Spatial Planning Bill

Members, we come now to the Spatial Planning Bill. When were last considering this bill, we had concluded the debate on Part 1. We now come to Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 12 to 57, “Regional spatial strategies”, and Schedules 3 and 4. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

Well thank you, Mr Chair. It’s good to be picking up this committee of the whole House debate again on the Spatial Planning Bill, which is, of course, the second leg of the three-part trifecta of the Government’s proposed plans to reform our resource management legislative regime.

Now, the Spatial Planning Bill, effectively, sets out the process by which regional planning committees will be established and also what will be in the regional spatial strategies. Now, that’s Part 2 of this piece of legislation and I want to talk, at this juncture, about subpart 1—clause 12 of the bill on the Table. Clause 12 is quite simple. It says, “Every region must have regional spatial strategy”. Then clause 12(1) says, “There must at all times be a regional spatial strategy for each region.”

So my question, initially, to the Minister in the chair is: what happens if there isn’t? What guarantees or what assurances can the Minister give that there will be, at all times, a regional spatial strategy for each region?

Mr Chair, I’m assuming—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): We like a voice appeal. Thank you, Mr Court.

SIMON COURT: Thank you Mr. Chair. I’m assuming the Minister is just gathering her thoughts. Further to that question, Minister, I have a question on clause 14, “Geographical boundaries of regional spatial strategies”. Now, the Minister, the Hon David Parker, has told us that there will be, I understand, 15 regional spatial strategies to replace the potentially 67 district and city council plans and the 12 or so—maybe 14 or so—regional council plans. But the geographical boundaries of regional spatial strategies don’t always line up with some of the other provisions in the bill—in particular, the provisions that apply to the water services entities, Minister.

So, Minister, would you be able to explain for the committee, and for those people who might be listening at home, fascinated about how this will work, where we have a Natural and Built Environment Bill, or Act, assuming it’s enacted, which establishes a national planning framework; and then a Spatial Planning Bill, or Act, which provides for regional spatial strategies; and where all types of other infrastructure providers—transport through the Land Transport Act, water serviced entities, local government—where those regional boundaries don’t align?

So, Minister, would you please be able to provide us with your understanding about how regional spatial strategies will apply across geographical boundaries where they do not align between different asset operators and different local government areas?

Thank you. I’ll go first to the Hon Scott Simpson’s question. Good to see you’re not sitting next to Stuart Smith tonight! The answer there is, in part, at clause 62, whereby the Minister—

Hon Scott Simpson: Sorry, what was that? Clause 52—

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Clause 62. So the Minister has the powers to direct action. Of course, there are the transitional provisions as well with the three years to have these up and operational, and they can be staggered as well.

Going to Simon Court’s question about the geographical boundaries, he makes the point that the regions that we use for regional government—which are well established in New Zealand—are different from some of the other regions that other parts of central government, in particular, uses. He references the water entities. Also, of course, we see that the making of a spatial plan interacts with a lot of other Government agencies. Of course, the Government policy statement on land transport is one of the documents that is looked at, and that also has differing boundaries from local government, regional council, boundaries. That is something that local government is used to working with central government—having a range of different boundaries for different agencies.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I know that my colleague from the ACT Party, Simon Court, will have some questions as a result of the Minister’s answers but I want to turn now to clause 15 because it’s quite a pivotal part of the proposed legislation, which we will, of course, be repealing should we have the opportunity to lead a new Government after the October elections.

However, notwithstanding that very real prospect, clause 15 relates to the scope of regional spatial strategies and it’s quite extensive, broad, and comprehensive. So, 15(1) says that a regional spatial strategy must—and I emphasise the word “must”—“(a) set the strategic direction for the use, development, protection, restoration, and enhancement of the environment of the region for a time span of not less than 30 years”. That’s an extensive period of time, and the requirement that the spatial strategy must set the strategic direction for the use, development, protection, restoration, and enhancement of the environment is extremely broad. It has the potential—in fact, not only the potential, the reality—of impacting on the private property rights of every single landowner in the country because it will be that broad strategic direction that will, essentially, decide what can be done, where, on what property, and in what time frame.

