Planning Bill

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, as you’ve said, we’ve been working through Part 3. We’ve not got near the schedules yet, nor regulatory relief. I’m sure we’ll all want to talk about regulatory relief; that comes in at clause 92 and I’ve got an Amendment Paper on that. Before then—and I think maybe my Green Party colleagues might have other questions, I’m not sure—we’ve got clauses 84(a) and 84(b), which are all struck out, which are the requirements for rules that control fishing. I know there was a small debate on this point—well, one question—in a different part of the bill about the processes of the Fisheries Act in a contribution from Rachel Boyack, but what I would like to know from the member in the chair is why was it that these changes for rules that controlled fishing happened after the select committee process, and, in fact, after another resource management bill that went through the Environment Committee that amending the fishing controls that took a lot of House and committee time last year?

It is my understanding that the provisions that were in the Resource Management (Consenting and Other System Changes) Amendment Bill—that those fishing controls then came into the Planning Bill went through the select committee process. I don’t think there were very many amendments to them, but now they’ve come out. So why is it that they’re coming out after all of that process and after this Government has, in two different pieces of legislation, included them? That’s my question on those sections before we get to regulatory relief.

Committee of the whole House

Fishing and the impacts of fishing on biodiversity and on the environment are able to be managed under the Fisheries Act. What this Government’s been very clear about is we want this legislation—the Planning Bill and the complimentary Natural Environment Bill, which we intend to become law—to be very clear and focused in their scope. If the impacts of fishing can and should be managed under the Fisheries Act, then there is provision to do that. We’re just being clear about what the scope of this bill is.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m really happy to take this call right now, because I specifically want to pick up on the Minister’s comments around fishing, because this has been a substantive change that has come in in the last-minute amendment. I’m really interested to hear directly from the Minister about what the implications will be for particularly those areas of the country who have put in protections for ocean ecosystems under their planning regimes. When they move to the new system and they’re putting in place these bills, does that mean that the protections will have to be removed when those plans are notified? I’m thinking particularly where we’ve got instances in Northland, in the Bay of Plenty, and in Marlborough. This is a serious change and those people and communities, and iwi and hapū in those jurisdictions, will be really keen to hear the Minister’s answers to that.

I also am interested to understand where the justification came for the last minute change, because some of these areas are recently put in, and why risk reopening these protected marine areas to fishing when they actually hasn’t been any thorough assessment done, and any research about what has actually happened to the affected habitats and the biodiversity in terms of recovery or otherwise? Has the Minister consulted with these councils and those communities that have been affected by this, because the rug really has been pulled out from under them.

With the Minister’s reliance particularly on the Fisheries Act, the other aspect that I really want to understand is, we know that the Fisheries Act itself has been too slow when it comes to actually being responsive to ocean ecosystems. It’s usually at the point where fisheries are collapsing when the alarm bells go off and we’re taking some form of action, or at least assessing it. So why that insistence to rely on the Fisheries Act when we know it’s been so slow?

Why as well—the Fisheries Act has as its focus the use—and, in other words, the exploitation—of fisheries, rather than ecosystems, at its centre. I note that the bills and the new framework are pretty light on protections for biodiversity in particular. But again, why go and rely on the Fisheries Act versus where things could be and where they were with Motiti?

Finally, as we know, the Fisheries Act doesn’t make any reference to either life-supporting capacity or the maintenance of indigenous biodiversity. Now, these have been key aspects which have informed the development and the arrival of where these areas have actually got to when it comes to marine protection, particularly in the coastal areas. So I’m really keen for the Minister’s responses on those, and I know the communities will be keen to hear them.

Committee of the whole House

I thank the member for the question. Thank you, Madam Chair. The member and I have chatted many times, in different forums, about how we agree it’s very important that New Zealand identifies and protects marine biodiversity, and that in the places where overfishing and fishing practices have damaged the marine environment, there’s a pathway to restoring them, including through the Hauraki Gulf/Tīkapa Moana Marine Protection Act, which is a start.

The member makes a good point: it takes many years of monitoring and evaluation to determine whether the tools and the actions are having an effect on improving marine biodiversity. But I just want to be clear, we’re talking about regional plans, and while the fisheries legislation continues to be a primary mechanism for managing the effects of fishing on marine biodiversity, the existing plan provisions for some of the plans that were mentioned—in Northland, Bay of Plenty, and Marlborough—will continue to be in place throughout this transition period until the new system comes online, estimated by around 2030. By that time, it is reasonable to expect that these protections, where sustainability, where managing fisheries’ impacts have not been carried out to a satisfactory level, that the Fisheries Act then provides for that, and we expect to see action under that Act and under the leadership of the responsible Minister to drive that.

But what we’re talking about here today is the planning provisions. So I’ve been clear: the provisions we have exist until the transition period is complete. I fully expect that under the fisheries legislation, what we will see is a focus on delivering all of those protections that we agree are important, but they’re not in scope of this legislation because this is a planning bill and we’re talking about spatial plans. We will leave that to fisheries.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to ask a question on clause 71 around the appointment of the spatial plan committees. My question is based on the answers from the previous Minister in the chair. It was actually quite an important question, and it relates to an answer he gave earlier that the local authority can appoint a non-elected member to the spatial plan committee. My question is whether that member, if they are not elected, has full voting rights and make up part of the quorum. Based on the answer to that question, I’ll have a follow-up question.

Committee of the whole House

Just one little point on the fishing: the member in the chair said it is not in scope because this is the Planning Bill. But the bill as introduced included the fishing controls, so it’s totally in scope. There can’t be an argument of scope; that makes no sense whatsoever. It’s there and he’s deleted it, so it is in scope. I’m happy for the Minister to tell me why I’m wrong about that.

Moving on to regulatory relief—so I’m now on clause 92—there are many sections now on regulatory relief, but I just want to take the committee to my Amendment Paper, No. 667. I got this Amendment Paper in very early, and I do think it would be good if it were just one number earlier, because I think 666 would be very appropriate for these regulatory relief provisions. What this regulatory relief scheme is going to do is one of either two things, or both of them combined: that is, it is either going to cost ratepayers up to $2 billion—$1.99 billion by the Government’s own figures—or it is going to lead to the undoing of environmental protections, plus it is going to create great, great inefficiencies in the system, and there’ll be many more jobs for lawyers.

It can all be solved very easily. Amendment Paper 667 is part of that, and so it is the—

💬 Hon Member: 6-7!

Oh, no! I’m sorry, Madam Chair, but I’ve got colleagues who are talking about 6-7, but never mind.

💬 Joseph Mooney: Put it on TikTok!

Put it on TikTok—not quite on TikTok. I say thank you for the suggestion to the member for Southland. That Amendment Paper is simply to delete clause 92 and Schedule 3—we can go to Schedule 3 later. But I think there can be no justification for these regulatory relief provisions. They are dangerous, they are a total change in how New Zealanders have treated property law in this country, and I’m sure the member in the chair will be happy to claim responsibility for it. It is an importation of American ideas about property rights. There is already, in the Resource Management Act, section 85 for when land really cannot be used. This section 85 provision is rolled over at clause 105, so that is all that is needed. These regulatory relief provisions: they must go.

My question is whether the member in the chair would like to agree with my amendments and be done with these provisions that are going to lead to a whole lot of churn in the system, a whole lot of extra plans, a whole lot of extra debate, a whole lot of extra litigation, a whole lot of extra valuations, a whole lot of diminished environmental protections, and a whole lot of ratepayer costs. We can solve it all—it can just be gone.

Committee of the whole House

There are a number of questions I’d like to respond to, before we get on to regulatory relief. To the member Mike Davidson, who asked about spatial plan committees, members do not need to be elected members of a local council, they can be appointed, and that is because we envisage that people with sufficient technical capability and competency will be required, and they may not come from the pool of elected members. They will have voting rights, apart from the appointee from central government, who will not.

I just want to close off that part of the debate we were having on fisheries. One of the reasons that we’re shifting away from having regional plans manage fisheries is that fish can swim across regional boundaries. Fish are not necessarily going to stay within the regional boundary of the plan made for them. So putting firmly the responsibility for managing the environmental effects of fishing back where it belongs, under the responsibility of the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries and into the Fisheries Act, where it specifies that that is one of the tasks of that Act. That’s why we’ve done it. It means that no matter where the fish swim, we’ll be able to look after them, wherever their habitat is.

Now, I want to come to the member’s obsession with the number 666. We never impugn another member’s motivations here, so I can only assume she’s a big fan of heavy metal, but her Amendment Paper 667, proposing to delete references to regulatory relief in the system, will not be accepted, and I’m going to explain why. For far too long, the cost of imposing planning controls that have public benefits—whether it’s protecting outstanding natural features and landscapes, protecting areas of high natural character, heritage overlay, and sites of significance to Māori—have been borne by the private property owner. The member proposes that those costs will instead be borne by councils. Well, they’re already being borne in the system. What we are doing is making it very clear in the new system that where councils seek to impose those types of planning controls that have a public benefit, then they will be faced with justifying the cost, with seeking the approval or acceptance of the private property owner, who may wish to voluntarily accept the benefit of a heritage overlay or a heritage planning control over their property, for example. But if they do not, then councils will have a number of options available to them. They will be able to offer regulatory relief in the form of cash, or additional planning permissions, additional planning flexibility, so that a property owner might be able to develop another part of their property to a higher intensity or another property that they own to a higher intensity, or rates relief.

