in the way that has occurred with this piece of legislation. But that actually is a shame because we could have, I think, achieved some of the outcomes years ago—well, probably at least a decade ago—had that cross-party support been available then.

If our largest urban cities are to become modern, future-focused, outward-looking cities, then they, by definition, need to become cities that have dwellings that provide for a greater population density. I think that’s a good thing, and I particularly like the aspect of this legislation that enables tier 2 councils to engage positively with this process should they wish. Now, there’s not a degree of compulsion, but should they wish—and there will be tier 2 councils who I’m sure will want to take up the options and the flexibility that this piece of legislation will provide. Again, I think that is a good thing.

So, as the Minister has indicated, there are essentially two elements to this piece of legislation. They focus on the process, on the removal of the red tape, cutting through it, streamlining the RMA process. While the broader, larger resource management structural reform is going on as a separate piece of work, this legislation allows progress to be made while that other work is under way, and I think that again is a good thing.

The second pillar of the legislation relates to density, where tier 1 councils will be given an opportunity to still protect heritage areas, still protect boundaries, still protect environmental, still protect a whole range of issues, but the basic premise is that this is a right to build. As a firm believer in property-owning democracies, I think that’s to be lauded and to be congratulated. I think that the options for change, for desirable new dwellings of different shapes, forms, and sizes, will be something that will enhance the fabric of our large cities and even the tier 2 councils. Natural light protections will be maintained, environmental protections will be maintained, boundary protections will be maintained, height protections will be maintained, land coverage protections will be maintained, and that flexibility to build something attractive and desirable, but at a fair and reasonable price, without the costs and overheads of mind-bogglingly expensive red tape compliance will help us achieve those results.

I’m looking forward to the select committee process. I’m looking forward to hearing from a range of stakeholders who so far have been, I think, overwhelmingly supportive of this collaborative approach that I think will achieve terrific outcomes for not just the generation that is next behind us but for generations yet to come. So I welcome the first reading of this piece of legislation, and look forward to it making progress through the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can I start by acknowledging Minister Woods for her leadership in this space, and acknowledge that this is actually a problem that is a hangover from previous Governments, and, actually, it is going to be both of those major parties who are going to be working together to be able to fix this. The National Party, obviously, have agreed to put party politics aside, and so have we, to be able to solve the number one issue that Kiwis have sent us all here to fix, which is our housing crisis. They’ve said, “Put aside your party colours, just get on with it and do it.”

Everybody is going to look at this bill differently. I look at it for the region of the Bay of Plenty, the Waiariki rohe. In that area we’ve got a tier 1 council: Tauranga. Tauranga are desperate for solutions when it comes to housing. In Rotorua, which is listed as a tier 2 council, they are desperate to apply for consideration to be part of the solution in building houses in that area, as well. Both of those councils need this to pass because not having this means that we will continue to have homelessness on a grand and increasing scale. Not doing this means that we are going to continue to have more need for housing in our community. Not doing this means that we are going to end up having more fights with all of those people that want housing but don’t want it there and don’t want it there and don’t want it there and don’t want it in their own backyards.

What I’m really proud of, though, is that we’ve run a Māori lens over this, too, and we’ve made sure that the new intensification streamlined planning process supports Māori participation and engagement in this process. It means that councils are going to have to consult with iwi authorities as they prepare their plan changes before they notify them publicly. They’ll have to consider that relationship that tangata whenua have with our cultures, our traditions, our ancestral lands, our water, our sites, our wāhi tapu, and our other taonga are in there, too. Councils and independent hearing panels will need to address that relationship when they consider any kind of exemptions.

There is a saying that “You can go faster alone but you can go further together.” I look forward to working with Opposition members of the Environment Committee as we progress this through. I commend it to the House.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. This is a really interesting development and bill to be standing on, and I do speak in support of the bill, although I do think that there are a number of ways it could be improved and some additional changes that central government will have to consider in order for local government to be able to provide the infrastructure and amenity that will go along with increasing density in some areas. First I just want to say, as a planner, a qualified planner, I’ve basically spent my entire career, pre-politics and during politics, trying to get rid of bad planning rules which prevented us from delivering the types of cities that we wanted, and so this is a step in the right direction.