So my initial question to the Minister on this is: what consideration was given by her, as Minister in the chair, and her officials, for the use of those broad-ranging words and descriptions, and why was 30 years nominated as the minimum period of time that a spatial strategy must provide for? Then, following that, what is to stop a regional spatial strategy extending well beyond 30 years? What, say, for instance, a regional planning committee decides that they want to put in place a spatial strategy that might be for 40, 50 or 100 years? Are there any bounds or limits on the upper end of the capacity for such a spatial strategy to extend beyond 30 years? Would that be something where, as Minister, she would consider having to use those discretionary intervention powers that were mentioned in, I think, clause 52, from memory. Would that be the backstop? Would that be the backstop for what could potentially become, in the eyes of some people, an abuse of power and authority in terms of the impact of a regional spatial strategy?

So, as the member knows—and I think most members in the House will agree—New Zealand has not been great—all Government stripes—at doing long-term planning for infrastructure, and the idea here is that we are looking at a strategy; it is a strategic direction. It is not a regulatory plan, so it is not the same as the Natural and Built Environment Bill’s plan which, you know, can have an impact on property rights. This is different; this is at the strategic level.

The idea of 30 years aligns with a lot of other documents that are required in Government such as the council infrastructure strategies, and in terms of not less than 30 years, if the group thinks that there is a good reason to go for longer than 30 years, then that is a possibility. But, in terms of how wide it is, I’m advised that we should also read it in conjunction with clause 23A.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Just along the lines of those recent regional spatial strategies and the 30-year time frame, I guess it’s reasonable to assume that, within that 30-year time frame, this is a live strategy; so it’s not something that is set on the day that it’s set and nothing could happen to it between that date and the 30-year time frame—it’s a live, moving document.

Firstly I just want to acknowledge the contribution of Barbara Kuriger. Let’s assume it is a live planning document and that we will need to respond to changes in demand at some point in the future. These things cannot possibly be fixed in stone. But I am speaking on behalf of the Minister, so why don’t I just ask the Minister some basic questions.

Minister, how is a regional spatial strategy to be developed with regard to a general policy statement (GPS) for land transport when there is no GPS for land transport? Because in November of 2022, the former transport Minister, the Hon Michael Wood—

Hon Scott Simpson: Who?

SIMON COURT: The Hon Michael Wood—the Hon Scott Simpson, MP for Coromandel—released a very important document, a general policy statement for land transport that set out some objectives that turned out to be unfeasible. That was to apply the maintenance budget for the years 2024 to 2027 to funding removal of car parks, taking road corridor space allocated to private vehicles, heavy vehicles, and buses and reallocating it to walking and cycling. Now, when that was released as a draft for consultation, local government transport entities like Auckland Transport, all of those regional land transport bodies around the country, councils around the country, said, “You must be joking, Minister, we can’t work with this. We can’t have you transferring a proportion of the maintenance budget to walking, cycling, and public transport at a time when—Minister, didn’t you see even on the TV news that there are potholes and sinkholes developing all over the country, we have cyclones and floods and storms, we have rockfalls, we have slips degrading the State highway network on a local road network. Minister, if the GPS for land transport tells us to take a whole lot of funding that should go into roading, resilience, maintenance, and operations and put it into walking, cycling and bus lanes, we’re not going to be able to do that.”

Now, that GPS has since been binned. Since then, there’s been a change of Prime Minister, a whole bunch of Ministers have been memory holed by the Labour Party. But the GPS on land transport, which should have landed for consultation with local government in the early part of this year—that’s right, crickets. We haven’t seen it. Local government needs a GPS, a general policy statement, for land transport in order to know what funding, what activity classes they’re eligible for from Waka Kotahi—or New Zealand Transport Agency—what they should be budgeting for for the next three years, 2024 to 2027.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Mr Court, it’s good to use this stuff for context, but don’t let it become the whole speech. Come back to what you’re actually talking about.