Now, it is true that it will take councils some effort, firstly, to accept that they are faced with the consequences of applying planning overlays on private property, where they never have been. They’ve been able to use this thing—a highlighter—to colour in maps. I met a property owner up in Taihape. She was a widow who had responsibility for the family farm after her husband died, and she was shocked and anguished to receive a letter saying 75 percent of the property would be covered by an outstanding natural feature and landscape or a significant natural area. What that meant was to the property value and to the ability to use it for farming was potentially tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars in costs to apply for consents for things that previously had been a permitted activity.

We’re going to force councils to face that cost and to be very clear in the new system that they will only need to protect matters that have high value, that have significance, and that there will be a standardised test at a national level to help councils, to guide them as to how to apply those tests and the same—when it comes to regulatory relief—standardised approaches to help the councils. But this cost is there in the system right now. We cannot hide it. It falls on private property owners. In the new system, we’re going to make sure it’s revealed.

Committee of the whole House

Kia ora. I just wanted to follow up on my colleague Lan Pham’s point around marine protections and just ask a brief pātai to the Minister around the transition, and whether, following the transition, those marine protected areas such as us in Northland will exist. Or will they cease? And then with these amendments that have come forward, what consultation or consideration has the Minister and officials undertaken with Te Uri o Hikihiki, Patukeha, Ngāti Kuta of the Bay of Islands—so, the tribes of the North—who worked really hard and advocated alongside community for these marine protection rāhui tapu areas to be installed? Will they exist afterwards, you know, with the transition? If not—oh, OK—why? But also following transition, if they are to exist, will they still exist in the same form? Kia ora.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to pick up on this novel and controversial topic of regulatory relief. There’s a lot in this, and in sort of opening, and picking up from Rachel Brooking touching on this, I want to make it really clear that the majority of submitters—and these are literally the words from the departmental report—"of the submissions that touched on regulatory relief, nearly all expressed opposition. So this was across councils, it was Māori, it was environmental and community organisations, it was heritage groups, it was resource management practitioners, it was legal organisations and individuals. I can appreciate the theoretical place where this has come from because there are absolutely those nightmare stories out there where individual people have found themselves to have quite significant barriers put in place on their land.

Now, the question, and why I think there’s been such strong opposition to this is: what is the response to that? And this response is very extreme. Not only is it extreme, but it has been expressed clearly and time and time again by all of these submitters that it is unworkable. Not only is it unworkable in a bureaucratic sense but it clearly has been pointed out that it will result in an erosion and loss and degradation of biodiversity.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Can you come to your question.

Sorry, sorry, Madam Chair. Why I really need to provide that context is because I’m going to the questions, but that is what was so clearly established through the select committee process. I think it’s really important to touch on that to frame the questions.

When the Minister just said then that the system would only protect high-value areas and those areas of significance, this is of absolute importance to the questions because it’s admitting that we will lose biodiversity. Because a lot of our existing biodiversity isn’t big, national, native forests at a landscape scale; we’re talking about small scale dry land biodiversity, patches of kōwhai here, patches of wetland there. They are not in themselves significant, but they are absolutely important.

Let’s pick up first on the bureaucracy of this. I want to pick up on the very helpful outline that Environmental Defence Society (EDS) has put out there around what it actually looks like to try and implement this regulatory relief framework. They talked about the fact that even before any protections would be put on the table, the council would have to assess, at a property level basis, 24,000 private properties across the region that would be subject to a planning rule to which regulatory relief might apply.

Now, my question for the Minister is how are those councils—and Auckland Council is at one end of a spectrum, right? Because we know that most of our biodiversity is with these smaller councils, areas like the Waitaki, areas like Mackenzie, which have very low ratepayer bases, but they will be having to fund, before they even get to the point where they are proposing these regulatory relief rules that might actually protect areas of biodiversity, they are having to go through these processes.

Now, what EDS points out around it is that they need to assess these on a property by property basis. This is going to be an absolutely crippling burden on councils, and now on top of this—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The member’s time has expired.

Committee of the whole House

The member may well be right that many submitters to the select committee were concerned about the cost, the burden of having to identify these qualifying matters at private property level. Well, let’s be clear, these costs are already being borne. They’re being borne by the property owners who have restrictions, often applied with very, very vague information based on aerial photographs, based on assumptions made from the farm gate or in the case of trees in Upper Hutt. I had a letter from my constituent who said, “There’s a tree hanging over my house. I can’t get rid of it because it’s going to cost about $10,000 in consent fees and arborist fees, and I can’t afford it.” How on earth is a pin oak that is probably 30 or 40 years old end up being such a cost to private property owner? That’s what the current system allows.

Or a woman who—I know Minister Chris Bishop has referred to a number of times—in Lower Hutt who was told that even though their mother is disabled, putting a wheelchair ramp and putting in some modern lighting so should actually see her way into the home when she gets home in the evening—not allowed because the house is heritage protection. On what basis does the member and all of those people who submitted think it’s acceptable to impose those costs for so-called public benefit on private property owners without any tension?

I’m going to come to answer the member’s questions, and we’re going to have a bit of time on this, if the member seeks to have more calls. So let’s be clear: in the new system, the burden that many of these organisations claim will fall on them, will actually be lighter. Because by lifting up what we consider important to be significant or high value, actually a lot of what the member might consider to be of some value will not need to be considered. So the burden on those carrying out these evaluations will be lighter and there are many options. Because when I think about the farms that I’ve visited, and you know, lifestyle blocks up in Whitemans Valley, not far from here in Wellington, where people have chosen voluntarily to enter into covenants to protect indigenous biodiversity, to protect wetlands on their property, that will still be available in the system.

Again, when councils have undertaken an evaluation of whether these qualifying matters applied to private property, in the first instance the private property owner will be able to accept the imposition of a proposed planning control, and without seeking relief; they might say “That’s fine. We like that patch of bush on our property. We’re quite happy to see it protected in that way.” When I hear the conflation of the problem—“It’s a burden, it’s expensive”—well, look, councils have done a whole lot of this planning from the desktop. They’ve imposed these costs on people and they face none of their own. So now they’re going to have to hold up a mirror and actually ask themselves, “Do we really believe this is significant or outstanding, and if so, are we prepared to enter into an agreement with the private property owner in order to protect these public values?” Remember, these are public values that other people apparently value. So if we’re going to apply those to private property, then the private property owner gets to have a say, and they may well be eligible for relief in the new system.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for letting me have this call, because I want to directly discuss the issues that the Minister has just raised, and I want to do it in a really practical way.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Are you referring to clause 92?

Yes, I am. So in my area, I have specialists in landscape who have talked to me about their concerns about this bill. I also have specialists in heritage. My understanding from law school and land law was when we pick up property, what we’re picking up is a bundle of rights. Those rights will differ in different circumstances. If I buy a piece of the Mackenzie Basin, I’m buying a beautiful property, but I know it’s important to the people there, because they’ve already significantly signalled that that property has value. Now, it might not be what is called “outstanding landscape” under this bill. It might be on the hills below, and that’s how it was explained to me by one of the landscape experts that I’ve seen.

Now, when I pick that up as a farm, I don’t expect to be able to build the same kinds of things, because it’s precious to its community, and I pick it up at a price that actually resonates, and it is responsive to the rights and the limitations on my rights. So it is the common that has decided the value. When a Minister comes along and changes everything up in the Mackenzie Basin so that, now, a council in that area will have to compensate the landowner, aren’t we transferring—this is quite a philosophical question—a new property right to that party, so that they can now do anything they want with that property, or the community has to pay? So we’re paying twice, because that land has already had a value that’s reflective of what it can be used for and what it can’t.

Now, if I just take an example in my own neighbourhood of something with high historic value, it may not reach the threshold of, again, being at the extreme end, but it’s valuable to the community, and it’s often recognised as that. So those prices reflect it. I know that what the Government is doing is attempting to chill the whole policy of deciding these things as a community. But don’t we have a right as a community to decide those things? Why on earth would we compensate someone who can anticipate that those things are of certain value to the community and already knows that that limit is upon it? Aren’t we gifting a private property owner a whole new right? Isn’t that what we’re doing in this circumstance? Aren’t we actually transferring property rights, which is absolutely consistent with a right-wing agenda, but is not consistent with my agenda or the needs of my community.