What we want to see is more walkable neighbourhoods with small local shops, early childhood education centres, pocket parks, green space where appropriate, good public transport links, streets that welcome walking and cycling, and, of course, neighbourhoods that have a good supply of affordable, accessible housing. That housing can be provided in a way that reduces energy use and provides healthier, more comfortable environments. There are just so many win-wins in developing our cities in this way: it’s cheaper for Government, it’s cheaper for the people who live in those homes, it gets better environment outcomes. So that’s the goal, and this is a really interesting way to start to free up some of those rules, but it really doesn’t quite go far enough in some ways and in other ways it needs some additional work.

So the Green party will be looking at a number of amendments, although I do note this is a very short select committee process. I hope the Government will be open to making some changes. I just want to acknowledge that for councils, they may not have sufficient time to prepare their submissions, and there are some really important considerations that need to be taken into account. For example, the reduced setbacks from the front are good, but, arguably, you could go further, and particularly if you want to get a reduction in site fragmentation and you want that nice streetscape environment.

It’s interesting: I’ve heard some people comment in this debate that the Resource Management Act (RMA) is the problem. Zoning roles, and some of the bad zoning rules, pre-date the RMA; they’ve got nothing to do with the RMA. I mean, yes, the RMA is the framework under which they are implemented, but they were implemented under the Town and Country Planning Act. A lot of the really bad zoning rules were adopted from the United States, like minimum parking requirements, which I was very happy to see removed by the National Policy Statement on Urban Development. Of course, removing those minimum parking requirements in and of itself has immediate benefits in terms of reducing the cost of housing, like, for example, in Minneapolis, when they cut their parking requirements, within a short period of time rents dropped from $1,200 a month to $1,000 a month, almost a 20 percent savings. Of course, that provides more choice for people not to have to own a car if they’re living in a central city and they’ve got good public transport options, they’ve got a car share they can join. There’s no need for us to build in the cost of car ownership to every single home.

But back to the bill at hand and this legislation. So, to enable terraced housing without amalgamation of land parcels, with a more efficient use of space, we could reduce the front setback to reduce site fragmentation, and we could clarify that through existing provisions, owners of adjacent properties could mutually waive the side setback requirements, where this applies, and this could help enable some of that more contiguous development that we see that’s really—you know, it’s just classic good design that we see in a lot of European cities, of, like, perimeter block - style developments that enable some semi-private public space that’s shared between homeowners and then it creates that nice, walkable frontage.

We think that it would be useful to consider providing development bonuses, enabling height to four stories where the planned dwelling location enables more contiguous green space. What we don’t want is just a lot of little boxes plopped next to each other surrounded by very short, very small green space areas that aren’t really usable by anyone. What people really want is access to a space that is a comfortable size, that enables their kids to play or for them to do some planting, that helps us achieve some of our goals around reducing stormwater runoff.

We do need some provisions around protecting significant trees. That is a real concern the Green Party has had, that as we allow more housing into our cities, we still have a need for urban trees. You know, you can’t just cut down one really old significant tree and replace it with a bunch of new ones. It’s not the same outcome. So we do need some provisions for tree protection that make it really clear for landowners and developers what trees are protected. That helps improve certainty. We need to enable councils to have strategies and funding to enable the provision of green space, whether that’s pocket parks or whether that’s more significant green spaces. Our cities do need green space, and, again, that will provide multiple benefits in terms of reducing stormwater runoff and the pressure on our stormwater pipes, reducing the temperature of urban areas, providing a habitat for birds and other things that we do want welcomed into our city. So as we’re confronting climate change, it’s really important that we provide more affordable housing in our urban areas but also that we provide for green spaces and for trees in an appropriate way.

An additional opportunity is to bring in bonuses for green roofs, for solar panels, for grey-water recycling, and other soft infrastructure that will, of course, benefit the city and benefit homeowners and renters. I think my philosophy would be we want our planning rules to make it easy to do the things that will have good outcomes, and not hard. Up until now, it’s mainly made it difficult to do the right thing and made it very easy to do those stand-alone houses that are very car dependent, which, of course, just increases congestion, emissions, costs for everyone.

Additional changes that we think should be considered are enabling more flexibility for papakāinga developments on whenua Māori. I note there have been interesting developments in some Canadian states where the First Peoples are actually exempt from any sort of zoning, and they’ve made quite different choices. I think that’s something that we should consider here. Extending the applicable zoning to ensure that it’s enabling mixed use: this is something that’s been a slight bugbear of mine since the special housing areas. We need more affordable housing, but housing alone doesn’t make a community or a neighbourhood or a city. The people who live in the houses need access to shops, amenities, schools, early childhood centres, transit, and it’s really important that we’re not just enabling a whole lot of housing in one area. As there’s more people living in an area, it can support local shops, and, again, there’s a benefit to the people living there, there’s a benefit to the transport infrastructure.

