Planning Bill

I move, That the Planning Bill be now read a third time.

I would like to begin by thanking those who’ve worked very hard on both the Planning Bill and the Natural Environment Bill: the expert advisory group led by Janette Campbell; the Environment Committee, led very ably by Catherine Wedd; my Parliamentary Under-Secretary Simon Court, who’s done an excellent job on a very important piece of legislation; and the officials across the Public Service, but particularly those at the former Ministry for the Environment, the now Ministry of Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport led by Nadeine Dommisse.

Today is a good day, and it’s the culmination of years of hard work to replace the Resource Management Act (RMA) once and for all. For 30 years, the RMA has held New Zealand back from its full potential. Today, we are scrapping it, breaking free from a system that has stifled opportunity and economic growth for too long. We are restoring the freedom for New Zealanders to shape their own futures by using property as they choose—a once-in-a-generation shift towards growth, choice, and prosperity.

At the heart of these reforms is the enjoyment of the use of your own land. No Western democracy has ever succeeded without adhering to the ideal that liberty cannot occur without the protection of property. Members opposite have raised concerns repeatedly about these reforms enhancing private property rights. They’ve scaremongered and painted property rights as some evil right-wing plan. It’s a weird and pernicious view. Secure property is the shield that protects citizens from arbitrary power. It’s what stops politicians eroding the values and freedoms we count on every day. If property rights fall; soon follows speech, movement, religion, and on it goes. Property rights affirm that individuals are not subjects of the State but, instead, are stewards of their own future. On this side of the House, we’re proud to be restoring the ability for New Zealanders to have more freedom to do what they want with their own property.

The truth is some people have got used to telling people what to do with their own land. They like being able to limit the use of land because they think they know better how to use it. On this side of the House, we know that the right to enjoy and use land and the confidence this certainty creates fuels innovation, investment, and progress. It creates the foundation for what we have come to call the Kiwi Dream—the ability to use our own little slice of paradise, and the freedom to earn our wares and raise our family on it. For too long, the RMA lost sight of this basic preset, and this simple ideal is what underpins these reforms. The new planning system enshrines the enjoyment of property rights in the purpose and goals of the Act itself by providing for the enjoyment of land.

For New Zealanders, here is what our new system looks like for them: fewer consents and fewer permits; fewer plans developed faster; long-term certainty to developers, council, and the Government; more consistency through standardisation; and a more proportionate system; and relief for impositions on property. In short, we are fundamentally changing most of what has failed in the RMA and what the previous Government’s reforms failed to deliver.

Now, sir, the planning system does generate litigation, and it will inevitably continue to do so. I want to take this opportunity to be absolutely clear on what Parliament’s intent is when passing these bills into law. For future courts reading the Hansard, take note. First and most importantly, the goals: they highlight a critical and fundamental change from the RMA. The goals tightly define the scope of what the system is trying to achieve. All tools in the system serve goals through what we’ve called the funnel. They are the foundation for the planning system. The goals are given effect through the funnel with national policy direction, and national standards and plans all working together to seek to achieve them. They are not a choose-your-own-adventure path for councils like the RMA was.

Unlike the RMA, effects management is not part of the purpose or the goals; they are not an end unto themselves. Effects management is a means of understanding how an activity can be managed to achieve a goal via the funnel. The old ways of effects management is out; the new goals-focused world is in. For example, when consenting a wind farm, the focus should be on the outcomes that development delivers rather than minimising effects so they are invisible to the naked eye. The Planning Bill deliberately excludes a range of effects from the system that, frankly, should never have been in the system in the first place. Getting these out is critical to driving the culture change we need, but by no means does excluding things change the focus of the bills from the goals. This is the same for both the Planning Bill and the Natural Environment Bill.

In relation to national instruments, I want to make it clear that they are a tool for providing detailed direction on how Parliament’s framework is implemented in practice. On national policy direction, its primary purpose is to particularise all goals under the Acts by providing greater specificity of the goals themselves and how these goals are to be achieved, and providing direction on resolving conflicts between goals where they’re identified within the Act and across the Acts. National standards implement the national policy direction (NPD) by providing detailed implementation tools such as rules, methodologies, and standardised provisions.

Resolving conflicts is also a core NPD function and a critical improvement upon the RMA. As part of the NPD development, the Minister needs to look at the goals as particularised, or proposed to be particularised, and identify any apparent conflicts and how to resolve them. Not all goals need to be achieved everywhere or at all times, and not all conflicts need to be resolved nationally. As part of the development of the NPD, Ministers are required to first try to achieve compatibility between goals, where possible, before preferring one outcome over another. The bills also require that Ministers should seek compatibility within an Act before moving to conflicts across Acts. This is the same for the Planning Bill and the Natural Environment Bill.

I was particularly proud to see the new independent statutory officer added into the bill to support competitive urban land markets. This officer’s role is to develop a framework for assessing urban land market competitiveness and make determinations about competitive urban land markets. Councils will be required to take action to address non-competitiveness. Clear parameters for assessing competitiveness will be established so that the expectations on councils are clear, including on how they will need to respond to the officer. These will be set out in national standards and regulations.

On regulatory relief, I do want to highlight a few things. Councils have a duty to assess the impact of specified rules—for example, historical heritage—when making a plan and providing relief according to the council’s finalised relief framework, only where the impact is significant. Separate to the regulatory relief process, councils may provide and landowners may accept voluntary incentives, noting that a landowner cannot be eligible for relief under a framework in respect of the same land for which they have received a voluntary incentive. Otherwise, eligible landowners may decline to receive relief or if a landowner requests and endorses a specified rule being applied to their land through the submissions process, then they are not eligible for relief.

Regulatory relief is not compensation. Instead, the regulatory relief provisions in the bill ensure there is consideration and recognition of the impact of specified rules on landowners, while still providing some flexibility to councils about how relief is provided. Relief also does not need to fully address the impact of a specified rule.

Finally, on the transition, we have introduced further measures to support a smooth transition for farmers and growers. The bill defers some farm environment plan and consent requirements under the Waikato Regional Plan Change 1 and it has quantified nitrogen reductions under Horizons Regional Council’s Plan Change 2 until 31 December 2032. Further amendments to sections 70 and 107 of the RMA will also enable rules and consents to authorise discharges where specified effects occur, provided those effects are reduced over time.

A transitional consenting system means that some matters are out of scope under the RMA to ensure some benefits of the reforms are felt sooner and last until the transition period ends. The bills apply this directly to consenting decisions, make it easier to remove out-of-scope matters from district plans or to get deemed permitted activities, and make clearer exactly what matters are out of scope for district land uses during the transition. These are a subset of the effects out of scope in the Planning Bill. This is intentional to ensure that they are easier to implement within existing RMA plans.

Can I finish by saying that these are good reforms. They are a once-in-a-generation reform effort to set New Zealand up for success in the 2030s. They will ensure that it is easier to build things and grow things in this country and to make a good living for ourselves and our kids. For too long, it has been too hard to consent a wind farm, too hard to be a farmer, too hard to be a grower, too hard to build houses, too hard to build infrastructure, too hard to develop an aquaculture development, too hard to be a farmer, and too hard to be a grower. So many New Zealanders, probably a generation—a lot of them have just given up because it’s too hard.