I already in my area have building up. I already have more intensification than most of the communities that are represented in this House. I’m glad to do it, but I do expect some sort of control on it when, in fact, there is an issue where my community values something, it’s valuable to the community. Why would I pay the member if he owns and if he buys that property for the right that he didn’t have yesterday? Why would I be paying him for that? I cannot understand that logic as to the economic value, when the economic value is determined by the bundle of rights that that owner had at the beginning of the process.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Have you got a specific question you want to direct?

Those are all very good questions. So does he agree it’s part of his right-wing agenda in the ACT Party? Is it, in fact, giving more property rights? Is there an economic argument that says that there is a lower economic value placed on land at the time now and, in fact, he’s gifting economic value to whoever happens to own it? Is it something where the community has a right to, at the present time, stand up for itself and say, “That’s a value to us.”? And why shouldn’t that be compensated if, in fact, it loses that right? Are you going to give everyone else in the community that?

Committee of the whole House

Just before we get to that member’s question, I just want to correct the committee on a comment I made in relation to clause 71, appointment of spatial planning committees. I’ve been advised that the Minister can choose or decide whether central government’s member on the spatial planning committee has voting rights or not. That’s in response to a question from the Green member Mike Davidson, so just making sure that that’s clear to the committee.

Now, let’s get back to regulatory relief. The member Helen White makes an excellent point that if you buy the land, and she raised the hypothetical of a property in the Mackenzie Basin—somewhere which is well-known for pivot irrigators and all kinds of fantastic primary production, although it is at altitude in a relatively dry area, they still get water and farm there. But let’s assume, hypothetically, that the member was to, under the new system, when regulatory relief mechanisms are in place, buy the land with those existing, let’s say, outstanding natural feature character landscape overlays already in place, then that member would be subject to a test, which I think in Latin is described as “caveat emptor” or “buyer beware”. In other words, if you choose to buy a property that has an existing control on it during the transition phase, then the purchaser will have accepted those controls. So there is no regulatory relief available in the hypothetical situation you describe.

💬 Next: is this part of a right-wing agenda? Property rights are important in any functioning democracy and in any economy where people need to have certainty about whether the land they own, what the rules are, and if somebody—a Government, a local government—seeks to impose costs and controls on that land and on its development, they have access to some relief. Otherwise, the State could reach in and take your stuff at any time. This legislation’s very clear: we are resetting expectations that if local government—and the member mentioned a local community—places a high value on public values, that those who value it and seek to control it should be prepared to pay for that benefit. That is not extreme, that is not an agenda, it’s simply stating the obvious. If there are values a community wish to protect, and some of those values are on private property, and they have an impact on the value or the use of that property, then the community should willingly seek to contribute towards the protection of those values on private property. But if it turns out that community is not prepared to pay for it, then maybe they didn’t value them as highly as they were assumed to. What this legislation does with the regulatory relief mechanism will reveal that. It will create a process where the values of some and costs on the others will be revealed. It’s intentional and it’s going to be better for everybody who owns private property, including those who enjoyed the values that the member has described.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. Two quick questions in response to the member in the chair. One is: can he clarify—I think this was his answer, so this is just a simple clarification—that if there is an existing protection, say, an indigenous biodiversity protection, on someone’s land, that regulatory relief will not apply to anything that is existing? That’s one question.

Then the second question is: does he agree with, then, the premise, given what he’s just said about private property rights, that one of the fundamental shifts in this piece of legislation is that the costs are shifted from private individuals to the community? Those are my two questions on that issue.

But then I think I could move on—

💬 Hon Member: No.

No? I’ll sit down before moving to Schedule 2.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll just take the opportunity to follow on from Helen White, who raised what she thought was a theoretical situation; actually, it’s a very real situation in the Mackenzie.

So the question to the Minister is: the reality, actually—the proposed solar farms. So if we assume some landscape values across the Mackenzie, and I don’t know whether they’re outstanding or not. In fact, it’s very unclear—very unclear—in the legislation as to who is going to judge whether it’s outstanding or not and whether it will be a measure by which private property owners will be able to seek compensation from the council should the council decide that large-scale solar farms are not appropriate, yet the person bought the land, probably designated as rural land, with the expectation of being able to utilise that to put in place a solar farm. So that’s one question: does the Minister think that compensation should be able to be claimed by the person who’s proposing the solar farm but may be blocked because it may or may not be designated as an outstanding landscape?

If I can go back to the development of that very land, where it was purchased for farming purposes, but, actually, technology, which is called centre pivot irrigators, came along and allowed a change in land use. There are many who say that those centre pivots have degraded the landscape values of the Mackenzie Country. I’m not making a judgment on that other than to say, in that scenario, should the council have said no, would the landowner have been able to seek compensation under this proposed legislation? What we have seen through the Resource Management Act in the past, and I suggest through this piece of legislation as well, is that we’re very innovative Kiwis and we tend to get on and make changes to land use and change activities on land, and the thing that many have raised through submissions, I know—I’ve not been on the select committee—is one of: in changing land use expectation, does that then entitle a landowner, a property owner, to compensation claims against the council? That is a very real question, not a theoretical one, because it’s happening right now.

Committee of the whole House

In response to the member’s question, who will develop the regulatory relief mechanism, it’s intended to be developed as a national standard. The reason for that is because the Government intends that these processes not be bespoke and that they be applied consistently across the country. In order to do that, a standard will be developed. That is our intention.

I’m not going to provide a legal opinion on the member’s hypothetical about solar panels and farms and change of land use. The intention of this legislation is to provide for people who wish to use their property to have fewer barriers when it comes to planning and consenting. What we are doing through a number of mechanisms throughout the legislation, including through regulatory relief, is to relieve the burden on property owners, that those who hold highlighters and pens and use the Resource Management Act we currently have to stop them doing things that that would be imminently reasonable, where the effects are well understood and can be managed, from getting in their way. We are focused on growth and change, and we want to unlock New Zealand’s potential, and regulatory relief is just one tool in resetting expectations amongst planners and decision-makers and tilting the playing field, finally, level for private property owners.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, just for the opportunity to carry on with that discussion. I suggest that it may be that people who have pens and highlighters will be replaced with people with quills, who used to be called lawyers. The question for the member—well, the member states that there will be a standard across the country. The landscape values in the Mackenzie are quite different from those of south Westland or, indeed, of north Auckland.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): There’s not much pressure for a solar farm down there, though.

No. A lot of very good quality farming down south Westland.

Can I just say that that subjectivity is indeed part of the challenge that faced the Resource Management Act and faced councils up and down this country, but I struggle to understand—and maybe the Minister can explain—how he will establish a fair and consistent landscape value that applies to the Mackenzie Country, applies to Punakaiki Rocks, and applies to the Ninety Mile Beach to ensure that property owners are dealt with equitably, which I presume is his theoretical approach to this.

Committee of the whole House

In response to the member Damien O’Connor’s questions, regulatory relief will be established—the process will be established through regulations, and the standards I referred to will apply specific methodologies, say, for example, to outstanding natural features and landscapes.

Now, it’s true that New Zealand has different geology, different features. This morning, we talked about karst landscapes, of which I’m a massive fan. But let’s be clear: we need to have a nationally consistent approach to determining what’s significant. And it may well be that there are unique features in a particular district or region that are truly significant, and the legislation allows for those to be protected.

💬 Hon Damien O'Connor: Madam Chair—Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Is this a follow-on question?

💬 Hon Damien O'Connor: Yes, it is.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The Hon Damien O’Connor.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and I raise it while you’re in the Chair because you’re very familiar with this issue, and that is of outstanding biodiversity, significant natural areas, actually, that everyone discredited, said they were absolutely outrageous, laid down in the Resource Management Act (RMA). So dare I suggest, the challenge was that people on the West Coast saw significant natural areas, areas of significance in terms of biodiversity, as insignificant because they had lots of them.

So I struggle to understand how the Minister is going to just wave a magic wand and come up with a consistent policy when it comes to biodiversity that says that 2 hectares of native bush—we call it bush on the West Coast—in or around Auckland or in Canterbury that truly has significant outstanding features is insignificant in the hundreds of thousands of hectares in the West Coast. So how is the Minister going to solve the problem that we have faced through the RMA, how is this piece of legislation going to lay down one consistent approach to biodiversity and its significance in each and every region of New Zealand?

Committee of the whole House

If I could just briefly address that, I’ve been clear: we’re going to adopt standardised approaches through regulation and through development of national standards. It may well be that most of the West Coast, which appears, as the member pointed out, to be covered in “bush” is all significant, or it may be that, actually, when you apply a standardised methodology and you stand back a little bit, you discover that, actually, there are things that do need protection because of their significance or value. But potentially, a whole lot of stuff that’s protected now doesn’t need to be. But if the member would care to hold off any questions about indigenous biodiversity and so on until we get to the Natural Environment Bill, I’m sure we could come back to it.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll just remind the members opposite that we’ve not yet touched on the schedules. So it’s my intention to go now to the schedules, noting that one of the schedules does, again, deal with regulatory relief.