We saw that when Auckland city centre removed density requirements and allowed new residential buildings and got rid of minimum parking requirements in 1996, the population of Auckland city centre went from about 2,000, or less than 3,000 people, to over 20,000—I think it’s over 30,000 now. In just 10 years, it increased almost tenfold, and, of course, increasing that population in that small area meant that it became a much more attractive place to live, because up until that point the 2,000 people living in the city centre had no supermarket. They had no place to shop or to eat. The city centre was completely dead after 5 p.m. So it does show that as we allow more intensification in some areas, there is the potential for more of those amenities to support the people living in that area, but we need to make sure that the zoning rules are allowing that to come, along with the increased number of houses. So we’ll be looking very closely at that in the select committee.

Finally, one concern we really have is that this is enabling housing in the places where we need it most, where people want to live, that’s close to amenities. I think there will have to be a real review and change to the way councils are able to charge development contributions, because this is a shift in risk. We’ll be giving people who are building more houses more certainty about what they can build and where, but there’s also going to be more risk for councils in terms of where the infrastructure might need to be provided. It’s only fair that that’s reflected in development contributions and that they’re able to provide the infrastructure that’s needed to support this housing wherever it does end up being built.

So the Green Party is in support of this bill, but we will be looking to make constructive changes. Above all, we welcome the consensus across the House from all those people who are really committed to seeing more affordable housing in Aotearoa.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT in opposition to this Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. This bill was described by Nicola Willis of the National Party as coming from an “unusual bipartisan process”. Well, that is entirely accurate. Neither Labour nor National has any credibility on the issue of housing. That’s why they’ve decided to abandon attacking each other. Like tired boxers at the end of a fight, they’ve gone into a clinch. It’s boring for the spectators but much safer for them. The problem with this extremely unusual bipartisan process is that the secrecy between Labour and National meant they couldn’t tell anyone else they were doing it, and the result of that is that people like, say, Chris Darby, the chair of the planning committee at Auckland Council, wasn’t asked, wasn’t consulted, and wasn’t even given a pre-announcement briefing before it went out, contrary to the Government’s memorandum of understanding with councils. This total lack of consultation has meant that the policy is going to fail. Because if they’d asked, they would have been told some very basic things. It’s a shame the policy’s going to fail, because the problem they’re trying to tackle is a worthwhile one to try and tackle.

I’ve lived this policy issue in two countries for over a decade. For years I was the face of the Demographia housing affordability study—the international study that appears in New Zealand, too. From sea to sea across Canada, I got up and appeared on Canadian screens and said, “Zoning is the big problem. If only we got rid of zoning.” I even wrote a book at the time. It’s got a chapter saying about as much as that. I returned to New Zealand and I talked to people day after day about housing policy. I talked to homeowners. I talked to people who want to be homeowners. I talked to people about the impact of not having good housing in New Zealand. I talked to principals of schools where they have different sets of kids every term because those kids are passed from auntie to uncle without secure housing and spend half the time living in motels—on Great South Road, going to Newmarket School right now; or they would be if not for COVID restrictions.

I’ve also talked to people on councils. I’ve also talked to people in Government. I’ve talked to people who are developers who actually build houses, and I’ve done all of that, just in the last few days, about this Labour-National policy. They say things like, “It’s hare-brained, it won’t work, it’s a political stunt, it’s hollow, it’s going to ruin neighbourhoods, and it won’t deliver the houses that a whole generation of millennials have been promised.” Here are some other things that they say, and I want to quote one of them: “The biggest barrier to increasing housing supply in urban growth areas and beyond is the cost in provision of infrastructure, e.g., three waters, transport, and community infrastructure.”