We want to be a First World country. If we want the prosperity that New Zealanders deserve, then we need to change our planning system. That’s what this bill does, and I’m proud to commend it to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for this opportunity to talk on another version of a Resource Management Act repeal bill, and this is this Government’s go. We are here, in the penultimate sitting day—the last full day when a bill can be before the House—and we’re at the third reading of this bill. That is a great shame because, of course, this Government had the option of looking at the thorough and well-researched work that Labour did when we were in Government and they could have amended it to take it further away from Labour and closer to National. But, instead, they have gone in very much the opposite direction. They have gone to ACT, and that is a real shame when the Minister responsible for RMA Reform has said time and time again that he is interested in having bipartisan support. But going to ACT is not the way to get bipartisan support with Labour. That’s quite basic politics, and I thought he would have known that.

However, unlike that egotistical and vain party, Labour in Government will be much more grown up and will make amendments to this legislation, and so let me talk about some of those amendments, because we will not be doing the flip-flopping that that Government has done. I’ve heard a lot of political commentators talk about “Oh, there’s so much flip-flopping. It’s so much flip-flopping.”—no, it is that lot that does the flip-flopping. It has not happened like this before.

We have this insertion of regulatory relief, and we know that that is going to cause either chaos, great expense, and a lot of time being taken to make up plans to work out how to deal with regulatory relief—and that will cost ratepayers more. We’ve just heard the Minister talk about back-pocket issues, and this is a back-pocket issue. It will cost ratepayers more. The alternative is that the councils will not do that and, instead, they will give up on environmental protections.

The Minister talked about growing and building things, and that means more pollution. That means a reduction in our protections for biodiversity, and so our threatened native plants and animals, the ones that we hear coalition Ministers say “Goodbye Freddie.” about—well, this is another way to get rid of that habitat. That is what this bill is doing, and that is shameful. Labour will repeal those regulatory relief provisions, easy-peasy: Amendment Paper 667 on this bill and Amendment Paper 666 on the other bill.

Now, I mean, it’s interesting, isn’t it? This is the bill we’re speaking about at the moment. For anybody reading this in the Hansard, it has to be combined with a rubber band because it is so big, and then it is repeated again in another bill, plus there is the Fast-track Approvals Act as well. They are all part of the same scheme, and so nothing is simplified in this.

Then we have a meaningless yet still horrific purpose statement and goals that could be in conflict with each other, and we’ve heard the Minister there, saying, “Oh, future courts, listen to me. Let me tell you how to interpret this. Let’s have it on the Hansard. Let me tell you about my funnel.” Well, it’s very interesting that you’ve got a funnel, Minister, but what the funnel does is say that where there is a dispute in those goals and where there needs to be a hierarchy, who gets to choose, and it’s that one person. It’s the Minister, and that is no way to have a major, important regulatory system for this country. It’s one person—the Minister—who gets to decide. It won’t work.

We heard time and time again from a range of professionals and the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, when giving the Environment Committee advice, that this just simply won’t work. Even if you agree with their politics—which I don’t—it still won’t work, and so this will lead to a big, muddy mess. It will not improve efficiencies and it will not improve the cost burden on the public. It might be a bit better for the odd individual who wants to build something, but not for the public, who will have to pay for the council fees when things are taken to court and when there are judicial reviews about all of these decisions that the Minister is making, and that is a problem.

We also have this shift to everything—if you own the land, you can do whatever you like on it. That is not something that has historically been around in New Zealand’s laws. What the Minister was saying about the importance of private property rights being somehow the most important thing that Government can ever do—that is not consistent with New Zealand’s approach at all. We have always had constraints on what you can do with a piece of land that you might own, so this is new. This is a paradigm shift in that respect, and it should not be taken lightly.

What it also means is that if you can do whatever you like on your land and your neighbour is not allowed to complain about it, and your neighbour is not allowed to be involved in any planning about what can happen on your land, we are going to resort to the common law and torts—torts of nuisance. That is very inefficient and expensive, so, again, this is just going to end up costing people more. It could be fixed, and I put up a number of amendments—many of them are published, some of them are tabled—to try and do that fixing. Some of that fixing is based on submissions that were given and advice that was given to the select committee as well.

The Minister says that this is a once in a generation attempt to fix the Resource Management Act (RMA)—well, of course, anybody who was in the House in the 53rd Parliament would have known that there was a once in a generation attempt to repeal the RMA, which has happened.

💬 Hon Chris Bishop: Didn’t fix it. It was worse.

Well, it was absolutely fixed, and if the Minister thinks that this is a fix, then he is sadly mistaken and he should have listened to the Labour Party throughout the process, rather than just looking to ACT—looking to Simon Court time and time again.

💬 Hon Chris Bishop: No, we don’t listen to failed environmental lawyers.

This is going to be great for lawyers. I couldn’t quite hear what the Minister said, but this is all going to be great for lawyers, and the whole point of Labour’s reforms was to be bad for lawyers—apologies to my ex-colleagues.

But we absolutely need to have a simplified process. We had a Spatial Planning Act; spatial plans are very important and there needs to be very good community engagement in those plans. We can also have more standardisation and we absolutely need to decrease the number of plans. We had done that in our legislation. This Government, had they chosen to, could have passed a law—probably two years ago—that did some amendments to make it more right-wing, but they did not do that. Instead, they decided to go backwards from the Resource Management Act in terms of involvement of Māori, so that was bad.

Then we had, after the select committee reported back at, I don’t know 2 o’clock—was it 2 o’clock on the Monday the select committee reported back? At 4 o’clock on the Monday, or thereabouts, there was a post-Cabinet meeting where they said, “Oh, you know how the select committee’s just been looking at this bill for quite some time and has made a few changes, but not many, around Mana Whakahono ā Rohe? Oh, we’re just going to get rid of those completely.” So all those iwi and hapū groups who had been, in good faith, negotiating with councils to lead to agreements—Mana Whakahono ā Rohe—that would have led to more efficient decision-making, that was just all gutted.

The Minister will say, “Oh, well you had noticed that we were going to make this change. We announced it on a Monday after a Cabinet meeting.” That is not good lawmaking; it is terrible lawmaking.

💬 Hon Chris Bishop: How else do you think law gets made?

Oh, how else does law get done?

💬 Hon Chris Bishop: Cabinet makes decisions.

Yes, Cabinet makes decisions, and then they send it to this House and then to a select committee and then back here. The Mana Whakahono ā Rohe came out after it had been to select committee, and this is something that this Minister does time and time again, and he should go and read Fitzgerald v Muldoon on his wall.

Tēnā koe—[Interruption] If I may, tēnā koe e te Māngai. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. It was really interesting at the top—and, actually, throughout the Minister responsible for RMA Reform’s third reading speech just now—he was talking a lot about the Resource Management Act (RMA) and how much of a handbrake that is on his perceived issues with regard to development and growth in this country and in many of our cities and towns. I think it is, therefore, just really important to underscore the fact that we actually had replaced the RMA under quite a considered and thorough process with the last Government. This Government came to office and—I believe, actually, under urgency in their first few weeks—reinstated the Resource Management Act that they have now spent the last three years railing against. Now, in their final dying breaths of this one-term Government, on this final sitting day before we get to the adjournment debate speeches tomorrow, they are passing it through its third and final reading.

I do have to say, I agree with the Minister that this was a once in a generation, once in a moment in politics opportunity to get this stuff right. It’s really interesting, because I’ve heard the Minister speak at plenty of different planning forums where he has spoken about the need for cross-party consensus to get these things right, to ensure that they stick through changes of Government. I acknowledge the work that he has done in other areas of his portfolios—the likes of the Infrastructure Commission’s pipeline—but unfortunately with the bill that we are debating today, we do not have that cross-party consensus and we therefore do not have a piece of legislation which is going to stand the test of time.