SIMON COURT: Thank you, Mr Chair. I appreciate your direction. So, Minister, in the absence of a GPS for land transport, in the absence of any national direction, how is a region meant to develop a regional spatial strategy that takes account of the transport infrastructure needed to enable growth, to enable communities to develop according to a regional spatial strategy where there is no transport component?

Going back to Barbara Kuriger’s point about, I guess, how have much of a living document these spatial plans are, of course they can be reviewed and that’s at clause 46A. And then also if we go to clause 23A, which I referred to before in the answer to the Hon Scott Simpson’s question, this is the clause which really talks about the evidence that’s needed, and the scale and level of detail that should be appropriate to the issues at hand. So I think those are good, useful sections.

I’m going to the member Simon Court’s points. In Schedule 3 there are, of course, the different general policy statements that are relevant, but the whole point of this piece of legislation is to get that joined-up thinking between central and local government. The committee can get information from any Government department, and that’s a really important part of this—that information has to be free. And so there are many ways that the committee can get the relevant information and do that strategic thinking for the 30-year period.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to come back to clause 15, because the scope and breadth of these spatial strategies is quite incredible, and I don’t know that many people will have quite yet grasped how wide-ranging they are. So we had a little bit of a chat previously about clause 15(1)(a) and the 30-year time span, of these strategies not being less than 30 years, but paragraph (b) of clause 15(1) goes into some detail about the breadth. So these spatial strategies “must—(b) provide for the integrated management of the environment, including by providing strategic direction for the instruments in the planning system that are referred to in Section 4”—and we’ve already discussed that—“(c) support the efficient and effective management of the environment; and (d) give effect to the national planning framework to the extent that the framework directs; and (e) otherwise be consistent with the national planning framework”. This requirement to provide for an integrated management of the environment, including by providing strategic direction, is very broad.

It goes on in some detail, right through to paragraph (g), which relates to consistency with water conservation orders, but when we get to clause 16, “General contents and form of regional spatial strategies”, again we find that there is an incredibly wide purview for these strategies to contain: clause 16(1)(a) says that “A regional spatial strategy must”——and, again, I emphasise the word “must”—“set out a vision and objectives for how to use, develop, protect, restore, and enhance the region’s environment in a way that achieves the purposes of this Act;”. Well, that’s all very fine and dandy, and setting out a vision and setting out objectives is fine in theory, but the question I have is: whose vision and whose objectives?

The regional planning committees will have enormous power to, effectively, put their stamp on what the vision and the objectives for the regional spatial strategy in their region are going to be. I contend that what that may mean is that depending on the makeup, the history, the background, and the sort of geography and regional aspects that may differ from region to region, that vision and objectives could be dramatically different in one part of the country to the next.

So my question to the Minister around the “General contents and form of regional spatial strategies” in clause 16 is: how is the Minister going to provide assurance that these strategies are going to have a nationwide consistency that in practice is going to be largely the same and predictable for citizens, for local government, for business, and for community groups so that they can with some certainty and some surety provide an understanding that what happens in one part of the country is going to be essentially the same as another part of the country.

Or is it that the Minister sees that, actually, there will be very dramatic and wide-ranging differences from one region to another about what is a vision and an objective for how to use, develop, protect, restore, and enhance the region’s environment? I suspect that regions are going to differ from area to area, and I think it’s only fair that New Zealanders can have some degree of certainty about what the broad vision will be, not only for the country but for each region.

Well, yes, I do not disagree that it is wide at clause 15, and, of course, that is the purpose, that we want the joined-up thinking of these issues in the spatial strategies. I would point the member as well—the first question was: who gets to decide? Of course, at clause 32A there’s wide public consultation, and in terms of consistency throughout the nation, at clause 15(1) it has to “(d) give effect to the national planning framework to the extent that that framework directs;”—so the framework can direct how these are to look—“and (e) otherwise be consistent with the national planning framework;”.

So just carrying on that point—and I thank the Minister for her interactions; it is helpful to this debate. So if we carry on to clause 16 and we get past the “vision and objectives” and the broad requirement to “develop, protect, restore, and enhance the region’s environment in a way that achieves the purpose of this Act”, and if we then go to clause 16(1)(b), it says “support the vision and objectives by applying and otherwise providing for—(i) the key matters listed in section 17”.