Now, does anyone who’s been very vocal on the National Party benches want to tell me who said that? Can we listen? Oh, well, that was, ironically, the Minister of Housing in December 2020, and that’s what the developers are saying. That’s what people on councils are saying. That’s what the planning experts I consulted said—actually, simply adding more zoned land to solve a shortage of infrastructure is like buying more cars to end a shortage of fuel. So that’s the first reason that it’s not going to work. You hear them say, “Well, just a second. We’ve had some modelling done by an accounting firm that says that it’s going to work out.” Well, here’s how that modelling actually worked. It said, “You know what? When the Auckland Unitary Plan came in, in 2016, people built more homes in areas that were zoned for higher intensity, in mixed housing urban and mixed housing suburban; ergo, logically, if we zone more areas as this new medium-density residential standard, people will build even more homes.” Now, if you were doing any kind of rational problem definition and policy formation, the first question you’d ask is, “Is it still true that the reason more homes don’t get built is a lack of zoned land? Because that’s not what all the developers and people in councils and the planning experts say. They say the opposite.” That’s not what the Minister of Housing says. She says that, actually, it’s a shortage of infrastructure. So the analysis is wrong. But the problem is that this medium-density residential standard is not actually like the zones that the modelling used when they tried to establish that intensifying would lead to more home building.

This medium-density residential standard (MDRS) is going to be in every residential area in the five largest cities. It says that you can have an 8-metre wall, 1 metre from the boundary. I don’t think that people have actually recognised what this MDRS means. It says there can’t be any more building standards other than what is in this legislation. So it’s much taller, much bulkier, much closer to the boundary, with much less outlooks. There’s so many fewer restrictions than the very stones and standards that were used in the study that they’ve used to try and justify this policy, and that is just completely nuts.

So there you are, with a policy that won’t lead to the outcomes that a whole generation have been promised. They think that this is somehow going to fix the problem, except the problem is not the zones; the problem is the infrastructure. Then they’re going to irritate beyond belief a whole group of people who actually, generally, are happy with intensification, by the way. When I was a local MP I studied what people think and I asked them. They’re happy with intensification, but they actually have concerns about what it looks like and how it happens.

So they’ve introduced this new medium-density residential zone. It’s far more radical that the mixed housing urban zone, and far more radical than the mixed housing suburban zone that the Government’s modelling said would deliver more housing. I don’t know if they’ve done it as something they can sacrifice in the policy process or if they really believe that it’s necessary, but what I do know is that it’s highly divisive. You see, one of the things that I hear constantly from New Zealanders is, “There’s too much division. The Government rushes things through under cover of COVID. They rush the laws through. They don’t ask us. They don’t consult us and they call us names.” Well, this Government and the National Party are now trying to aggravate a battle between people who want homes and people that they call “self-interested nimbies”. That’s what it’s got to—rushing through laws and sneaking them through and name-calling. I don’t think that that’s going to help, especially when if you don’t fund the infrastructure, you haven’t solved the problem.

Here’s the final problem: they are rushing it through. So the councils weren’t told, even though this severely affects where they’re going to have to build infrastructure and do planning and follow the rules for a very long time. And the next question that happens is that they get three weeks in order to make submissions to the select committee. It would be more honest to tell councils like Auckland and Hamilton, which are operating under COVID conditions, that they don’t want to hear from them, because realistically they won’t be able to make proper submissions.

The ACT Party has written to Megan Woods and Judith Collins, who hatched this hare-brained scheme, in our view, and we’ve said, “Here’s a couple of things that could be done if you really want to make it work. Number one: fund the infrastructure.” Last year central government got $2 billion in GST collected on residential construction of new homes, and they kept it all. Councils have to do all the infrastructure but central government gets all the money. We say, split it 50:50. A billion dollars to councils that issue resource consents and building consents for new residential homes would fix and fill the infrastructure gap so they could actually afford to make this policy work. The second thing we’d say is that “If the modelling relied on using Auckland’s mixed housing urban and mixed housing suburban zones to increase housing, why not just use those zones?” Dump this new radical medium-density residential standard that allows an 8-metre wall 1 metre from your boundary and there’s nothing you can do about it, and actually use familiar zones already in place.

If they were to make those two policy changes, this policy would actually probably work—that’s the tragedy. But instead, they’re going to rush the policy through. And that’s the final thing ACT says, “Do a proper select committee process, actually listen to people, actually work together to solve the problem for the next generation without needlessly antagonising current homeowners—and then we’d have a deal.” But, sadly, this hollow political stunt does not deserve any party support.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Thank you. I rise in support of this bill and will take a brief call. I certainly welcome the general consensus from right around the House. I have to say, however, just reflecting on the Leader of the ACT Party’s contribution—he talks about credibility but what he has confirmed for members of this House and for people in this country is that his party actually has zilch, nil, none, zilch credibility when it comes to seeking to solve what many and all would actually accept is a significant crisis in this country. I also say that Mr Seymour and the ACT Party have confirmed that actually they’re not in favour of cutting red tape, they are not in favour of enabling first-home buyers to actually have a shot at the market, ACT is not for the element of choice, and that they will do nothing—and that’s a real shame. That is an absolute shame—where we get bipartisanship and other parties who are prepared to, when a solution is placed before them, take it with both hands, go through a select committee process. It is a real shame that there are members in this House that don’t feel that it is serious enough to deliver for our communities in Aotearoa New Zealand.