Unfortunately, what we as a House will, by virtue of their Government majority, will be passing today represents a sidelining of conservation, of the fundamental necessities necessary for life on Earth as we know it: our soil health, our water health, a climate necessary for stability of food growing capacity and so on and so forth—things that this Government proclaims that they care about—let alone our communities and the founding document of this country, Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

The Green Party has long campaigned on making it easier to build where people want to live, work, and play. I’m an Aucklander, so I can absolutely recognise that over the last 40 years, at the very least, we have seen a planning system where both central and local government politicians have kicked the can down the road on really critical decisions around where housing and growth should go. What that has meant is that instead of grappling with the opportunities that other cities have shown us are entirely possible and feasible in terms of our development—building up, protecting green spaces, ensuring that we do density well—Tāmaki-makau-rau, our largest city, is an example of where we have seen sprawl further and further out, decimating our productive food-growing capacity but also generating far higher costs for the transport infrastructure that is necessary to connect those people and, in turn, generating far more congestion by virtue of car dependency.

I just, again, lament this missed opportunity that we had to work on a cross-partisan basis, because I know that the Minister, in his heart of hearts, probably could have found a lot more common ground with us in the Greens than I believe his colleagues, who have been trying to prevent any form of development happening in Epsom. The Minister said that he want this, our country, to be a first-world country. If we were seeking genuinely to fulfil those very aspirations as laid down by the Minister, we should be a country that is actively working to protect, restore, and regenerate our biodiversity, our soil, our water, and to uphold our climate commitments. Instead, what we have represented in this legislation that we are debating this evening is a bunch of amendments that tick off the wish list of some of the biggest polluters in our country and in our economy. In fact, what we see is a reflection of the World Wildlife Fund’s recent report, which states—and I quote—“The Government’s communications on fossil fuels amount to climate misinformation and closely mirror obstruction narratives used by the fossil fuel industry to delay climate action”.

I don’t think there is any clause that reflects that as accurately and as explicitly as clause 15A in this legislation, which explicitly—explicitly—prevents considering the negative impacts of greenhouse gas emissions. Not only is that absolutely shocking and such an abdication of responsibility not only to future generations but to present generations, in terms of the bill that is mounting with regard to actually fulfilling our commitments under the Paris Agreement—which this Government apparently is still committed to—it also echoes exactly what was asked for by Federated Farmers in their submission, as we know, in workshops that were facilitated by the Minister and his officials.

I just make the point that, following that very workshop that occurred with the agriculture and horticulture sector, there was official advice on the potential narrowing of climate emissions consideration in this legislation. Officials said this move—and I quote—“has a high risk of unintended consequences and is generally not advisable”. Isn’t that interesting? That the same Minister who is introducing this legislation today, in question time just a few hours ago, was talking about the importance of following official advice in certain circumstances, but clearly not where it accords with the ideology—or, rather, the dogma—of the political parties that currently make up this one-term Government.

Now, the final point that I really want to drive home, and why it is that we oppose this legislation, is not only the sidelining of concerns around biodiversity—I don’t know, water, soil, those things that are kind of necessary for life as we know it—but the regulatory relief. It’s important to spend a moment really unpacking this, because what we have represented in this legislation is an implied property right to, effectively, destroy biodiversity.

💬 Grant McCallum: Rubbish!

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: We’ve heard from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, we’ve heard from the Environmental Defence Society, we’ve heard from plenty of independent experts who submitted on your legislation, Grant, that this would look like a bureaucratic and litigious hot mess.

In Auckland alone, there are around 24,000 property-level protections. Right now, if this bill is to be implemented, as is intended, to be passed through the House today by this Government, in order for Auckland Council to reinstate just the basic same protections that already exist, they will have to go through an incredibly, incredibly time-consuming and uncertain process to do so. MartinJenkins estimates that implementing just the baseline protections that already exist—not increasing them, just those protections that already exist at a property level; the likes of properties that border on the Waitakere Ranges—we are talking about a cost to local governments of anywhere between $7 million to $2 billion. Riddle me that.

💬 Andy Foster: That’s pretty broad.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: The same Government who, right now—it is pretty broad, Andy Foster. Do you know why it’s pretty broad? Because of the fact—

💬 Hon Member: They don’t know. They’ve got no idea.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: Exactly! I’m so glad there is consensus breaking out in the House right now that local government has no idea how to apply your legislation that you are passing through third reading today, by virtue of the implied property right to destroy biodiversity. You could drive a bus through this because nobody knows how it’s going to be applied.

As my colleagues have already outlined, this is going to make a lot of work for lawyers and, therefore, not actually make things any more efficient. In fact, this implied property right to destroy biodiversity is going to do the opposite. It is going to slow down the processes that the Ministers say they want to speed up. This is the same Government that is decrying rates increases and saying that we just have to put a rates cap in place, as they actively pass legislation that their own members are now declaring they don’t know the impacts of and will inevitably cost local authorities across this country more.

This past weekend, I was in Auckland Central with around 35,000 New Zealanders who were marching down Queen Street, who were incredibly frustrated to watch this Government sideline our country’s values of care for each other and the planet that we all share. This legislation that is passing through as a result of their majority does not represent the values of New Zealanders. We have real issues in terms of the infrastructure deficit and the climate crisis and the housing crisis, but this legislation goes nowhere towards actually, meaningfully addressing those problems, and we cannot support it.

ACT supports this bill because it restores a basic presumption: people should be free to use, develop, and enjoy their land unless there is a justified reason to limit them. For too long, the planning system has put process and planner discretion ahead of property rights, homes, infrastructure, and growth. This bill reverses that.

The intention is to resolve the big questions once, at the right level, rather than relitigating them, plan by plan, consent by consent. That is the logic of the planning funnel in the new system. Scope is clearly established, statutory goals define what planning is there to achieve, the range of effects it can manage is narrowed, and the bar for intervention is much higher and more proportionate. National policy direction turns the goals into concrete national priorities and direction, and resolves conflicts between the goals. National standards then turn that direction into repeatable rules, methodologies, and standardised provisions. Regional spatial plans set strategic direction, land use plans apply locally, and consenting sits at the bottom.

Participation also follows the funnel logic. There should be meaningful opportunities to influence national instruments, regional spatial plans, and land use plans for Māori and non-Māori alike. At consent level, a higher notification test and tighter bounds of who has standing focus participation on those genuinely affected. Officials estimate about 45 percent of consents and permit applications currently required under the Resource Management Act (RMA) could be removed under the new system. Where consents do remain necessary, the narrower scope, higher thresholds, and tighter participation settings will make them much easier and faster to process.

National instruments in the new system are powerful, but targeted engagement, allowing for submissions and reporting requirements, provides clear and transparent guardrails around powers already available under the RMA. Where activities, effects, and provisions are common and well understood, the system should codify proven approaches instead of reinventing the wheel, consent by consent. For instance, New Zealand has around 1,175 planning zones—Japan has 13. A builder should not have to face subtly different rules every time they cross a council boundary. There will always be cases when national standards are not quite fit for local circumstances. That’s why bespoke plan provisions remain possible, but the pathway is incredibly sticky. Local departures must be justified rather than becoming the default. Regional spatial plans will identify long-term growth and infrastructure corridors, strategic assets, and significant constraints, including natural hazards. For designated infrastructure, strategic need can and must be settled at a broad level rather than relitigated when it comes time to deliver the infrastructure.