But if we go to Schedule 2, because we have not touched on Schedule 2 yet, I would like to talk about clause 6 of Schedule 2. Schedule 2 is regional spatial plans—and I know we’ve had some discussion earlier about some things about spatial plans that are at quite a high level, and then we get the detail of these regional spatial plans in Schedule 2. At clause 6 it is “Documents and other matters to have regard to when preparing draft regional spatial plans”. There are a number of documents listed there, and there are quite a lot of strikeouts and underlining in the Minister’s Amendment Paper, so it would be useful if the member in the chair could tell us if that’s just some sort of grammar issue or if it is something more substantial, and what the substantial changes are in there. That’s my first question.

The second question is—and I know my colleague from the Greens, Lan Pham, also has a published amendment on this section, but I have a tabled amendment and that is that after (m) in that long list to include (n), which is “in Auckland, Plan Change 120: housing intensification and resilience”. My question is if the member would consider including that as a specific issue to be considered for the Auckland regional spatial plan.

This aligns with another amendment I’ve made to a different part of the bill that I’ve raised earlier. My policy objective for including this here is simply to let what has been a very torturous planning process in Auckland run, really. Not going into the attributes or the deficits of Plan Change 120, but simply that there is a lot of effort and a lot of energy and a lot of money going into this plan change. How can it be enabled to not just be dismissed out of hand when this new process comes in, and how can it be enabled to run? That is my question on Schedule 2.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m pleased to be able to take a call on Schedule 2. I’ve been looking at this. It’s not an area—unlike my colleague Rachel Brooking—that I am an expert in. My questions are technical questions and I’ll just refer to the specific clause number within Schedule 2 so the Minister is aware—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Sure, that would be very helpful.

Thank you. The first question I had in relation to Schedule 2 is in clause 2—and actually in clause 3 as well—we have references to preparations and changing of spatial plans, and I wanted to ask the Minister: would it be necessary to prepare as well as change under both of those sections? Because it appears to me they only apply to existing spatial plans. I just wanted to know the kind of legislative drafting reasoning for ensuring that both of those were included.

The next question I had was in relation to clause 4. This is a clause that talks about local authorities in a region working together. In clause 4(1), it’s quite a strong word—“must work together”—and I wanted to know from the Minister: what steps would be taken if there was, say, a reticence from a particular local authority that was included in that definition and they determined that perhaps one local authority decided that they didn’t want to work together, the steps that would be taken.

I also wanted to know, in relation to clause 4(1)(f)—that refers to “other matter prescribed in regulations.”—that would also be relevant to the process of preparing a regional spatial plan. I wanted to understand if the Minister could illuminate to the committee exactly what that would be.

I had a question in relation to clause 4(2)(b), which was in relation to the publishing of the process agreement. I wanted to know what would be considered “publish” in this instance. This is kind of an area which has probably recently changed in terms of our reliance on online sources and information. I wanted to know if that would simply be putting something on the website, for example. I’m happy for the Minister to answer my questions.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you. I thank the member for the question. In terms of participation, it’s quite clear what’s set out there. I just come to the member’s question around what local authorities must do. They must work together to prepare a document—in other words, a process agreement as described in clause 4 of Schedule 2. It sets out a bunch of matters that they must do. And if they don’t, there’s a ministerial intervention power in this bill to respond to that.

I’ll just come back to the Hon Rachel Brooking’s questions around Plan Change 120 in Auckland. That keeps going under the Resource Management Act. It was a transition process, but it’s going to keep going.

There was a question that Rachel Brooking had around Schedule 2, clause 6. It is essentially a formatting matter.

In response to the member’s question around her proposed amendment, there is no need to add more documents to the list because clause 6 provides that spatial planning committees can consider “any other document or matter” that they consider relevant. We’ve sought to avoid trying to be exhaustive in the way that we describe every possible thing that participants in the system have to do. We’ve tried to provide them with as much flexibility as we feel they need when it comes to spatial planning.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I did want to speak to my colleague’s Amendment Paper to Schedule 2. Lan Pham has a published amendment to Schedule 2, which would have amended the bill that was reported back from the Environment Committee, but I feel that we are more debating the Minister responsible for RMA Reform’s Amendment Paper 709. What this refers to is clause 6 in Schedule 2, which is laying out the documents and other matters that must have regard held to when preparing draft regional spatial plans. There have just been some technical drafting changes, it looks like. It’s no longer Roman numerals, but letters in the subclauses.

I understand the Government doesn’t want to put reducing greenhouse gas emissions or responding to climate change in the goals of the planning bill, but in Schedule 2 already—and in the Government’s Amendment Paper—there is a requirement for people who are preparing regional spatial plans to have regard to the climate adaptation plans, which is something that is a requirement for regions to prepare. It says—this is page 280—“(h) any plan relating to adapting to the effects of climate change prepared by a local authority in the region;” and they must also have regard to regional land transport plans, any Government policy statement or other document, land use plans within the district, the natural environment plan, the long-term plan prepared under the Local Government Act—you get the picture.

I think we heard very strongly from submitters at the select committee that it would make sense, since we’re already requiring that they have regard to adaptation plans, that they should also have regard to emissions reduction plans. I suspect I know what the member in the chair Simon Court is going to say, but we do need to make this point explicit on the record so that the Amendment Paper from my colleague Lan Pham is number 731. I think we would have to propose a different tabled amendment to the Government’s Amendment Paper, which is like the new version of the bill, Amendment Paper 709.

But what we would do is simply insert in Schedule 2 after clause 6(1)(h)— 6(1)(i); insert into that list of letters—a requirement to any emissions reduction plan prepared under section 5ZG of the Climate change Response Act 2002.

I think that would make a lot of sense, because just last week there was a story in the RNZ online about how Government had to consider cancelling carbon auctions after policy changes tanked prices. So this just goes to show why we can’t entirely rely on and regional communities can’t rely on the emissions trading scheme (ETS) to take care of reducing emissions, because Government policy is chaotic—at least under this current Government. It seems to be, while on the one hand they say, “We want to entirely rely on the ETS to reduce carbon emissions.”, they also have made a series of policy decisions over the past few years which have mostly driven down the price of carbon, which makes it extremely hard for people to plan long term and why we’ve had an ETS for two decades now and we’re still not really reducing emissions, especially not from transport—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Can you come to the question for the Minister?

Well, the question to the Minister is: will they consider at least putting in a requirement on regional spatial plans to take account of and have regard to any emissions reduction plan which is already legally required; if not, why not?

Committee of the whole House

I move, That debate on this question now close.

💬 Hon Julie Anne Genter: Madam Chair—we haven’t even discussed Schedule 3 yet.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): And I haven’t ruled, so don’t interrupt when I’m already addressing another member. Mr Hamilton, it’s a bit early. We’ve only just started on Schedule 2. Thank you.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a small question also on Schedule 2. I know I said I thought I’d done my questions there, but then I saw a change to clause 4(1)(b), and that is that the word “unanimously” has been struck out, and it’s been replaced with “by consensus”. So this is clause 4, “Process agreement for preparing draft regional spatial plan”. I presume there might be some other changes like this. So my question to the member in the chair is: what does “consensus” mean? I presume in this context it does not mean being unanimous. Being unanimous means that everybody agrees, but some people think consensus means everybody needs to agree; some people say it’s just some sort of majority. If it is just some sort of majority, what sort of majority is it? So if the member could answer my question about consensus, that would be useful.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll respond to the member Julie Anne Genter’s question and the member Rachel Brooking’s question. Rachel Brooking, consensus means what it means in the dictionary.

To the member Julie Anne Genter, the reason that climate adaptation plan is noted is because it’s important, in the context of understanding natural hazard risks, to make sure that when preparing a spatial plan, there is a relevant climate adaptation plan that identifies natural hazard risks should be incorporated into a spatial plan.

In response to the member’s question about including some of the things around emissions reduction plans, well, parts of emissions reduction plans can be considered when developing a spatial plan. As I mentioned before in response to a previous answer, committees can consider information that’s relevant. But in the case of emissions reduction, because of proceeding clauses and decisions taken, spatial planning committees will only be able to consider the positive effects of emissions reductions in their plans.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just had a few more questions on Schedule 2 along similar lines to my previous questions—so just kind of technical questions. Apologies for not being a specialist in this area.

I had a question around clause 4(4). This talks about “The spatial plan committee and local authorities … must comply with the process”. I wanted to know what happens during a period of noncompliance. I just had a question in relation to clause 5 of Schedule 2. That talks about inter-regional content and sets out quite a prescriptive process that needs to be gone through when there is inter-regional collaboration. I wanted to know, is there a limit to the size of the regions that could work together under that inter-regional collaboration? What was the member thinking in terms of the maximum size of the inter-regional collaboration? In fact, what would be the smaller amount? Would it be simply two regional authorities, for example, that could utilise that provision?