This is a move to reduce bureaucracy. When we reflect on the contribution from the Minister—and I want to acknowledge the Hon Megan Woods for her contribution, because it indicates how serious most members in this House—including all members on this side of the House—are in addressing what is a significant issue. Much has been talked about the role of tier 1 councils, but I also want to pick up the opportunity for tier 2 councils, because my own community of Palmerston North and their city council is a tier 2 council, and if presented with an opportunity to come on board in terms of medium-density opportunities, then that will be available to them if the timing is right.

So, I think it’s timely, it’s good to see collaboration and cooperation from most members of this House, and I look forward to seeing this progress through the Environment Committee.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, it is great to speak on this Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. As the previous speaker Tangi Utikere said, it is great to see a bipartisan approach on this very important development. I look back to what happened in Christchurch after the earthquake, where the land was freed up, where bureaucracy got out of the road—it actually kept house prices down for many years. In fact, house prices in Christchurch have only really started to accelerate faster than the rest of the country now, and they’re a long way behind as a result of that period, or respite, put in place by the National Government at the time. I think that we have to remember these things very clearly, because we should remember the lessons from the past, and I’m sure this will be a great example for the future as well, of working together to get those roadblocks out of the road.

I had the pleasure of having Nicola Willis in my electorate a little while ago, and we visited not only the council and their resource consent team but also had a meeting with some developers and some builders, and it was very informative. We got a good feeling for what the councils were expecting and where they saw the roadblocks, and then we actually got the real oil, if you like, from the people on the ground who are having to deal with these things day in and day out. I can tell you that, yes, infrastructure is really important—absolutely it’s important, and I’m not belittling that at all—but the issue with resource consents and developments in subdividing and greenfields developments is not only the cost of that to the councils, it’s the costs to the developers of all the uncertainty. They have no idea, often, of how long it’s going to take.

You might be a very experienced—not you, of course, Mr Speaker. But for those very experienced developers, who have had many developments, they still have no idea how long it’s going to take to get through the resource consent process. That has a huge impact on their ability to trade, if you like. They have to ensure that they have enough capital to be able to weather that period and come out the other side with a development and with still enough capital to get that development under way. This will actually help this process immensely. In my own town—and while it’s not a tier 1 council, I know that, in Blenheim, there are a huge number of sections, so called, available. When you look at that, that’s a whole lot of houses that have got potential for subdivision, where those owners may or may not want to subdivide their properties. But when we talk to the developers, they say “Well, you’d have rocks in your head if you wanted to subdivide your property, unless you had good assurance that the process would go very smoothly.” Often it doesn’t, and we end up with people coming out the other side, costing them money to subdivide their property for a section on the back of the property.

The beauty of the ability to do this is that it frees up more homes and, potentially, smaller places for first-home buyers to get a foot on to the property ladder, but it also unlocks capital for those people that own those properties that are subdividing. This is obviously a huge generalisation, but more than likely the people that are subdividing will be later on in their lives—when they’ve built up their capital, paid their mortgage, and they’re looking to free up a bit of capital—and the buyer is more likely to be a younger person at the beginning of their establishment of their home and their family life. We are therefore making an opportunity for both of those parties to go forward. If we end up with three-storey buildings on some of those, fantastic. I note David Seymour’s comments before, and I thought “This is the champion of the free market calling for some regulation.” I thought that was a bit ironic, and fortunately we’re not asking him a question, or that wouldn’t be allowed.

But look, in closing, this is a great move. It’s a great day for young people in New Zealand looking to get on to the property ladder. It’s also a great day for those people who are not so young and wanting to free up some of their capital for the greater enjoyment of their lives, and I think this is a win-win all round.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order. The member’s time has expired.