For property development, this bill goes even further. It puts competitive urban land markets into statute and creates an independent statutory officer to assess whether markets are actually competitive. That means examining real signals of scarcity and, where the councils rezone land in response, because their action or inaction has contributed, they will be required to respond. In plain English: the aim is abundant, responsive development capacity, not theoretical capacity that still leaves developable land artificially scarce. We’ve also removed barriers to private plan change requests. Proposals should be considered on their merits rather than rejected out of hand by councils at the first gate. Together, these provisions tackle planning-driven land shortages that push up the cost of housing and business.

Regulatory relief—which the Opposition still can’t quite seem to get their heads around, so I’ll explain it for you—is a broad principle that public impositions on private property for a public good should be recognised. That’s not new; it’s familiar from the Public Works Act: where specified planning rules significantly affect the reasonable use of private land, councils must confront their impact. Relief may include payments, rates relief, additional development rights, offering land in exchange, and access to grants to the landowner. Now, making councils face these costs changes their incentives. The need to justify to ratepayers who stands to benefit helps reveal genuine public value, and if ratepayers cannot be convinced that the proposed benefits are worth paying for, it can hardly be justified to impose those costs on the affected landowner. Where that public value is real, it’s only fair that those who do benefit contribute to the cost.

The Akatarawa example—it’s just up the road here in Wellington—makes the point starkly. A private property backing on to a regional park was proposed for inclusion in an Outstanding Natural Landscape, layering a public value restriction on their private property. Just announcing the Government’s regulatory relief intentions helped put that proposal on ice. Reflecting the same property rights principle in the Regulatory Standards Act, courts will also remain available to landowners who believe plan rules severely impair the reasonable use of their land and place an unreasonable and unfair burden on them. The Planning Tribunal provides another accountability mechanism: an accessible referee for disputes, including over information demands, consent processing decisions, consent conditions, and aspects of regulatory relief that should not require full Environment Court proceedings.

There’s far more on this bill than 10 minutes can cover, but this bill replaces 100 planning documents with 17 regional combined plans, and for that, I expect, the Opposition members will be grateful. It protects Treaty settlement redress and provides stronger national data and digital foundations for better decision-making. Targeted transitional changes will avoid duplicating work while the new system is being built. Among other things, the parliamentary process has clarified the role of registered permitted activities and replaced expansive Mana Whakahono ā Rohe with narrower iwi participation agreements that respect the need for councils to retain a democratic mandate for entering into long-term agreements which have implications for property owners and resource users. There are targeted changes to the Resource Management Act (RMA), as well, and existing plans to smooth the transition.

Implementation is now critical. The time frame for making instruments and the transition was extended from 30 to 39 months in response to select committee feedback. The illustrative national policy direction recently released for feedback will inform the statutory process that will follow. National standards will then follow, prioritised to support implementation milestones, but Kiwis will not need to wait for full implementation to feel the change. One month after Royal assent, new procedural principles and scope reductions begin operating through the transitional RMA framework. Existing RMA plans and consents continue while the new system is built, and the planning tribunal can be switched on in 2027.

Planning rules are not abstract. Every unnecessary restriction shows in the price of a home, a road, a power project, or a business investment. This bill shifts the balance back towards people who own the land, take the risks, employ people, and build their country. It restores the presumption of freedom, sweeps away needless inconsistency—

💬 Hon Rachel Brooking: What do you mean, “restores”? Restores from what?

—and, Rachel Brooking, makes regulators confront the costs they impose. It gives landowners certainty, investors confidence, and New Zealand the freedom to build, produce, and grow. ACT has fought for this reform for years. It will help unlock New Zealand’s potential. ACT supports it, and I commend it to the House.

Thanks, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First. Now, we weren’t represented on the Environment Committee; we don’t have quite enough MPs yet, so we’re looking forward to an increased representation. I just wanted to, in saying that, recognise all the hard work that has been done to get this bill to this point, particularly to recognise the Hon Chris Bishop and Simon Court for the hard work they have done, and also the select committee, chaired by Catherine Wedd—a huge amount of work to get us to this point.

The key thing for us here is that we must raise productivity. That is something that’s front and centre for New Zealand First. We must raise productivity and we must raise incomes, which is exactly what the Hon Chris Bishop was talking about as he concluded his speech. This is the only long-term and sustainable way that we can actually address the cost of living crisis, as well. It’s not just by driving every little bit—a nickel here and a dime there. It’s by raising incomes, because once, we were up there with the likes of the Swiss. If you doubled everyone’s income, a lot of those other cost of living challenges would go away.

How is this relevant to this bill? It’s absolutely relevant, because this bill is about—and its partner there, which we’ll come to very shortly, the Natural Environment Bill—reducing the cost burden that there is on our economy. We know, from the New Zealand Infrastructure Commission, that just the cost of consenting infrastructure alone—and that’s the direct cost; I don’t think that includes the costs of delay, of uncertainty, and so on—is estimated at $1.3 billion every year, year after year after year. There is a really material cost, and that’s just infrastructure, let alone housing, let alone other activities, on farmers and so on. It is really, really important we do get some of those costs removed, because, as the Hon Chris Bishop said, if we don’t do that, if we aspire to be a First World country, we have to reduce some of these costs. That’s what this bill is all about doing.

I do hear messages about the bill not being perfect. I heard some of the things that the Opposition have said. You know, there’s areas which undoubtedly need to be panel-beaten. The Resource Management Act (RMA) itself, I think, has been amended—I don’t know how many times it is, but it’s a lot of times, and it was formally amended, I think, six or seven times in its first 10 years or so. You’d expect, as a new regime comes in, that there will be some panel-beating to do, and fine, that’s good. The other message that I hear from people is “Get it passed. Get it passed so we can start that work.”—start all that extra work that needs to be done on the national policy directions, the national standards, the spatial plans that need to be done, and give people some certainty, because that is key. I was one of a number of people here—the Hon Rachel Brooking was there, the Hon Chris Bishop was there, Simon Court was there, as well—at a planning conference not that long ago. That was their key message: “Please give us stability, please give us certainty, because that is how it is going to work best for ‘New Zealand Inc.’ ”

In that light, can I just finish off with one other message, and it’s a message that I got from speaking to a senior planning consultant the other day. It’s a message for councils and for people who do, essentially, regulation administration everywhere: please make sure that you treat with respect the people who are applying to you for consent to do something. Treat them as though their time is valuable. Give them certainty, because not understanding that their time is valuable, you delaying them, has real cost to them and to the economy. It’s really, really important that we do that. This is a milestone day for legislation in the House. The RMA is something which is in our lexicon. We all know what it means. Now we will move to the Planning Act and, soon, to the Natural Environment Act. I commend the bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke—five minutes.

Tēnā rā koe e te Pīka, otirā tēnā rā tātou e te Whare. E tū ana ahau ki te waha i ngā kōrero mō Te Pāti Māori i tēnei o ngā rangi ki tēnei o ngā pire, arā ko te Planning Bill, on the third reading.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker; indeed, greetings to all of us in the House. I stand to give voice to the Māori Party’s statements today on this bill, that is, the Planning Bill, on the third reading.]