So if we then flip over to question clause 17, again we have incredibly wide-ranging parameters. So clause 17 says, “The key matters referred to in section 16(1)(b)(i) are as follows: (a) areas that require or may require protection, restoration, or enhancement:”. Now, again, that’s incredibly wide: “areas that require or may require protection, restoration, or enhancement”. I put it to the Minister, actually, that that’s probably all land—surely, isn’t it that every piece of land in the country at some point is going to “require or may require protection, restoration, or enhancement” of some form or other?

Is it the intention of the Minister’s legislation that the key matters that are contained in a regional spatial strategy must actually apply to every square centimetre of New Zealand’s landscape?

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Sorry, could those members just take their conversation a little bit lower? It’s echoing around the Chamber. Thank you.

Minister, I’d like to have a conversation about clause 17(1)(jb). So as we went through the bill—and the fact that the cyclones were progressing at the time, there were often times when we looked at each other and thought, “Gee, if we knew some of the things we know now we might not have put some of those same things in those places.”

So in paragraph (jb) it talks about “matters relating to risks arising from natural hazards and the effects of climate change,”. I just would like a comment around this. I mean, I know none of us is ever going to outwit Mother Nature, but if I look at subparagraphs (i), (ii), (iii), and (iv) of paragraph (jb), is this some way of mitigating at least some of those factors that we were confronted with through the committee process?

And given that I know that, as late as about 24 hours ago, we were just looking at some, perhaps, options around removing people from where they are and putting them somewhere else, I just wanted a comment around that provision—we can never be 100 percent foolproof—and get the Minister’s view on how this could enhance that in the future?

So we’re focused on clause 17 here. To the Hon Scott Simpson’s point, I’d say that you read “areas that require or may require protection, restoration, or enhancement” in the context of the legislation and the clause, and, in fact, as Barbara Kuriger has said, there are some more specifics in clause 17 with that hazards section that you’ve just referred to, a climate change one, and also one particularly relating to infrastructure that the select committee worked on as well.

Yes, to Barbara Kuriger’s question, that is my understanding: that the select committee worked hard on these provisions to report back—to strengthen, really—the natural hazards provision so that we can enable better planning and responsiveness to those natural hazards.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Minister, I just want to come back to clause 15(1)(a), which states that “(1) A regional spatial strategy must—(a) set the strategic direction for use, development, protection, restoration, and enhancement of the environment of the region for a time-span of not less than 30 years”. Minister, I want to focus specifically on use of land for ports, roads, and rail.

Now, I think it would be fair to say that any resource consent issued under the Resource Management Act 1991 has required developers of roads, rail, and ports to avoid, remedy, or mitigate adverse effects on the environment. If you drive along any motorway corridor built after 1991, you’ll see restorative planting along the berms on the road corridor. You’ll see stormwater detention ponds designed to receive runoff from the road corridor and to provide for filtering of any hydrocarbon residues or any sediment or any spills that might occur on the road corridor. If you look at any ports that have had to obtain a resource consent since 1991, they have had to address their effects on the environment, tidal flows, existing users of harbours, and so on.

Yet this clause would require spatial plans to set the strategic direction for the protection, restoration, and enhancement of the environment in areas which have existing consents. Now, if there’s a port like Port of Auckland, which has been there since Auckland was first established, since our colonial forefathers pulled up their ships on the hard to scrub the barnacles off after a long journey across the Pacific—then the founders of Auckland built wharves and jetties, which were then filled in well beyond the foreshore to create the built environment that we know now. The Port of Auckland, the Viaduct Harbour, Wynyard wharf, Victoria Park even—all infilled land that was the harbour.