I rise as the member of Parliament for Tukituki in the Hastings, Hawke’s Bay region. I would like to take this opportunity to say how impressive it was when the chair of Ngāti Kahungunu Iwi, Ngahiwi Tomoana, stood up and said, in the media, he would love our region—a tier 2 region—to join this housing drive. Ngāti Kahungunu Iwi, they want to build 400 homes over the next couple of years, and this is the type of legislation that is going to make this opportunity happen. When you have got leaders in the community, where they see political parties working together, that’s why this legislation is going to work.

I’d like to quote Ngahiwi, and he says this: “That the iwi’s goal is to build 400 homes across the region in the next two years, and this is attainable because we have a region where councils are working together.” He said, “We want to empty out the motels and hotels, and put people into housing.” This is why this legislation is going to work, this is why we’re getting cross-party consensus, and I commend this bill, wholeheartedly, to lead housing for New Zealand. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Very delighted to stand and take a call on the Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. I’m really delighted because I’m sure we’re all aware that Tauranga Moana is one of the tier 1 communities and in such need. But also, for those of you who may not be aware, so is the Western Bay of Plenty counted in that tier, so Mayor Garry Webber is delighted by that fact. As we all know, our community is suffering from a lack of land more than anything in terms of development. In fact, our kiwifruit land—our greenfields land that may happen—is more expensive than residential land. So in our outer suburbs it’s very difficult. But I think this is a piece of legislation that is really going to change some of the levers and support our community to have a real diversification of buildings.

So what does this bill do? I had a query from a friend recently. She said to me, “We’ve got two incomes—two good incomes. We live in Tauranga. We are really finding it difficult. We can’t get our deposit together. The prices: we’re looking at a million plus for a lot of our land in the community.” She’s like, “What does this bill do?” Well, this bill gives us up to 8,500 thousand properties in our community to support people around diversification of ownership, and I think that that’s an amazing thing. It also gives us the right to build. And as some of you may be aware, my husband and I own a building firm, and one of the things when we talk to a lot of the planners and a lot of people around consenting is the time it takes to get through the process. I talked to a good friend of mine yesterday about the planning, and changes that may happen, and she was able to express her real delight in the fact that they may be able to now look at place-making a little bit more and not have so much work just stacked up behind them pushing these consents through. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is a pleasure to be talking on the Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. Well, it’s quite a day, isn’t it? Very significant, particularly in relation to dealing with one of the most significant issues facing New Zealand. The issue around housing, it permeates so many people’s lives, and the inability now of our younger generation to even have the desire to actually want to buy a house, given the increasing cost of it and how they are becoming increasingly out of reach for most young New Zealanders. It is not only a financial issue; it is actually becoming a social issue. I think this bill is one of the steps—it is not going to do everything, by any means, but I think it is perhaps giving a bit of hope to our younger people, and particularly people that are renting at the moment, with young children, also, who we don’t want to see moving from school to school, as David Seymour alluded to before, because I think that social transitional cost is just immense—on communities and on people. And how that is reflected and felt by many families, at a personal level, is one of the things that just makes this—we have to try and deal with this housing issue.

One of the things with building houses at the moment is the arcane planning rules, and also it often depends on the people that you have to deal with in council. And probably unlike Mr Seymour, actually I have been involved in doing residential developments, and they are difficult. They are difficult because, honestly, sometimes it will depend on how people interpret the rules, there is no consistency in many cases across councils—I’ve worked across councils—and that lack of certainty is one of the key drivers of making it more difficult for people to build houses in New Zealand. And that, of course, is leading to—not always, but significantly contributing to the lack of new houses that people want to take the risks and do the development, particularly at a time when building costs are going up rapidly.

So I think this bill is good in the sense that, first of all, it recognises that property owners have the right to build. That’s a pretty good fundamental principle. I know my colleague Nicola Willis talked about this in her address, but the right to build is an important imperative in New Zealand. It also has got to come with rules and responsibilities. But I think that should be the opening premise. Often, when you sit down with council staff in consenting operations, there is almost a view on why you shouldn’t build this particular building that you might be proposing. What we’ve got to do is turn that premise around and say, “Why should it not happen?” and that the right to build is the right approach. And, of course, that starts to deal with the supply issues that we’ve talked about before. It also allows councils to deal more quickly with greenfields.

So, I think, if we’re looking to expand the number of houses in New Zealand, there are two key strategies. One is intensification, which this will certainly provide for, and one is the issue of greenfield sites. Under this, one of the key parts of it is allowing councils to permit greenfield developments to take place, and to accelerate that under the new intensification streamlined planning rules, which, basically, will bring forward that process for zoning new land, greenfields land, into areas that can be built. And, obviously, there will be grey areas, also, that have already been built on that might be redeveloped. I think those are the key strategies, and so that is a fantastic part of this bill.