There’s a specific amendment and change in implementation within this bill that directly affects my pepeha and Hauraki-Waikato specifically, and that is PC1—plan change 1. To explain to the House what that means, 31 years ago, in 1995, we had the Waikato-Tainui Treaty settlement, signed by Te Arikinui Te Atairangikaahu and, also, Queen Elizabeth, which was one of the first Treaty settlements. Then, years after that, we had the 2008 Waikato River settlement. Through that came Te Ture Whaimana o te Awa o Waikato. Te Ture Whaimana is actually a law that is implemented through this House, which is one of the laws that most needs to be recognised, and through Te Ture Whaimana comes PC1. PC1—plan change 1—is all of the tikanga and kawa to the visions, protection, and restoration of our awa.

What has happened is that this Government has paused PC1 for more than six years, for up to six years. That is going to have detrimental effects on the kids who swim in Waikato Awa. That is the life force of Hauraki-Waikato. What has happened is that is 14 years’ worth of mahi into plan change 1 that has gone from our iwi and of all the people who have worked on PC1 itself and Te Ture Whaimana, with partnerships across the board. What’s interesting here is that two landowners that took PC1 to the Environment Court have actually given $780,000 worth of political donations to the governing parties on the right, and then it was taken into this Planning Bill to pause PC1. It is pretty outstanding that you can actually influence a law.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Not the Speaker.

Not you, Madam Speaker. How we see it, as Hauraki-Waikato—Rawiri has a saying—“You may not know your awa, you may not know your pepeha, but your pepeha knows you.” For me, it’s:

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

but I can’t swim in my awa, I can’t access my awa, and legislation like this, with PC1 being paused, is going to cause detrimental effects for our constituents, for our people in Hauraki-Waikato who reside there. Plan change 1, Te Ture Whaimana, the Waikato River settlement, and also the Waikato River Authority, have been longstanding ture and laws within this country to uphold the vision of not polluting our awa even more than it already is.

There was a test and some data collection done recently where I’ve seen that the Waikato River is nearly just as polluted as the Mississippi River in the United States, and to pause PC1 after 14 years’ worth of mahi in this space for our people is a huge detriment to our life force and to polluting our awa even further. Our awa cannot wait six years. Our awa doesn’t have that time, after plenty of work that’s been done to restore the visions of making sure that our awa is no longer polluted. Te Pāti Māori is in complete opposition to this bill, the Planning Bill, but as the member of Parliament for Hauraki-Waikato and as a descendant of my pepeha,

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

it is a huge, huge devastation, how dangerous this actually is, for the people who live in Waikato. Tēnā rā koe e te Pīka.

Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. A good planning and environmental protection system in Aotearoa New Zealand would deliver us so much. It would mean towns and cities where people can walk and cycle and take public transport. It would mean that they could walk to the local shops and a local medical centre and the school because the housing is provided close to where the town centres are. It would ensure we had clean air. It would ensure we could hear native birdsong, that there is sufficient native tree cover, that there’s shade in the summer, and that there’s not as much run-off when we have heavy rainfall events, as we’ve had so many of in the last few years, because there’s plenty of green space.

All of these things are actually more affordable and better for people and the environment. If we have a good planning system, it will be easy to deliver these outcomes. If we have a good planning system, we will have oceans teeming with fish. Who doesn’t want that? Who doesn’t want oceans teeming with fish? Who doesn’t want Aotearoa full of indigenous biodiversity that is recovering from the brink of extinction? We all want that. We all want that, and we all celebrate that. Yet the bill that is before us today, this bill, is not going to deliver that.

That’s because the current Government is still caught in this old paradigm where they believe what’s good for big business and vested interests is somehow good for all of us, when it’s very, very clear that that is what has led us to this situation of being in the sixth mass extinction, a biodiversity crisis, and an affordability crisis. All of these things are interrelated. While the Minister, Chris Bishop, may have said and we may agree on some aspects of cities—he’s very happy about the City Rail Link, which the Greens campaigned on for years before that side of the House got on board. We campaigned for allowing more density in our cities so that there could be affordable housing close to where people work and where there’s nightlife and where there’s places where you can actually buy the essentials, like shops.

All of that was necessary, and so the Greens have for the longest time been campaigning on the type of planning reform that would simplify urban planning zones, and I acknowledge that that is one thing that is enabled by this, but so much more is enabled by this which will actually hurt our biodiversity and hurt our natural environment and create more red tape and higher costs for those who want to protect life on Earth and ensure that humans are living in harmony with the rest of life, not destroying it to the point where we are going to struggle to feed ourselves. That is the trajectory we are on. It’s because the parties in this Government, whether it’s their dogma or whether they are just too close to vested interests and big lobbyists, cannot help themselves. They consistently protect the interests of those who are already making money by exploiting and destroying our natural world or exploiting people rather than enabling a system where we can all have enough and do our city and town development in a way that enables us to live in harmony with nature.

Obviously, if we think longer term, as the Greens always have, we realise that it saves us all money to regulate the vehicles that are driving around our cities, because we don’t pay the price in terms of the extremely high rates of asthma and respiratory problems and cardiovascular disease, which is caused by diesel emissions, for example. Or if we regulate housing to make sure that it’s healthy, we don’t pay the price with the hospitalisation of our children because they’re in cold bedrooms. We’re paying the price of this. The costs that Andy Foster referred to are all externalised. The issue is trying to get them more internalised. That was what was promised at the beginning of this process but which has not eventuated as a result of the select committee process, because, in the end, this Government is all about big, vested interests continuing to profit at the expense of our planet and our people. That is what is happening.

The Green Party will not be supporting this bill. It is not a good piece of legislation, and it is a shame that this opportunity was wasted. Luckily, there is an opportunity to change to a Government that will actually represent the interests of our people in the long term and of all other life on these beautiful, beautiful two islands that we call Aotearoa New Zealand.

Look, this Resource Management Act (RMA) reform marks the most significant reform of our planning system in more than 30 years. This is a major milestone for our country and for future generations. The Planning Bill will create more efficiency, make it easier and faster to get things built, and drive our economy forward, creating jobs and opportunity. It’s time to say yes to renewable energy and critical infrastructure. It’s time to slash the red tape for farmers and growers and our industries across New Zealand. It’s time for a better planning system, which will see less plans, less duplication, and a more streamlined planning system that respects property rights.

I want to acknowledge the extraordinary amount of work that has gone into this legislation, and the Minister for his leadership and vision to replace a broken RMA with a planning system that is simpler, more efficient, and better suited to modern New Zealand. I also want to acknowledge the members of the Environment Committee, officials, advisers, and the thousands of submitters who took the time to provide us with valuable feedback. We listened, we heard, and we made hundreds and hundreds of improvements to ensure these reforms are practical, durable, and workable into the future.

Some of the most powerful feedback came from the sectors that are trying to build, grow, power, and drive New Zealand forward. Submitters from across the electricity sector were clear that if this country is serious about electrification, energy security, and lower emissions, then we need a planning system that enables renewable energy generation, transmission, and distribution infrastructure to get consented faster. The energy sector is calling out for more efficiency and more certainty, and we are delivering it.

We heard from the building, property, and development sectors about the real-world consequences of a planning system that has failed to deliver enough land, enough houses, and enough certainty. This bill supports more competitive urban land markets, reducing unnecessary barriers, and making it easier to deliver the homes and infrastructure that our communities need.