Then we have a working port in Auckland, a container terminal which serves about 800,000 containers a year out of the between 3 and 4 million a year that come in out of New Zealand. They handle general cargo that goes to and from the Pacific. They handle bulk cargo, scrap steel, all kinds of materials. They handle roll-on, roll-off ships that deliver trucks, diggers, tractors, every kind of machine on tracks and wheels that comes into Port of Auckland. How on earth is the Port of Auckland, within the strategic direction of a regional spatial strategy, supposed to restore and enhance the environment? They are a port. They have wharves. They have hardstands. They have cranes. Are they seriously expected to be restoring or enhancing the natural environment back to some pre-European or pre-human state? What is this target for the environment they’re supposed to restore and enhance back to?

This makes no sense. This shouldn’t be in the bill. This belongs in a different bill, maybe an environmental protection Act, which says if we’re going to have a port, maybe that port should have sediment detention ponds, hydrocarbon interceptors so we don’t get oil spills going to the harbour. But you know what, Minister? They already do. They already do.

So, Minister, would you care to explain how on earth a port which exists because we need the port to do what ports do—and apart from some woolly thinkers, people chasing rainbows or hunting unicorns, no one would ever expect a port to move—is supposed to restore and enhance the land it sits on? This is the crux of this legislation. Nothing is more important. This could be the ultimate flaw in this legislation. Minister, would you care to explain how a port might enhance and restore the environment?

Thank you. As I’ve already noted in relation to clause 15(1), we need to read it in context, and also it is a strategic direction, and it’s not saying exactly what needs to happen. I point the member back to, with his examples of ports, roads, and rails, clause 17, “Contents of regional spatial strategy: key matters”, and to subclause (1)(h) “relating to infrastructure including—(iaaa) existing, planned, or potential infrastructure that is or may be required to meet current and future needs:”, and going to his point about the existing port “(i) opportunities to make better use of existing infrastructure”. Those are useful provisions for a piece of legislation that is trying to do integrated long-term management.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Now, Part 2 is actually quite a long part, and there are lots of clauses that take us right through to clause 57, so I’m anticipating that there will be quite a lot of debate yet on the clauses that go beyond 17—which is the one I want to come back to and focus on now. Because this is the really nitty-gritty part of what is going to be included as key matters in a regional spatial strategy. So we’ve already had a talk about the areas of land that may or may not be included, but then we get to clause 17(1)(c), which says, “areas that are appropriate for urban development and change, including existing, planned, or potential urban centres of scale”—so that’s cities—and then paragraph (d) refers to “areas that are appropriate for developing, using, or extracting natural resources, including generating energy:”. So that’s energy, electricity generation, and, of course, mining, mineral extraction as well. And then paragraph (e) covers “areas that are appropriate to be reserved for rural use”—so that’s farming, agriculture, horticulture. And then paragraph (f) relates to “areas of the coastal marine area that are appropriate for development or change in use.” So the marine environment as well.

Those are very broad-ranging definitions in the regional spatial strategies that are going to define for periods of time of not less than 30 years—but maybe a lot longer than 30 years—where urban development in cities will go, to what extent their boundaries will be moved outward or inward from where those boundaries of urban development are right now; where areas of mining and mineral extraction can occur; where farming, horticultural, and other primary production activity can occur; and what can be done in the marine coastal area and what can’t be done.

Now, if we go down to clause 17(h)(iaaa), it says “existing, planned, and potential infrastructure that that is or may be required to meet current and future needs:”. So to have the crystal ball that is required, the foresight, the vision, the imagination to know where cities, mineral extraction, farming, marine activity—all those things—are going to be 30 years out, is going to require, I suspect, the wisdom of Solomon, and almost certainly some of that is going to be wrong. Some of it’s not going to be accurate. Some of it’s going to, over the period of that 30 years, be proved to be inappropriate or changed or whatever. And it may be as a result of things like, for instance, the Canterbury earthquakes, where big swathes of what we now know as the red zone around urban Christchurch were prior to the Canterbury earthquakes areas which were considered perfectly suitable and adequate for residential development but are suddenly, because of an intervention or of an act of God like an earthquake, rendered not appropriate for residential urban development any more.