The other one is just this adopting the medium-density residential standards. And, obviously, as Nicola Willis talked about, there are quite specific rules around that. There are actually things like natural hazards, there are open spaces, there are heritage zones, and I think all those ones are important facets that a council can have regard for if it is going to permit much more intense area to occur in certain areas, so if there are overwhelming reasons why intensification shouldn’t take place, there are areas in the Act—well, if it does get passed—that will allow councils to show some reasonable sort of approach to that rather than just allowing every development to take place in a certain area.

But also there are the rules around the actual building standards. You still need to require to get a building consent, even if you no longer need the resource consent under the arrangement—but there is still a requirement for building consent. So that means that the building needs to be built—or the proper standards or the design aspects to it, all those sort of things to make sure we don’t end up just building a whole lot of poor-quality buildings that lead to issues over the long term.

I think one of the big issues is around the infrastructure, and Mr Seymour raised this, and I think that is correct. When we proposed this bill, we talked about giving councils $50,000 per additional dwellings—so if you did an apartment dwelling of 20 properties, that would mean a million bucks that would go to the council as a contribution towards meeting the infrastructure cost of that. It was directly tailored to incentivising councils to issue consents, but also to support them financially in terms of meeting those infrastructure costs. I think that is probably a very good mechanism because it is directly related to the building activity, as opposed to something around the ACT payback.

But I was fascinated by the member for Epsom and also the leader of ACT, I didn’t quite know in which capacity he was talking this afternoon. I think, in reflection, he was talking as the MP for Epsom, because his overriding fears about what this would mean for the leafy suburbs of Epsom, I think, was the key driver towards his opposition to this piece of legislation. Although, I suspect he is slightly miffed that he wasn’t part of the group. But the issue he raises about needing more control around building, and all that sort of thing, I did find slightly troubling, given where ACT sit and previously had made it very clear that they are a party of free enterprise and minimal regulation. So maybe when we get to the second reading, Mr Seymour, we’ll get more clarity on your position, but it was slightly confusing.

Hey, but, I think, this is a very important thing. I think we need to recognise there are two separate issues. There is an issue of “need” and there is an issue of “want”. The issue of need is that we need houses for our younger people to be able to afford, to be able to move into, and to be able to acquire. We also have this issue of want. Many people don’t want things to happen near them. I think the most important thing is this issue of meeting the need of people who are renting at the moment, whether they are young or people with young families, who want to get into a house, who have the desire to get into a house, but can’t see that opportunity. So I think that is really, really important.

There are other aspects, as I said earlier. I think we need to look at how the building industry is working and some of the supply issues with that, also the availability of staff, and, actually, the building regulations themselves probably need an overhaul. But, as I said at the outset, I think this is a very good start in terms of dealing with the most significant issue, which is one of supply—how can we provide more or make it easy for people to actually build houses? This is what this piece of legislation is about, and I think it should be supported and it is well worth taking to the select committee.

Kia ora, te Māngai o te Whare. Housing is the most crucial and central aspect to rebuilding our communities. As the member for Whangārei, I am so delighted to be part of a Government that is making this a priority and that is providing the funds and the legislation to do it with. I really want to congratulate Minister Woods for this initiative, which is part of a suite of measures that are going to make a huge difference to places like Whangārei, which has—I am grateful—already been recognised as an area where housing is a priority because of our problems with supply. The Housing Acceleration Fund to build infrastructure of $3.8 billion—and now we have this: to increase the densification.

As someone who weekly meets with the officials and the members of council in my area to talk about the difficulties and the opportunities for housing in Whangārei, which we desperately need—the biggest consensus that we have is that the answer is urban densification. This initiative is going to make it easier to put our whānau into warm, safe, dry houses.

As someone who has lived in a densely populated area during my time as a post-graduate student in Cambridge—including as a mum of four children later, when I went back, in a villa—I can tell you the richness of living in a tiny little two-up, two-down apartment, properly built, on the edge of a greenfield and parks. It is an extraordinary way to build a community. It encourages participation, it encourages walking the streets, it encourages community activity. I commend this bill to the House with great enthusiasm.

The question is, That the Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Bill be considered by the Environment Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Environment Committee.

Instruction to the Environment Committee