Spatial Planning Bill

Members, we come now to our final debate. This is the debate on clauses 1 and 2, which is on the title and commencement.

Thank you, Madam Chair. At clause 1, the title could easily be called “This Act is the Spatial Planning Act (Soon to be Repealed before Christmas) Act.”, because that’s certainly the intention, if we have an opportunity to—with our ACT coalition partners—lead a new Government after the general election in October.

But my question to the Minister is that in its first conceptual stages, this piece of legislation was referred to as the Strategic Planning Bill, and at some point the word “strategic” was replaced with the word “spatial”. Although there was some debate at the time—and I can’t actually recall; I think the Randerson committee’s report called for a Strategic Planning Act, but now we have a Spatial Planning Act.

So I’m keen to know what the rationale, what the reason, what the change was, why it was made, what was the basis of it, and can the Minister give us maybe some historic insight into it. Because she herself was a member of the Randerson panel, and I’m sure that back in the conceptual, formative days of Randerson, there was probably quite a lot of consideration given to it.

The other point that I would like to make in regard to the title is why this bill exists in its entirety. Why couldn’t this bill have actually been incorporated into the Natural and Built Environment Bill? Do we actually need a separate title and a separate piece? Could this piece of legislation have been incorporated into one statute? So if the Minister can give us a bit of an insight into that, I would appreciate it.

Thank you. The member is correct that certainly it was at one point—before it was introduced—referred to as the “Strategic Planning Bill”, and of course it is about strategic planning, but the way many people referred to it and thought about it was as spatial planning. Because that is the term that most people seem to use, and because, as the member knows, I’m pleased that the word “map” is now in the bill—we want to be able to see the plan as well, and so that is the element of spatial.

In terms of whether or not it could be two different bills, I’m not sure that it is to do with the title of this bill, but it is a good question, and I’ll leave it there.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Minister, isn’t it correct that the reason that strategic planning was first advanced as a title for the draft bill, or the proposed bill, was because the problem that the Minister identified—that the Randerson panel, in its report, proposed to solve—was that we need to build a whole lot of infrastructure in New Zealand; it’s become too expensive to build. The Infrastructure Commission identified that consenting alone costs $1.3 billion a year. That’s not taking the consent conditions for erosion and sediment control permits, buying the silt fence, digging the silk pond, setting up the fence, installing the duct. That’s just the consenting, Minister.

And wasn’t the use of the word “strategic” intended to identify that while the planning has already taken place—in fact, regional councils, territorial, and local authorities have already constructed district plans and regional plans, which their communities have voted on or have the ability to vote out councillors who approve those plans, and the provisions of this bill simply duplicate what’s already being carried out. In fact, Auckland Council and Hamilton City Council made just that point.

It’s not spatial planning that they needed, Minister; it’s strategic planning that would help them link up where they’ve already identified people will build and live with the infrastructure needed. Because the strategy to link, “Hey, we know where the land is where people can build or live, but the infrastructure to service that land is missing.”—that was the strategic part. Planning legislation should, in fact, enable that infrastructure to be built as of right by asset owners without having to prove—as they do here—that they’ve complied with esoteric, animist, and spiritualist even conditions around tikanga, kawa, and mātauranga Māori, which we debated last night.

Minister, wouldn’t it be correct to say that spatial planning is already common? It’s already done well in New Zealand. We have community input, we have input from stakeholders, who might say, “Hey, you know, that land by Auckland Airport, that land in Hamilton between the State highway, that fantastic four-lane—in places six-lane—State Highway 1 that trucks can travel on at high speed, 110 kilometre an hour road environment”—Minister, what they need to know is that the infrastructure needed to connect, say, a distribution centre to the motorway, the new town centre to waste-water and stormwater systems—they need a strategic plan, Minister. That’s what local government’s been asking for.

So, Minister, isn’t it correct to say that the title of this bill should, in fact, be a “Strategic Planning Bill”, but not for this bill, because it doesn’t deliver the intent that the Randerson panel, of which you yourself, Minister, were a member at one point—it doesn’t deliver on the intent.

I’d just remind the member that we’ve already had an extensive conversation about the need for the strategic direction in these plans, and so there is no loss of the strategy by changing the name to “Spatial”; it’s just what people seem to accidentally be referring to the bill as. They are both important elements, and I don’t disagree with the member on that point.

Members, the time has come for me to leave the Chair. I will resume the Chair at 9 a.m. tomorrow morning. This session is suspended until then. Pō mārie.

Debate interrupted.

Sitting suspended from 9.59 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Thursday)