We also heard strongly from the food and fibre sector. They spoke about the frustration that rural communities have felt under a system that is too often layered with cost, delay, and uncertainty onto their day-to-day farming and growing. They called for more practical, proportionate, and risk-based approaches—one that recognises farmers as producers, innovators, land stewards, and environmental partners. That feedback mattered and it has helped shape a system that gives farmers more certainty while maintaining strong environmental expectations.

Horticulture New Zealand also made an important contribution on behalf of growers. Growers need confidence to invest in productive land, water storage, frost protection, pack houses, transport links, and the infrastructure that supports our high-value food production. The horticulture submissions support planning rules that protect the resources growers rely on, while also allowing sectors to keep producing healthy food, creating jobs, exporting dollars, and supporting regional communities. Whether it’s the electricity companies trying to build a wind farm, a farmer investing in their land, a grower expanding production, or a builder trying to deliver more homes, the message was clear: New Zealand needs a planning system that is faster, clearer, fairer, and more focused on outcomes.

A key part of the Planning Bill is the move to a clearer system of spatial planning. For too long, New Zealand has planned growth in a fragmented way, with too many overlapping plans, too much duplication, and too little certainty about where housing, infrastructure, business growth, and productive land should be enabled. The new spatial planning approach is about looking ahead and making better long-term decisions at a regional level. It will help identify where growth should go, where infrastructure needs to be delivered, where natural hazards need to be managed, and where important environmental, cultural, productive, and community values need to be recognised. That matters because good spatial planning gives communities, councils, iwi, developers, farmers, growers, infrastructure providers, and investors more certainty. It means fewer surprises, fewer delays, and better alignment between planning rules, infrastructure investment, and the future needs of each region.

The goals of the reform are also deliberately clear. They are about enabling economic growth and change, creating well-functioning urban and rural areas, making land available for housing and business development, planning and providing for infrastructure, reducing natural hazard risks, protecting important places and values, and providing greater certainty about how Māori interests are recognised. In simple terms, the goals focus the system on what matters most. They narrow the scope for endless relitigation, give clearer direction to decision makers, and help ensure that early decisions can stick. That is how we create a planning system that is more predictable, more practical, and more outcomes-focused. We need a planning system that stops getting in the way and starts getting things done.

The Resource Management Act (RMA) reform makes it easier to consent renewable energy, EV charging, and other lower-emission developments. Today is a landmark day, a day when New Zealand turns the page on a failed system and embraces a planning framework fit for the future. On this side of the House, we are fixing the basics and building the future. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, that’s a shocking speech from a member who obviously has no awareness in terms of what her Government has done in terms of Māori interests.

As Rachel Brooking has pointed out very well over the 30 hours that she covered this kaupapa, Māori interests have been insulted and ignored. That was epitomised very much by Tainui leader Tukoroirangi Morgan. It’s a shame the member wasn’t at Ngāruawāhia, but Paul Goldsmith and Tama Potaka were there, and Tuku Morgan was very, very clear that we have to kick this lot out. It’s not because Māori don’t want to work with this Government—Māori would work with this Government tomorrow. Māori, particularly iwi, don’t have a choice in terms of when they’re trying to set a future up for their mokopuna, for the generations to come. It doesn’t matter who’s the lead in Government—whether it’s National, Labour or whatever—Māori don’t have a choice on this. But when Māori set up a deal with Nick Smith and the previous National Government in terms of mana whakahono ā rohe [iwi participation arrangements], they expect Governments to respect those deals. They expect Governments to honour those deals.

💬 Simon Court: We’re changing the law.

They don’t expect Governments to change the law—change the law—break the law, ignore the courts like the ACT Party wants to do. That’s what they want to do. They want—

💬 Tom Rutherford: That’s rubbish.

No, it’s not rubbish. It’s a fact. They’ve said that. You say “rubbish”—that’s just not true. David Seymour’s said, “What do these judges know?” What are you saying rubbish for? He’s documented and he’s clear that judges don’t know what they’re doing, courts don’t know what they’re doing, and anyone who acknowledges partnership in terms of Māori don’t know what they’re doing. That’s not rubbish; that’s an absolute, undisputed fact—that the ACT Party does not agree with the professor over here. Duncan knows. That’s true, isn’t it? The professor’s acknowledged it; he’s given me the green light.

That’s a fact, and I just need to tell some on the other side: mana whakahono ā rohe [iwi participation arrangements] agreements were great agreements. It was a great strategy from National: bringing in iwi input, bringing in iwi leaders, bringing in support, working with the Māori, not telling Māori what to do. What I want to say today is I acknowledge the work that National did in that area. But this Government is shaming all the work and embarrassing all the work that had been done in the past. How do I know this? Because I ran into Chris Finlayson the other day and he told me this.

💬 Tom Rutherford: Talk to the bill.

He did. Now, Chris Finlayson knows more about mana whakahono ā rohe [iwi participation arrangements] and iwi agreements; more than everyone on that other side, and most people—well, I won’t say most people on this side, because myself and Rachel and Duncan probably know a little bit more than him. But the reality is when you have learned leaders of that stature embarrassed by this Government, embarrassed the way that they’re treating Māori, you have to make that statement here in Parliament. Not only Chris Finlayson—he told me he rang Sir Doug Graham, who is the sort of godfather of Treaty settlements and everything, and Sir Doug Graham is embarrassed by this lot over there. That’s right, and none of them can look at me at the moment, because they’re hanging their heads in shame because the senior kaumātua of this useless Government has said they don’t know what they’re doing—they don’t know what they’re doing.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Is your speech going to circle back to the bill, Mr Jackson?

Tukoroirangi Morgan said that. He actually said, “We know this is election year, but this [kaupapa] is bad news for people and organisations who follow the rule of law and [then] in the next breath have the government step in to override judicial directions at”—at; here’s the key—“the behest of their political donors.” That’s what Tukoroirangi Morgan said. He said, “Our catchments will now be subject to another six years of degradation which is completely and utterly unacceptable. PC1 levels the playing field for everyone who has a vested interest in the health and wellbeing of our environment and that must surely be a positive thing”—but not so for this Government.

This is such an embarrassment, because as people have said, the Government has swung the pendulum too far towards private property rights. I think those points have been made. The new purpose centres on the enjoyment of land, which we argue risks putting the interests of individual landowners ahead of good planning for entire communities. Putting property rights before human rights creates a situation where councils could be financially punished for protecting communities. This isn’t a planning bill for our communities or the common good of society; it’s a blueprint for big polluters to hold our democratic institutions to ransom if they dare enforce environmental concerns against them. The reality is the big polluters in this country seem to have a direct line to Minister Bishop and the Prime Minister. The reality is ratepayers, ultimately, carry the costs here. Instead of the polluter developer bearing the cost of environmental damage, councils, and therefore ratepayers, could face the cost of compensating property owners for restrictions imposed in the public interest.

The system doesn’t adequately plan for climate resilience—these points have been made, but I’m just reiterating these points. We have specifically highlighted the need for drainage, trees, green infrastructure, and public green space as extreme weather becomes more frequent. The reality is this bill doesn’t give any of that sufficient weight. We worry that the property rights emphasis encourages maximum development of private land without corresponding mechanisms ensuring adequate public green space. The bill produces more bureaucracy rather than less. Land use planning cannot sensibly be separated from the environment in which that development occurs.