So, Minister, notwithstanding the broad depth of the vision and the aspirational goals of this mighty planning for 30 years—and what to include in a spatial strategy—my concern is that there’s going to be an awful lot of crystal ball gazing that may or may not prove accurate. And the reason that the crystal ball gazing is important is because it’s 30 years at a time, maybe longer, and that then has an impact on property values, on human activity, business activity, and commercial activity. And that can have wide-ranging impacts on the lives and wellbeing of citizens up and down the countryside. So I’m interested to know what it is that gives the Minister confidence that the insightful people who will be creating the spatial strategies and then are given a brief to include these key matters that are so broad, so wide, and so important for the wellbeing of individuals—and actually so potentially beneficial or potentially devastating, depending on where lines are drawn and whether key matters are included or not included. How can the Minister be sure that those people are going to have wisdom of Solomon and the ability to look into a crystal ball?

Yes, the point of this legislation is for better long-term planning, and, of course, as I’ve noted in other answers, it can be reviewed where it needs to be. We want integrated planning.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Minister, I want to come back to your response to my question about ports and restoring and enhancing the environment. My question is: ports were issued 35-year consents in 1991. These consents will expire under the existing Resource Management Act (RMA) in 2026. Unless these ports are somehow going to be told to suck in their guts, do less porting, limit their decks, take some cranes away, turn some part of their port over into some kind of wetland, maybe a mussel farm, maybe some kind of, I don’t know, cultural centre, how is a port seeking consent under this legislation meant to demonstrate restoration and enhancement of the environment on a 30-year time frame when what they need to be doing is providing for efficiency, potential expansion, occupying more of the seabed, building sea walls and other defences to harden them from climate change and storms?

How are they supposed to do these things while demonstrating they’re restoring and enhancing an environment from some unknown time in the past? What is this environment? Are we going back to, say, the 1950s or World War II when half the reclamation was built in Auckland? Are we going back to, I don’t know, pre - World War II in Wellington when the Kaiwharawhara fill was under way, and the motorway or the highway into Wellington was being built? What is this time frame that they are intending to go back in time and restore it to, Minister? Because this legislation could potentially set us on a course for good. This legislation could say, “Spatial planning should tell us, based on how many people we assume are coming”—and in Auckland it’s between half a million and a million between now and 2050. We know we’ll have to make so much land available for housing. We know we’ll have to build stormwater treatment ponds. We’ll have to build waste water infrastructure. Oh, and, by the way, we’ll have to upgrade our ports.

Camilla Belich: Point of order. Mr Chair, this contribution is repetitive and not related to the part at hand.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Ms Belich, sit down. That’s the job of the Chair, and please don’t interrupt members mid-speech with similar—it’s the job of the Chair.

SIMON COURT: Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you to that member, Camilla Belich, for raising this issue that my contribution about ports and how you restore the natural environment of a port back to some unknown state in the past is repetitive, because this matter came up time and time again at select committee—not just ports; organisations, companies that deliver hydroelectricity, that operate dams, railway, roading infrastructure. They said, “How on earth are we supposed to restore the natural environment back to some unknown state at some unknown time through the Spatial Planning Bill?”

That’s completely the opposite of what the Minister told us his environmental reforms are going to deliver: cheaper, better, faster. It’s the opposite of what the Infrastructure Commission said any reform of the RMA should do—which is reduce the cost of consenting. How on earth is this clause, Minister, meant to help us deliver cheaper, better, faster infrastructure for a port that needs to apply for a consent in 2026 to re-consent a port activity after the RMA has been apparently killed off by this bill? How are they supposed to do that and give confidence to their customers, to the transport sector, to KiwiRail, who might want to build a new rail line or spend hundreds of millions of dollars investing in new hard infrastructure and networks into a port? How are they supposed to give confidence to the stevedores, to the unions, the people who work there, Minister? This works against all of that. Explain it, Minister.