I just had a question in relation to clause 6(1)(a)(vii), which talks about the effects of climate change being prepared by a local authority in that region. I wanted to know to what extend would the regional boundaries need to be specifically only applied to that region. So, for example, if there was a weather event that affected, say, most of the North Island, would that be considered an effect of climate change within that region, or would that be outside of the region because it would affect a larger area?

The other question I had was clause 6(1)(a)(ix), which talks about statutory acknowledgment. I just hadn’t come across that term—maybe it’s a specific Resource Management Act term—but I just wondered if the member could expand by what is meant by that, because that seems to be quite a wider term to be considered within that document. Is that a fair enough question?

💬 Hon Rachel Brooking: He’ll be able to answer that question.

Apparently, that’s a very easy question that the member should be able to answer. So apologies for asking simple questions, but it is maybe that other people reading this bill have similar questions.

Then I wanted to ask around clause 7. This looks at incorporation from land use plan in the natural environment plan. It says that it may incorporate any of the following, and it has what I would assume would be quite helpful information, including things like ecosystem health limits in the natural environment. I wondered why those were optional—so why the member has chosen to use the word “may”.

The clause 7(2), there’s a clause here that talks about the consideration of inclusion, say, when there’s a natural disaster. So there could be, for example, a major earthquake or something, and that must be considered. I wondered why that was simply a consideration and not a more mandatory incorporation, given that on occasion these natural events could be quite disruptive.

So a few more questions just on Schedule 2, if I have time. In clause 8, there is a mandatory consultation that has to take place in relation to the spatial plan. I just wanted to know what the kind of ideal best practice consultation under clause 8 would be. I also wanted to know in clause 8(2) when the member talks about “A spatial plan committee may consult anyone else”, who did he have in mind when he listed “anyone” there?

I had some questions also in relation to Māori land and iwi authorities. In clause 9(1)(d), I wanted to know if an iwi authority didn’t agree that the issues they raised had been addressed, if there was any way that they could challenges that; and, if so, how?

Committee of the whole House

I’ll just try and address some of those questions. The member would grant me some grace, because there were many questions. I’ll try and do my best, but if I miss any, happy to come back to them. Firstly, when it comes to joint spatial plans, there’s no limit on how many regions might want to get together and make them, but I think it would be unlikely to be more than two, but there is provision for more if they decided that it was necessary. We’re comfortable we can trust councils around that.

A number of other questions around pre-notification. What does best practice look like?

Well, we can leave that to guidance that, no doubt, officials will put together and provide in due course. There were a number of other questions. Can I just come back to the answer I gave on unanimity?

💬 Ryan Hamilton: Consensus.

Sorry, on consensus. Obviously, there’s a definition in the dictionary, but there’s also a definition in clause 74B(5). It means general agreement or the absence of sustained opposition on any substantial issue.

💬 Hon Rachel Brooking: That’s helpful.

Isn’t it? Thank you.

💬 Hon Rachel Brooking: Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Is this a follow-on question?

💬 Hon Rachel Brooking: No, I was going to move to—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): OK. Lan Pham.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to pick up on Schedule 2, and I’ve got a number of amendments that I’ll just refer directly to and move through those.

So the first is in Schedule 2, proposing to make a number of deletions, including clause 29 and 30 and change some wording in clause 32. The reason why I’m proposing these things is the Planning Bill and the resulting plans, particularly when it comes to regional spatial plans and natural environment plans, these are going to be in a brand-new process where people will not have the opportunity that they have been used to in actually having merit-based appeals where necessary.

The ideal, obviously, in this system, where the Government is going to—the ideal for them is that everyone is just going to be aware that these plans are happening. Unfortunately, we know that that is not going to be the case. There are going to be genuine situations and issues of real merit that it would be helpful, when it comes to the integrity of the new system, when it comes to natural justice principles, to actually extend these appeals, not just to on questions of law but to merit-based appeals.

Now, in theory, this could be phased out, but I think this would be something really critical when the consultation of our communities with iwi and hapū is so limited, this could be one improvement. So I’d really like to hear the Minister’s response to that.

The second one that I want to touch on in Schedule 2 is Amendment Paper 721—and sorry, that previous one was Amendment Paper 729. Sorry, I’ve just lost my schedule numbers—

Committee of the whole House

Madam Chair, if the member would like, I can answer her first question while she recovers her paper trail.

In response to the question around what rights of appeals are there, when spatial plans are developed, they’re essentially strategies, and they won’t contain rules. So the concerns that the member raised in relation to spatial plans are unfounded. But when we get further into the regulatory plan-making, no doubt that question will arise again.

The consultation requirements are set out in the independent hearings panel process. Merits appeals will only be available for decisions made around designations that then come into the spatial plan, and that’s because of their impact on property rights. So if that helps, we can park it there and can back to the member’s further questions.

💬 Lan Pham: Great. Sorry, I just realised my other amendments are in Schedule 3.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Honourable Camilla Belich. Sorry, Rachel Hunter—Rachel Brooking. Sorry.

Committee of the whole House

How many names—ha, ha!

I’m going to move to Schedule 3 then, as well. I had an amendment published, Amendment Paper 709. If we go to Schedule 3, Schedule 3 contains many things, but at the start, it’s preparing and changing plans in Part 1, before we get on to private plan changes and then legal effect of rules and then regulatory relief.

Part 1 is about this preparing proposed plans, which are very important, because, as the member just said, these are the things that can include the rules; these are the oil paintings, rather than the water colours.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Sorry to interrupt. Could you just refer us to the Amendment Paper number?

Amendment Paper—sorry, it’s not a published one. That’s why you can’t find it. Sorry. My apologies. It was lodged at 7.36.07, and it is in relation to Schedule 3, Part 1 is what it starts off with. What it is about is who can submit on a plan, because, as I was just saying, in the scheme of things, these plans are the regulatory documents. They are the oil paintings. And these are where people will need to have appeal rights, and I think the member in the Chair just acknowledged that. So who can get to those appeal rights is very important, and you get to them by being able to submit on a plan.

So what this Amendment Paper is about, it is about who can submit on those. So at clause 5, there’s a pre-notification consultation on proposed plan. At clause 5(2), there is a “However, a local authority is not required to consult a person or a group described in subclause (1).” So I want to delete that.

Then, if we go over to clause 15, which is pages away, it is notifying proposed plan for submissions. At clause 15(1), there is this word “targeted”, so it refers to “targeted submissions under clause 16”, so we should delete that and then delete all of clause 16 as well, which is about notifying proposed plan for targeted submissions.

Then at clause 17, which is who may make submissions on proposed plan notified for submissions, to replace clause 17(1)(a), which at the moment talks about a clarifying person, to replace that with “a resident of the district of the territorial authority for a proposed land use plan prepared by territorial authority or the region of the regional council for a proposed natural environment plan or proposed land use plan prepared by regional council or an organisation whose objects or purpose relate to a matter addressed by the proposed plan, whether or not the organisation is based in the district of the region.” I’ll come back to that in a minute.

Then at clause 20, I have another deletion of the word “qualifying” in clause 20(1)(a) and also the deletion of clause 20(2), which refers to who can make a further submission.

Now, this is because this bill is really restricting who can make submissions and saying that those groups who have a particular interest in something like heritage—I’m wearing a heritage sort of outfit today—that unless they live in the area, then they cannot make a submission. These are groups that can make very thoughtful submissions and very relevant submissions, so that is why I have this Amendment Paper to enable better representation of a wider range of things that are going to be in these plans, which are the sticky part of the system. So can the member tell me if he will accept that Amendment Paper and the widening of who can be involved in these plans?

Committee of the whole House

We’ve been very clear: we can’t have every Tom, Dick, and Harry turning up objecting to stuff around the country. We are clear that—just referring to clause 20(1)—there is a limit, a qualifying criteria, on who can make decisions to people in a region or a district to who that plan provision applies. We have graciously accepted that there are some who have an interest greater than the public generally and they will also qualify.

I come back to the member’s question around when the local authority is required to consult. There is provision for targeted consultation about small plan changes—minor plan changes—and that means that the local authority is not burdened with carrying out an extensive consultation when it can either target the people directly affected for consultation or has sufficient information to make a plan change based on information that’s collected. As the bill states, they’ve consulted the person or group or their representative on the matter within the last 36 months before public notification of the plan, and they’ve advised them that information obtained from that consultation would also be used for that process. Thank you.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s a really good segue from the member’s comments into this Amendment Paper, which I’d like the member’s comments on, because he said we can’t have every Tom, Dick, or Harry getting involved with these planning processes, and I agree. I think there’s absolute merit in some of these changes that are proposed in these bills.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Is the member referring to the same Amendment Paper that Rachel Brooking was referring to, or is there another?

Sorry, my Amendment Paper that I’m referring to is No. 727.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): OK, thank you.