In terms of the Māori section, again, I have read out some of the things from Tuku Morgan, but it is appropriate to talk about the principles of the Treaty because we have a few dingbats on the other side who don’t understand how important the principles of the Treaty are, and we know who those people are. Our view in terms of giving effect to the principles of the Treaty—we stand by it, so we wanted that introduction, as what we’ve got now is a worsening in terms of the Resource Management Act (RMA). Section 8 of the RMA states that “all persons exercising functions and powers under it, in relation to managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources, shall take into account the principles of the Treaty”. The general Treaty clauses in these bills have been removed.

💬 Simon Court: That’s right.

That’s right—I knew you knew that, yeah. There are specific actions—clause 8, the section 6(e) relation of Māori to lands, water, and taonga equivalent, is downgraded. It is expected this approach would limit how the Treaty is interpreted. That is the problem—that is the problem.

I want to acknowledge in particular, obviously, our representatives who’ve worked on this, Rachel in particular, but I also want to acknowledge David Parker and Kiritapu Allan, who had to traverse this in our time in Government, and it was not an easy area in terms of giving effect to the Treaty. Well, all Governments have struggled with that, giving effect to the Treaty, but you don’t give effect to the Treaty by walking away from the obligation and the responsibility, which is what this Government has done. What they’ve done with this is watered down the obligations, watered down the rights in terms of Māori, and have barely acknowledged Māori as partners through this process. It’s a sad, sad indictment on a Government that only has six more weeks in office, and then Tuku Morgan and all the other iwi leaders will be happy because we’ll see the end of the most anti-Māori Government from the past generations. Kia ora, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a real pleasure to rise and take a call in support of the Planning Bill. For more than three decades, New Zealanders have had to deal with a resource management system that is too complicated, too costly, and too slow. The Resource Management Act (RMA) has too often become a barrier to the very things our communities need: new homes, reliable infrastructure, renewable energy, and productive businesses that can grow and create jobs.

That matters greatly in an area like Northland. Our region has enormous potential, but too often progress has been held back by complexity and delay. Whether it is building a home, upgrading a road, strengthening electricity networks, establishing a new business or investing in the primary sector, Northlanders know how unnecessary processes can add cost and be an uncertainty.

I particularly want to focus on the area of homes. We’ve always supported a property-owning democracy as a foundation of our society. Homeownership is fundamental to a well-functioning society. I’ve got two children, both in their 20s, who will soon be wanting to buy their first home. It would be great if they didn’t have to rely on the bank of mum and dad to come and do that, as, unfortunately, as one of the legacies of the previous RMA, that has definitely been one of the things, unfortunately, that has to happen. It’s important that every person growing up in New Zealand has the opportunity to buy their own home in their own right. For that to happen, the price of land and the cost of housing developments need to be reduced. This will be one of the great outcomes of this legislation.

New Zealand cannot afford to keep planning for delay, complexity, and constraint. We need a system that gets the balance right, one that protects what matters, respects property rights and affected people, and gives communities the confidence to build for the future. For Northland, this reform means a better chance to turn opportunity into jobs, homes, infrastructure, and stronger communities. This is a practical and long overdue replacement to the RMA, and I commend the Planning Bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): This is a split call.

I, from time to time, joined the Environment Committee as they’ve considered aspects of these two bills. I’ve listened to our experts within our own caucus who’ve worked on these bills, the Planning Bill and the Natural Environment Bill, but, in essence, I’m coming to it fresh today. This is the first time I’ve had a speech on this bill, and I have to say it’s quite daunting picking it up and understanding what the Government over there has chosen to do.

Now, I guess I’m finding a couple of things distressing about what I’ve heard in the House this afternoon. I think I found it distressing that members on the other side, despite being now well-established members of this House, read their speeches, that they couldn’t do as we’re supposed to do in this House and genuinely speak to the bill that’s in front of us. So I come here comparatively fresh to this and ready to grapple with it and speak from the heart about some of the problems I see in this bill, and the thing is, it’s a glaring problem that starts right from the start.

I want to go, in clause 4—it’s the purpose clause. What is the purpose of the Planning Bill? It’s such a limited purpose. It says, “The purpose of this Act is to provide for the enjoyment of land by establishing a framework for planning and regulating the use and development of [that] land.” Here’s the thing: purpose clauses often give a direction as to how the courts are to interpret the law. Where, in the purpose of this bill, is the need to plan for our natural environment? Where is there, in the purpose of this bill, to plan for huge issues like climate change? Where is it, in the purpose of this bill, mentioned that one of the things that New Zealanders value, that we love, is our access to the outdoors, to open spaces, to green, to the freshness of nature? We have just seen the annual Bird of the Year competition this year, where so many New Zealanders enter in this vote to choose the bird of the year, because we love where we live. This Planning Bill does not acknowledge that love.

But then I think the other gap that just comes right out of this bill is going to the sections which talk about what is to be considered or not considered when undertaking decision making under this bill. There’s a whole lot of issues that should be considered. But where was the climate? Then it turns out there is a clause specifically for considering climate change effects, and it says that when anyone is exercising a power, function, or duty under this bill, they may consider any positive effects of the activity that are associated with avoiding, reducing, removing, or displacing greenhouse gas emissions. That’s a good section to see in there. But then they say that they “must not …”—“must not”—“consider any adverse effect on climate change of any greenhouse gas emissions that will or may result from or be increased by the activity, whether directly or indirectly;”—“must not … consider any adverse effect on climate”.

We have seen an absolute litany of shameful actions from that Government, who on the one hand say that they intend to honour our climate commitments and on the other hand have taken action after action after action that have totally negated what they’ve said up front. Here it is again in this bill: “must not … consider any adverse effects on climate”. They’ve written it into law. This is a shameful bill.

This was a wonderful bill, and I’m so pleased to be able to speak to it. Can I just take a moment to acknowledge the courage that our Minister, the Hon Chris Bishop, ably assisted by Simon Court, has taken to create this part one of two planning bills. We had the members opposite saying that they’d created a bill, and why didn’t we just support it?

💬 Hon Rachel Brooking: An Act—it was an Act that you repealed.

Well, the reality—an Act, an Act. Thank you for that correction. The reality why we didn’t support it is because it was dumb, because it was the Resource Management Act 2.0, and we had to repeal it and make something that was workable and that would fundamentally shift the productivity disease in this country. This bill, the Planning Bill, in conjunction with the environment bill, is going to be fundamental to the production and the prosperity of this country. It will be one of the hallmarks of this Government, and I’m pleased that we can celebrate this today in the third reading and what will be a significant shift in the ability to get stuff done in this country. Very quickly, changing things from 100 regional plans to 17, changing things like over 1,300 zones to what I imagine—

💬 Hon Rachel Brooking: That sounds like our legislation.

You had your call, Ms Brooking. Why don’t you just be quiet now, please? From over 1,300 planning zones to less than 100 potentially. It’s with pride that I commend this bill to the House.

Kia orana. Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is a disappointing day in the New Zealand Parliament when we are looking to progress through the final stages the two remaining bills. As you’ve heard already, the Labour Party continues to be opposed to this bill, but it needs to be noted that when it comes to Resource Management Act (RMA) reform, this has been a change in direction and in tack because, originally, when bills were sent off to the select committee, there was actually quite a bit of hope that what would come back to the House would be legislation that would address some of the issues that we had raised in the first reading contributions.

I’ve been fortunate to be able to provide a contribution at first, second, and now third reading for this bill, and what is really disappointing is that not only have those issues that were identified at first reading made their way through to select committee—and we supported the bill going to a select committee—what we actually have in front of us now, having emerged out of the committee of the whole House stage, is a completely different bill.