Thank you. It may come as a surprise to some people watching this debate that I actually agree with a lot of what the member Simon Court just said in terms of the importance of our existing infrastructure and that we don’t want to accidentally ruin it and do the various different examples that the member gave. These regional spatial strategies can be useful to things like ports and allow them to have that long-term planning and to avoid the reverse sensitivity that’s been a huge problem under the Resource Management Act. But I would then remind the member that, of course, you’re not getting consents under this Act. This is not the regulatory plan. That is in the natural and built environment plan. And so this clause-by-clause “How do we get a consent under this particular clause?” is not useful.

Thank you, Mr Chair. We’re moving through Part 2, which extends right through to clause 57, so there’s still a lot to do. I want to turn now to clause 23A, which is relating to the considerations that must be taken into account when preparing regional spatial strategies. Now, clause 23A is headed “General requirements: use and presentation of information”, and it’s on that subject that I want to spend a couple of minutes, if I may.

Clause 23A(1) says “A regional planning committee must ensure that its regional spatial strategy is, (a) as far as practicable, based on robust and reliable evidence and other information,”, and so forth, and then it goes on—and that’s fair enough; I think it would be perfectly logical and safe to assume that, of course, a spatial strategy should be based on robust and reliable evidence. But the question then is, well, what if there isn’t reliable science and robust knowledge and reliable evidence?

That is kind of answered in clause 23A(2), where it says “The regional planning committee must not use an uncertainty or inadequacy in the available information as a reason to omit content from its regional spatial strategy if the committee considers that including the content is necessary to achieve the purpose of this Act.”

So, on one hand, we have clause 23A(1) saying a regional planning committee must “(a) as far as practicable, [base their plan or their strategy] on robust and reliable evidence”. But then it says that they can’t use a lack of evidence or uncertainty or inadequacy to omit content. So we’ve got an area where we’re straddling between robust, evidence-based information that is available versus unknown knowledge, but just a seat-of-the-pants kind of expectation that something should be included. I’m confused about how a regional planning committee has to try and juggle those two conflicting priorities between getting practical-based science, knowledge, and information to base their strategy on versus just a sense or a whim as to what may or may not be included because they don’t have that information.

Then I want to ask the Minister, subsequent to that, upon whose decision is it made that something is robust or reliable in terms of evidence? Is it the personal views of the members of the regional planning committee? Is it the views of their advisers? If it is the view of their advisers, whose advice do they take? What advice is admissible? What advice isn’t? Who are the arbiters of what is robust and reliable evidence? It’s been my experience in this place and also in life in general that reliable and robust evidence is a bit like beauty; it’s kind of in the eye of the beholder. One person’s robust and reliable evidence can be another person’s conspiracy or rabbit-hole. So I’m keen to know who’s going to make the decision about what is robust and reliable, and in the absence of agreed robust and reliable evidence, how they are going to determine what matters should go into a spatial strategy where there is uncertainty or inadequacy as required under clause 23A(2).

Thank you, Mr Chair. I just wanted to have a question around local voice, which was something that was very consistent in the submissions as they came through the Environment Committee. I want to go from clause 23A(6), and then go back to clause 23A(4). So subclause (6) says that “The regional planning committee must consider how to set out its regional spatial strategy in a way that’s easy for interested parties and other members of the public to use and understand, including through the appropriate use of maps,” etc. Then in subclause (4) it says “The regional planning committee must be satisfied that each matter covered in its regional spatial strategy is provided for at a spatial scale that is appropriate to the matter.”

So a lot of submitters were asking about things that were at place or in their local community. So does that require when they’re wanting to have some input into the spatial plan that it’s OK for them just to interact with their piece at place and not feel overwhelmed by the whole spatial plan in general? Because a lot of their queries were around their ability, their resource, their lack of resource and funding to be able to make submissions. So I just wanted to satisfy them on that case, that they were able to interact at place without having to go further than that. Thank you.

Yeah, thank you very much to the member for that question. I think it’s a very good and fair point, and I’m pleased that she referred to clause 23A(6), which, of course, uses the word “maps”—very pleased that the bill now refers to them. Yes, that would be my interpretation as well, that of course you’ve got the spatial strategy across the region, and some areas of that region will need a whole lot more detail than other areas, and it would be my expectation that community members that want to get involved in the process would be able to look at the part of the region that they are interested in.