This is on clause 11 of Schedule 3, which is about justification reports. While I agree that, at the individual level there should be a higher bar when it comes to being able to change things and slow things down, and that kind of thing, what I am very conscious of, and I’m sure the Minister and members will appreciate, is that there are genuine—at a district, city, or regional level—local issues and bespoke things that we want to be able to protect. I know that the Minister is very committed to reducing bureaucracy in the system, but the justification report and where it must be put in place seems to me to be overly bureaucratic, because, once you’re at that planning level, councils will only be putting these in place where there is genuine community buy-in, genuine community push for bespoke rules.

My amendment would be that we would remove these more onerous requirements for councils to put in these justification reports when it comes to regional plans. This would allow councils to more readily be able to put in place local rules and provisions that, for example, might defend the character of streets or regions or environmental limits without in fact getting caught up in an unnecessary and time consuming and costly process where they’re having to justify their own local community needs. The Minister responded earlier when we brought this up specifically in terms of geological features like cast in Waitomo and what not, and he was very appreciative of those areas. This is simply about putting in place those requirements, being less onerous and the local councils being able to drive what makes sense for their local area. Would the Minister consider that?

Committee of the whole House

Look, the member and I could talk about geology all day, no doubt, our appreciation of cast formations, as no doubt we could with the Chair; however, the reason the justification report process is onerous is intentional. In the new system, we intend there be far fewer bespoke provisions. Currently, we have 76 councils, 14 regions—last count—and over 1,100 bespoke zones around the country: urban and rural and commercial and residential. In the new system, we’re going to shift to standardised zones. Councils will be able to pick from far fewer zones and apply them in a standardised way for a standardised process to their plans, of which we intend there be far fewer.

Having an onerous justification process should they seek to depart from standardised zones is part of the tension of the new system. It is intentional, and while the member might wish to stick with 1,100 bespoke zones, the submissions we’ve received through the select committee process and the pleading from our constituents is that we relieve them of the burden of having to work their way through all of these different zones when they get around the country building things. So we won’t be accepting any further amendments.

Committee of the whole House

I’m going to move on to Part 2 of Schedule 3, noting of course that this Part 3 debate that we’re in now includes Schedules 2, 3, 4, and 5.

I’ve got two questions. One is a general conceptual question about Part 2 of Schedule 3, “Change requests and private plan changes”. My question to the member in the chair, Simon Court, is: why is there a need for private plan changes in the system if, as the member’s been saying over and over again, the system is set up to be so enabling and so permissive? Why does there even need to be a private plan change process? Noting that private plan changes cost councils, which this Government wants to reduce the spending of, an awful lot of money. Why is this mechanism needed? That is the first question.

My second question is just in relation to a change at clause 53 of Part 2 of Schedule 3, and then it comes across at clause 56 as well. This is that a request for that private plan change that I’ve just been discussing, rather than it going to the Environment Court—Environment Court is struck out and it now goes to the planning tribunal for review. That’s seen in clause 53 and over the page, and I’m wondering why the decision is going from the Environment Court to the planning tribunal for a review of a private plan change. I don’t remember where in the world the planning tribunal sits in this legislation, but given that the planning tribunal’s general approach—and it’s one that we haven’t opposed—has been for simpler issues, and plans generally tend to be complicated, I would have thought that the Environment Court was the more appropriate forum for hearing a review. If the member could explain why that change has been made, that would be useful.

💬 Hon Julie Anne Genter: Madam Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The Hon Julie Anne Genter. I’m sorry, I thought the member in the chair was going to stand, but you can ask your question first.

Committee of the whole House

I can see that the member is getting information from officials, but I did want to make sure I didn’t miss out on the opportunity to speak to my amendments to Schedule 3.

One is about the issue of—and we heard a lot about this at the select committee. In clause 24(2) of Schedule 3, it says, “The panel may choose not to hold a hearing …”—this is about independent hearings panels and their ability to not hold a hearing even if submitters request to be heard. I’d say overwhelmingly people thought that was not a good idea. We understand there might be some exceptional circumstances where they’re making very small changes, but, in the vast majority of changes, we think the panel should be holding hearings if submitters want to be heard in person. That’s my amendment—it’s a proposed amendment and it’s a tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 709.

Then there’s another one on Schedule 3, clause 26, about the Minister’s involvement in independent hearings panels. We’re proposing to remove clause 26(2). That’s on page 316 of Amendment Paper 709. The reason for this is that broadly there was concern about ministerial overreach in this whole approach, of it really taking away power from the regions, from local communities, and putting it very firmly in the control of the Minister of the day. Given the Minister is already responsible for setting national instruments and other system matters, we don’t believe that there should be direct ministerial appointments to independent hearing panels or to regional spatial planning committees. This is really important. The Minister already has a ton of power and ability to direct what’s happening through national directions. Those are two tabled amendments to Part 1 of Schedule 3, and I’m wondering if the member in the chair, Simon Court, can comment on both of these issues.

Committee of the whole House

If I could just respond to a couple of questions. Firstly, why are private plan changes needed? Because a landowner might be ready to move to a new land use before council is ready to carry out a wider plan change. That’s why they need it. It’s simply a carry-over from the Resource Management Act. If we were not to provide for them in the new system, that would reduce the flexibility and the agileness and the ability of landowners to respond to the need for different land uses. The question around the planning tribunal: it’s an administrative decision on a process matter. It’s not a substantive decision.

I just want to come to Julie Anne Genter’s questions around a hearings panel and the Minister’s power to directly appoint Government officials on to a hearings panel. It’s important, if the Minister chooses specific matters in a region—say, Government might be a significant investor in transport infrastructure, for example, or have a significant interest in particular matters in the spatial plan process—there is a representative from the Minister in that process.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’m going to take a call from Rachel Brooking and just take some—you’ve moved on to Part 2 now? I’m just making sure that everybody’s happy that we’re now on Part 2. It just helps the process if we know the flow.

💬 Hon Rachel Brooking: Yes. Well, I was going to move even further. I didn’t have anything on Part 3—yes, going to Part 4.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Can I just ask Arena Williams which part you are on.

💬 Arena Williams: Part 2, but I’m happy to keep moving.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): OK. We’ll keep moving, then, if you’re happy to keep moving. We’ll take a call from Rachel Brooking.

Committee of the whole House

OK. Thank you. Mine is actually quite a simple call.

💬 Catherine Wedd: Subpart.

No, it’s Part 4 of Schedule 3, so it’s not the subparts. It’s different wording in the schedules, but we’re still on Schedule 3, and we still have Schedules 4 and 5 to go.

It’s actually quite a brief comment from me. I know other members will have more to say about Part 4, but I just want the member to—well, one, remember my Amendment Paper 667, which deletes this part. Also, if you look through these provisions in Part 4 of Schedule 3, it creates a complicated web of frameworks and systems and process. I just want to ask the member a very simple question. Does he think this will lead to a lot of work? It’s that simple.

Committee of the whole House

We canvassed regulatory relief extensively. The committee can refer to my previous answers on this matter. There will be work required. We’re introducing a new system. It’s very clear what the intention is that, when councils seek to impose controls on private property to protect public values, there needs to be a conversation with the property owner about whether they will accept those controls voluntarily or whether council needs to offer some form of relief, which could be rates relief, it could be additional development rights on another part of the property, or it could be cash. In the absence of that tension, councils can apply—as they have done under the Resource Management Act—overlays that restrict the use of property without any tension or facing any costs of their own. That ends when this legislation passes.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. Here we are at the regulatory relief part, and it does not matter if the member in the chair, Simon Court, says he has addressed these questions, because this is one of the most significant parts of the most significant reforms that this Government will make in this term, so it is right that we discuss how each part of it will work when this might be referred to as the “kill your darlings” part of the bill.

Everything that we think of as a public good within the resource management system, whether it is significant natural areas, whether it is the viewshafts that members of Parliament around the country are campaigning to defend, whether it is areas significant to Māori or indigenous biodiversity or heritage—those are the things which are affected by this part. They are still operative in this law. It is still appropriate that some of these things are given effect, even in the most property rights - specific version of the world, because otherwise you would get weird and wacky outcomes. The member in the chair knows that, and so there is going to be a significant amount of work that needs to be done to make these parts operative.

My question, first, is around the Māori rights and interests that we’ve been having a discussion about, about the spinning top, where the weight is at the top for a Minister to set directions and that those are meant to be preserved in the system. The simple question at this point for the member in the chair is: given they have a sort of special place in the hierarchy of decision making, even though they’re not what we would have done, the Minister has arrived at a sort of compromised position where it’s quite unclear in the proposed framework, if they are given effect to at the top level, how then the framework is meant to apply to them. We have gone through the select committee process, we have gone through public consultation on this, and it is still very unclear, given the Minister’s answers earlier in the day and last night, how, say, sites of significance and wāhi tapu are meant to be protected at the top level of the system and the regulatory relief is meant to apply to them.

Also, given the member in the chair’s public comments around these things which suggest to the public that they are almost completely struck out, how is it that we are here now where we’re still considering an amended version which has been amended at the last minute and nobody understands how a wāhi tapu or how an urupā down at Mission Bay on the shores of Kohimārama is going to be given effect to in the new system? It is a real world problem, to the member in the chair, and I want him to take us through how the regulatory relief provisions are meant to apply in a situation like that.