I heard, earlier, my colleague the Hon Rachel Brooking talk about that particular Monday when the select committee report had come back, and then a matter of hours—or less than hours, actually—afterwards, a completely new approach was identified by this Government. What that signals to the numerous individuals, organisations, and community groups that took their time to engage with Parliament’s process is an absolute kick in the guts. They, effectively, engage with this process that this Parliament establishes for our community to provide their feedback on a bill, the select committee works through that, reports it back, and then a matter of hours later, on the same day, they simply land something that has a completely different tack, not only from the select committee but in terms of the issues that had been identified. What is the point of a select committee process? I can accept that there might be a few tweaks to address certain things, but when you have a Government that basically lands on the Table a complete alternative approach to things that had been worked through as part of the select committee process, that is deeply disturbing.

We continue to oppose this particular bill, which is very different from when it was at the first reading. Now, I’ve also heard about the concerns that have been expressed by one of the few statutory officers of this Parliament, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, who himself has identified that, actually, there is a lack of synergy between this bill and the one that is about to follow over the course of today.

The issue around dispute resolution, effectively, and the process around that being problematic is something that we still stand by. Why? Because these are decisions that will be taken by Ministers of this Government—for the next few weeks, at least—and there is far too much discretion that sits at ministerial level, and there is far too much power that sits with one Minister in particular. That is the particular issue that I think needs to be highlighted. I know that it has been highlighted before, but it is an issue none the less.

I’ve heard in this House, from members opposite, around how we don’t need to worry about the regulatory relief implications for local councils. Well, I do want to just identify what this will mean for local councils and, by default, members of the community who will feel it hard, potentially, in terms of the compensation in the regulatory relief provisions. This is one of the most serious concerns that I have with this legislation. It will force councils and communities to make decisions that are actually not about what is in the best interests of the community and the environment but are actually in the best interests of the back pocket. Fundamentally, that’s what these regulatory relief provisions seek to kind of indicate—some concern. Local government itself as a sector has identified concerns in the same space. Across Aotearoa New Zealand, over decades, councils have spent time pulling together plans and opportunities throughout communities that reflect really strong value in terms of what communities value in their own backyard.

When we look at the list, some of those are around biodiversity protections, some of them are around what natural areas would be considered as being significant, others around heritage buildings and precincts, and actually we talked about this just in the last few days around earthquake-prone buildings and what that might mean. Others are around the outstanding nature of landscapes, coastal protections. New Zealand, as we know, is an island nation that has coastal opportunity that is second to none than other parts of the world. Also around hazard management provisions.

Now, these protections should not be seen as something radical, they should be seen as actually being something that is astutely part of New Zealand and Kiwi life and our own sense of identity. Yet, we have a Government that seeks to focus on private interest, private implication at the expense of public and community value. And I don’t think that’s right. Where councils will be forced into considering actually, “Will compensation be required? Will regulatory relief be sought or required? What will this financial exposure be to us?”

When I talk about “us” and “we”, I’m talking about the community that are outside of these four walls, because at the end of the day, when this regulatory relief is being sought and this compensation is going to have to be paid, it is going to come out of the back pockets of communities all around Aotearoa New Zealand. It’ll come out of back pockets by way of an increase in rating capacity. It will come out of their back pockets in terms of a reduced level of service when councils reflect on what it is they will continue to provide at what level, or indeed what it is they will no longer provide because they don’t have adequate revenue to be able to do that. It will result, perhaps, in delayed infrastructure projects in communities. Why? Because councils will be forced to prioritise what they may wish to do as a result of turning their mind to regulatory relief and possible compensation. It may lead to the disposal of council assets, something that is the mantra of this particular Government, in terms of assets owned by the community—you’d actually want to make it easier to hock them off. That is the focus of this particular Government.

Fundamentally, it will result in the reduced investment in areas like recreational facilities—

💬 Lemauga Lydia Sosene: Libraries.

Libraries—thank you—pools, museums.

💬 Lemauga Lydia Sosene: Parks.

This will be a—parks. You keep going, that’s great. These are the sorts of things that really will have an impact on local communities. And while Mr Court might say, well, you know, it’s only about increased revenue, or it might be about a land swap here and there, at the end of the day, this is going to hit communities at its heart.

💬 Grant McCallum: What about the property owners?

And what about the property owners? There we go. We have it exactly there, that is what this is all about; it is about private interest as opposed to community and public good. That is what it is. I’m not surprised to hear that from a Government member, because over the last week alone we have, yet again, heard that this is a Government that has a completely different view of localism. They campaigned at the last election on localism and what this means, but actually it’s about removing local choice and forcing councils into a particular corner. I’m not surprised by the interjection from the member opposite around that.

This is an approach that is going to also undermine the long-term planning opportunity for councils around the country. I’ve talked about the fact, and you yourself notice, Madam Speaker, that councils have, over decades, built up what things look like in their local community. Councils are very good at long-term planning. They are very good at long-term planning. And what’s really important is that councils can adapt to change. We all know that; they can absolutely adapt to change. Under this Government, they’ve certainly had to think a wee bit about that. But what they do actually also need is a Government that’s going to work alongside them in partnership. And what this Planning Bill does is it actually says to all of those community organisations, all of those councils, all of those individuals who submitted to a process acknowledging that reform is needed within this sector, actually what it is that you’ve had to say to this Parliament is worthless, is meaningless. At the end of the day, this bill reflects that. We don’t commend it to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I want to start this contribution in saying resource management is an incredibly complex area. I think it’s shown in the fact that the speaker on the other side of the House lifted the one document of this particular bill and the size of it. And if you didn’t know, the Resource Management Act (RMA) is actually the second largest Act that we have on the statute book, only behind the Income Tax Act. It is significant in size, nearly 1,000 pages long. This stage here is step one of two steps that we’re taking this evening to be able to change the RMA, with this being the Planning Bill.

My experience is that back in 1991 when the RMA first came out, I think it was seen as a world-class piece of legislation. I actually do believe that, and I think that over the succeeding 30 years we saw multiple amendments, multiple uses of national instruments, whether they’re national policy statements or national environmental standards. The fact is that it became an incredibly litigious Act to use. It became very frustrating for anybody to get anything done. It took far too long to get consents and permits. It cost way too much. We used the commonly-used example of the wind farm here in Wellington, on the coast. The example there that it actually took two years to build. It was a big project to construct, itself. It took eight years to consent. No wonder we are the most expensive country in the OECD to get things built: infrastructure, everything like that. The red tape in the RMA has just been out of control. We need to fix that and this is what we’re endeavouring to do here.

I want to acknowledge the Ministers that have been involved here, both the Hon Chris Bishop and also Simon Court with the huge amount of work you’ve done at your level. But I also know the army of officials, we saw that at the select committee, that actually have been involved with the huge amount of work behind this bill here, as well as the Natural Environment Bill that’s still to come this evening.

I also want to thank the submitters. We did have a significant amount of interest, not unusually. Of course, everybody’s very keen to be part of this conversation, and it was so important to have that. And also the multiple lenses of the people that are around the table of the select committee, a number of them are here today. I was pleased to see the various conversations, the various angles that people looked at, because it was the select committee’s job to bring this bill back to the House in a better shape. We did see late amendments made as well by the Government, but we—sorry, I commend the bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Planning Bill be now read a third time.

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 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Natural Environment Bill

Legislative Statement