Committee of the whole House

Madam Chair, thank you. The member asked a number of questions. If we go back to the premise of the policy in the legislation, if a community agrees that it’s important to protect a public value—for example, a site of significance to Māori, which I understand she was referring to, and that’s on private property—that is available in the system to protect. Nothing changes about that, except that if the property owner does not accept that control voluntarily, the property owner may be, after an evaluation, entitled to regulatory relief if there are impacts on their ability to use their property. That’s clear in the legislation. That’s our intent, and I hope the member understands that.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I would like to run through a super practical example that we’re aware of, just to understand and get clarity from the member on the practical implementation. Earlier in the discussion, he clarified that the 6,000 scheduled trees in Tāmaki-makau-rau Auckland will not be scheduled any more but that about a third of them that have a heritage value, which is why they’re designated as of exceptional value and are scheduled, will have a status recognised in the legislation. My first question is about the other two-thirds that are now no longer protected under the tree schedule, so around 4,000 trees there or thereabouts in Tāmaki-makau-rau Auckland.

One of the ways that protection of environmental assets, like trees, works is that, because the starting point is a prohibition on you cutting down a 300-year-old Pōhutukawa tree on your land that is scheduled, the protection forces the conversation. So then, the landowners goes, “I want to build an apartment block here where that tree is. Can I get the schedule lifted?” The conversation happens and, under general tree protection, 90 percent of applications for removal of trees succeeded. So, usually, for reasonable use, the protection will be lifted. What happens when you don’t have protection is that the tree has no status, so, therefore, as of the passing of this legislation—and this is one of the clarifications I’m seeking—the 300-year-old pōhutukawa tree that was previously scheduled, is that now without any protection? That’s the first question.

The second question is: if the council of Auckland decides that they want to develop a plan to protect those 4,000 trees, and they decide they will apply regulatory relief to protection of those trees, and the landowner just cuts down the tree anyway, what is the recourse of the council to punish the landowner for doing that? I’m presuming there’s no recourse, because the regulatory relief is a privilege of the landowner. That’s the second question.

The third question is: if the council get wind of the fact that the tree is going to be cut down—well, the landowner wants to cut the tree down, which is usually—the way that that happens in practice, Mr Court, as you’ve alluded to, Parliamentary Under-Secretary— when someone goes to cut a tree down, Mana Rākau get wind of it through an arborist who’s given them a heads-up, and they go and sit in the tree until such time as a conversation can happen. Now, should the council get wind of the fact that a formerly protected tree—300 years old, a pōhutukawa tree—the landowner wants to cut it down, and the council contact that landowner and say, “You’re entitled to regulatory relief for the protection of this tree, for not cutting it down.”, who decides how much regulatory relief? Like, what is the amount of cash that that landowner will be offered? Let’s remember we’re talking about 4,000 exceptionally valuable trees that are currently on the schedule in Auckland. How much is one of those trees worth, to be protected. That’s my third question.

My fourth question is: when the landowner is offered those moneys, if the landowner says “It’s not worth it, whether you’re offering me 300 bucks or 3,000 bucks or $10,000 to protect that tree, I still don’t want to protect it, I don’t want the regulatory relief; I want the tree gone because I’m going to build a granny flat.”—or whatever it is they’re going to do—what happens then? The landowner, presumably, has a right to refuse the regulatory relief and just proceed with removing the tree. That’s my fourth question.

Committee of the whole House

Firstly, the member Steve Abel is correct to note that trees that have a heritage status will still be eligible for protection in the new system and, when they are on private property, the private property owner may be eligible for regulatory relief, but that’s entirely dependent on whether the matters that are protected in the form of protection has an impact on the way they use their property.

I’m not going to speculate on the hypothetical situation that the member proposed, but I was very interested, in listening to the member’s assertion, that 90 percent of applications to remove tree protection proceed. Isn’t that the point of this legislation? Instead of using highlighters to protect things that turn out didn’t need protection, we’re actually going to have a system where councils that seek to protect these things are forced to justify it and confront the cost of that protection. If it turns out that 90 percent of the things they sought to protect didn’t need to be protected, then I think this Government’s on the right track and the regulatory relief provisions will fulfill our intention to actually provide some tension and give property owners a level playing field when it comes to having councils threaten them with a highlighter.

The member’s question around “How will regulatory relief be calculated?”—there are a number of criteria to be set out in regulations and subsequent standards.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I had called Lan Pham when Simon Court stood up, so I’m happy to take a call from Lan—is this a supplementary?

💬 Steve Abel: Mine’s a supplementary, yeah.

💬 Lan Pham: It’s OK. If he wants to reply, that’s fine.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yeah, you looked a bit hesitant. OK we’ll have a quick supplementary.

Committee of the whole House

There’s a very key question in my ranking questions that you didn’t answer. Just to clarify a point that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary made, I’m talking about not the heritage ones, but the other two-thirds that do not have heritage status—the 4,000 trees that are not protected for their heritage value but for their amenity or biological value. That would include the 300-year-old pōhutukawa tree. It’s not protected for heritage value. I’m talking about the ones that don’t have a status under this regime, if the council decided to apply that status.

Just to clarify, also, because you mentioned it: the 90 percent protection was because so few people applied to remove trees, except where they really wanted to, that, in most instances, it was a reasonable application, but, for the most part, the fact that there is blanket tree protection meant that most people regarded their trees as protected so didn’t seek to have them cut down. That’s the way that regime worked.

The question that wasn’t answered was: if the landowner chooses to not accept the cash money offered, they then are well within their rights to proceed with cutting down their tree. Is that correct?

Committee of the whole House

In response to the member Steve Abel’s question, if the regulatory relief that’s proposed by local government is not accepted, then the property owner has the ability to appeal to the Planning Tribunal seeking determination.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. I really appreciate the member Simon Court addressing these questions, because they are not theoretical; they are going to be the implementation challenges of these very bills. I think the fact that we’ve heard so overwhelmingly from submitters across the board—and I’m not going to relitigate how comprehensive that’s been—that’s why it’s so important to hear what is actually intended by these. So thank you to the Minister.

I’m just going to get specifically to questions. They really relate across—so this is Schedule 3, it’s really clause 65 and particularly 66A, which is about the councils’ duty to prepare these relief frameworks in their proposed plans and also the considerations that they have to undertake as part of that.

Now, the member has talked about the cost of these things. I think, what’s been coming up very clearly from submitters when questioning the regulatory relief is: why isn’t the Crown, if they’re compelling councils to protect certain things—so, like outstanding natural landscapes or like significant natural areas—why is it the councils that are having to pay the regulatory to landowners? As we’ve heard, time and time again, from the councils themselves, they are saying that this extremely demanding bureaucratic, complex exercise of the assessment on a property-by-property basis of the regulatory relief before they even get to the point where they can put in these rules, they’re saying that is going to have a chilling effect on them even being able to protect the things that they’re apparently compelled to protect.

So is the Crown considering meeting those costs at all, and what will happen in the situations, which, again, we know are likely to occur, because the councils have said this is what is going to happen in our local area if you put these regulatory relief provisions in—what happens when they cannot afford to pay the regulatory relief to the landowners, even though they will be legally obliged, particularly when it comes to protecting sites of significance for Māori? So how does that work? The Government has been really insistent that particularly the sites of significance for Māori will not be eroded under these Acts, and yet the councils are saying, “We will not be able to put this in place.” What is the member’s response to that?

When it comes to the cost, the one aspect of evidence that the select committee had in the development of these bills was an assessment from MartinJenkins, which put the cost of regulatory relief broadly in the scope of $2 billion. But they said, you know, “We really don’t know.” When is the point at which the Government is going to work with councils to help them understand what the implementation cost of this regulatory relief provision will actually be?

We’re really in the dark right now, and I think of all of those councils who are hanging on this and looking at the actual implementation, when they’ll be coming to their annual plans and long-term plans. What can the member provide to them to give them some comfort that there is going to be central government support—or not—to actually deal with this and the implications?

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the member for that question. It’s a legitimate question. If the Crown seeks to impose rules and obligations, then should the Crown pay? But, on balance, it’s actually councils who develop plans that will propose rules and overlays that impact people’s properties for the specified or qualifying matters. They need to make determinations about how to implement the national standards that will provide direction methodologies about how to develop a regulatory framework and how to assess the impacts on people’s properties. They will have to be weighing community values, because if there are places that communities value very highly, then it should be easy to make the case to their communities as to why those communities should be prepared to pay for the reduction in private property owners’ ability to use their property.

Conversely, if communities say, “Hey, you know what? We think the council’s gone way overboard in the things they seek to protect.” If they want to protect the pin oak on my constituent’s property in Upper Hutt, which is leaning over his house and he’s been told it’s going to cost tens of thousands of dollars to get rid of, maybe the community will decide that they don’t want to pay for that. So there needs to be some tension in the system, and the best place to have that tension is at the local level.

We understand and accept a genuine concern about how the cost of relief is covered, and that is why it’s envisaged, and provided for in legislation, that relief doesn’t just need to be in cash; it can be in kind. It can be providing additional development rights on an impacted property owner’s property or on another property that they own. It can be providing assistance with consents, for example, that may be needed. There are a number of ways that councils can meet their obligations to provide relief where that is deemed necessary.

So while we absolutely accept the genuine concern that we’ve heard from local government and others about the costs, there are clear pathways for councils to make transparent decisions, and there are lots of options for them to choose from in how to offer relief.

💬 Hon Members: Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Arena Williams has been waiting for a call, but I’m going to make it very specific. We’re at the pointy end of this part now. Lan Pham, was yours a supp?

💬 Lan Pham: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): OK, I’ll take that continuation from Lan Pham, and then I’ll come to Arena Williams. We’re just keeping it very specific now.

💬 Lan Pham: Very specific.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Thank you.

Committee of the whole House

Look, thank you to the member for his responses. I’m particularly interested—because he’s saying cost is a very real issue—about what the proportion is, and what the member’s understanding is, of existing biodiversity protections, in particular, when it comes to the protections in place—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Is this in scope? Could you please point to the scope—which clause—

The scope is directly about considerations for developing relief of the framework in 66A. The scope is biodiversity protections that are in place now that will no longer be when these bills come into place. What proportion of those—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’ve just been told—actually, biodiversity is under the Natural Environment Bill, when we get to it. Is that what—

💬 Simon Court: Correct.

No, sorry, Madam Chair. Thank you for clarifying this. We were told that the regulatory relief provisions would be open for both this bill and the next bill, and my concern, and why I’m raising a lot of these issues here, is that when we get to the Natural Environment Bill, the response will be, “We’ve already covered the regulatory relief provisions in the Planning Bill.” If that’s not the case, I’m happy to hold off on these, but if we could get clarity, that would be great.

💬 Simon Court: If I may?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yes. Simon Court.

Committee of the whole House

I’ll do the member a deal: cover it off here, and we’ll skip over it in the Natural Environment Bill (NEB).

💬 Lan Pham: So, sorry, what direction does that mean, about doing a deal?

If the member has a question about indigenous biodiversity and regulatory relief provisions, and if the member thinks that that’s going to resolve all the questions that she might have had about it that might crop up under the NEB, we can deal with it here; otherwise, if the member wishes to raise regulatory relief under the Natural Environment Bill, in relation to indigenous biodiversity, feel free to raise it.

💬 Lan Pham: OK, I’m happy to raise it more fulsomely—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): It sounds like a sensible question. We’ll leave that for the NEB.

💬 Lan Pham: Thank you; I’ve got clarity.

💬 Hon Members: Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’d already indicated that I would take a call from Arena Williams.

Committee of the whole House

I will roll up both of my questions in one.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Thank you.

My first question is about clause 71; it’s on page 339. To the member in the chair, I think he is one of the most vociferously critical members of cultural impact statements, and yet we have, basically, created cultural impact statements for capitalists here. So I want him to tell us how his new clause 71(2)(a)—what part in the legislative schema sets out what is included in those assessments? The assessments, that are cultural impact assessments, which are now no longer part of the system, did have a regulatory schema which set out what was meant to be in them, but these don’t. Effectively, they assess the same thing.

My colleague Lan Pham points out that the MartinJenkins report found a possible cost of $2 billion for this kind of relief. What’s being assessed there is not only the value of the public good of these arrangements, which are in place already, but also the potential costs to landowners. Both are the same sorts of assessment, so is he going to rely on the old cultural impact assessments to set out what is meant to be included in these assessments, or is he going to create, in another set of regulations which are not mentioned here, the kinds of things which will be included in those assessments? Are they intended to be desktop reviews, or are these intended to be things which council commissions from experts, who will probably be the same experts as those undertaking the cultural impact assessments?

I also wanted to ask him this in relation to clause 71(3) of Schedule 3. Now that he’s made that a prescriptive approach and it’s not mandatory considerations, it’s just mandatory inclusions, my first question is this: in clause 71(3)(a) in his change, where he deletes “consider” and makes “treat” the operative verb, why is it now challengeable by judicial review—because that is the effect of his change. He has created a system where, if decision makers do not treat the impacts in a similar way, either their decisions are open to review under his clause 76, or they are open to review by the High Court. Firstly, which one is it?

Secondly, if he’s created this in the system, he will know that that will add on costs to councils because of the significant risk of review. That was something which cultural impact assessments were never open to, and yet they did proliferate paperwork in a way that he himself would be displeased with. So I want to understand just how much bureaucracy is in the system because of that seemingly meaningless change at paragraph (a).

I also want to ask him, then, at clause 71(4)(a), when these notices go out to the community, he’s made the case sound as if it will be very easy to notify the public why they are being considered for regulatory relief, but he knows that in many communities, this will cause an outraged and inflamed debate. It is one that many communities have had to go through with something like the debates on Māori wards, which, frankly, have been divisive in those communities in a way which is completely unacceptable for the use of public power, and yet this is embedding in the public system these kinds of debates, which make people mistrust their neighbours and dissolve some of those relationships which make our towns and our regions work well.

This is literally a notice which will say, “We are taking away something important to you, and the winner is the local hapū.” That is a really disappointing part of this legislation, and the Ministers that have made these decisions know exactly what those notices will have as their effect.

It punishes small councils, as Lan Pham has pointed out, but it also punishes the biggest councils, who will either need to send out lots and lots of these notices, or they will simply not be able to do that at all. We have the Auckland Council which, for instance, is making transport decisions at the rate of 160 every week, and—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Question?

—I’m told this as the chair of the Regulations Review Committee. How will it make those decisions?

Now, to clause 76, “Review of decisions granting regulatory relief”. When the “Review of decisions granting regulatory relief” panel is engaged, what is the scope of its review? Is it just the scope that’s within his provisions at clause 71, or is it the full scope of the decision-making spinning tops that we’ve been discussing? Are they able to consider the goals back in clause 10?

Committee of the whole House

Let’s be clear: it’s the plan-making process where councils identify the matters that they seek to protect, whether they’re sites of significance to Māori and heritage, or outstanding natural features in landscapes, for example. In clause 71 of Schedule 3, which the member Arena Williams began her question by referring to, it’s very specific that a local authority must “carry out a relief assessment [to identify] land in respect of which any specified rule or rules have a significant adverse impact;” in assessing the impacts on a site-specific level, and if the member cares to read clause 71, all of the answers to her questions will be provided.

Remember, this is an assessment. Clause 71 is a duty to implement relief, and it sets out how they carry out a relief assessment. It also refers to clause 66(2), which says what the local authority must consider: “the extent to which [a] rule restricts or removes development potential; … imposes obligations for the protection, restoration, or non-use of land; … creates compliance costs or regulatory constraints that affect the reasonable use of land; … affects land value; and [prescribes] criteria that apply when assessing the impact of 2 or more specified rules on the same land;”—heaven forbid—“and any other matters required by national instruments or regulations.”

It’s all there. It’s in black and white, and it will become black-letter law when this legislation is passed.

Committee of the whole House

I move, That debate on this question now close.

A party vote was called for on the question, That debate on this question now close.

Ayes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Minister’s tabled amendments to Amendment Paper 709 amending clause 80 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments to the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Amendments to the amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 3 set out on Amendment Paper 709 as amended be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Amendments as amended agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking’s amendment to clause 63C set out on Amendment Paper 740 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, Steve Abel’s three tabled amendments to Part 3 relating to protection of urban trees and urban tree canopy lend themselves to being grouped. I will put a single question on them, unless members indicate that they wish to vote differently on a specific amendment.

The question is that Steve Abel’s tabled amendments to clause 63C and inserting clause 67B(2)(d) and (e), and 81(1)(aa), be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, Steve Abel’s two tabled amendments to Part 3 relating to the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Act 2008 lend themselves to being grouped. I will put a single question on them unless members indicate that they wish to vote differently on a specific amendment.

The question is that Steve Abel’s tabled amendments to clause 63C and inserting clause 81(3) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Lan Pham’s amendment to clause 67B set out on Amendment Paper 678 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Lan Pham’s amendment to clause 67B set out on Amendment Paper 715 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Lan Pham’s amendment to clause 67B set out on Amendment Paper 716 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking’s amendment to clause 67B set out on Amendment Paper 692 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I know there’s excitement building in the Chamber, but we need quiet during voting, please. The question is that Steve Abel’s amendment to clause 67B set out on Amendment Paper 718 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, in accordance with the Business Committee determination that valedictories will begin at 5.20 p.m., voting will pause here. The committee is suspended and will resume at 7 p.m. Now, we’ll just wait for Mr Speaker.

House resumed.