To the previous member’s question, the Hon Scott Simpson, I’d point out, of course, that there can be regulations about that evidence. So this is still clause 23A(1)(b). And then in clause 23A(2), the rest of the sentence does say “if the committee considers that including the content is necessary to achieve the purpose of this Act.”—so that’s one of the tests. Then in clause 23A(3) it goes through what that committee must have regard to.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Minister, I just want to come back to clause 17(1)(c) and (d). Minister, these paragraphs state that the key matters referred to in the contents of regional spatial strategies are (c) “areas that are appropriate for urban development and change,” and (d), “areas that are appropriate for developing, using, or extracting natural resources, including generating energy:”.

Now, Minister, if the objective of these complementary pieces of legislation—the Natural and Built Environment Bill and the Spatial Planning Bill—were to protect the environment, wouldn’t it be more appropriate that, instead of designating the areas that are appropriate for urban development, a spatial strategy identified areas such as weather and natural hazards from flooding, tsunami, sea-level rise, landslides, volcanoes—places where it’s not appropriate for urban development?

Potentially, in terms of paragraph (d), wouldn’t a spatial strategy be more helpful if, instead of limiting the areas where developers, quarry operators, constructors might seek quarry resources, for example, Minister—aggregates are often only found in relation to the underlying geology; in other words, around Auckland hard blue rock suitable for roading and concrete making is found around Hunua, Drury, South Auckland, associated with andesite volcanics, which are a suitable material for making concrete and building roads out of. And a spatial planner might not have perfect information and might not know that over the hill or the next hill, there might be the next opportunity for quarrying resources. So would it not be more appropriate, Minister, instead of saying where it’s appropriate to go and extract those resources, that a planner would identify those very special places? They might be areas of regenerating native bush. They might be a wetland where a threatened species like the kōtuku, the white heron, lives. Wouldn’t it be more appropriate, Minister, that those places are specifically excluded from development rather than have planners who must claim to have perfect knowledge if they’re colouring in a plan and claiming they know where the best place or the only appropriate place for developing, using, or extracting natural resources is, to colour in that part of the map where that activity is able to be consented?

That seems to work at cross purposes with the, “Hey, why don’t we get on with building stuff? Make it cheaper, better, faster; protect our most special places.” Here, this appears to be working at cross purposes. Minister, will you explain why 17(1)(c) and (d) use the terms “appropriate for urban development” instead of that much more helpful “not appropriate for urban development and resource development”?

I’ll just make the point again that this is about good integrated planning. So as the member said—and I agree with him—you should be looking at those areas that are vulnerable to risks and that may, in fact, lead you to find where some areas are appropriate for urban development. But there are other reasons why something might be appropriate for urban development, not just it being inappropriate, and that is that it may already have the existing infrastructure and can hold more people and more houses.

Thank you. I’d like to turn to—I’ve been waiting that long, I’ve forgotten now—clause 24. Subclause (2) states that the “regional planning committee must have particular regard to the following, to the extent relevant to the regional spatial strategy:”—and it goes and lists a number of things—(a) the Government policy statements listed in Schedule 3; (b) any statement of regional environmental outcomes or statement of community outcomes that is provided to the committee within the period specified in subsection (2A); and (c) any planning document that is—(i) “recognised by an iwi authority or a group that represents hapū;” and it goes on to a number of others.

But I don’t see anything there about Forest & Bird. I don’t see anything there about tramping clubs or the Deerstalkers Association or other interested environmental groups—just simply iwi or hapū. Now, why is that list incomplete? If you’re going to have a list at all, why is it not complete? Because all those people have interests in land and in spaces and how they might be used. It seems to me that that’s an omission. Perhaps that’s a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP), an urgent SOP that’s needed. So I’m interested to hear what you have to say about that, Minister.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m coming into this late and I apologise if I am not quite getting the right place in the legislation, in the bill, but I wonder if the Minister could help me. I’ve had an email from a constituent today and it’s about an area that I’ve been very passionate in—the aquaculture developments in Southland. The email informs me that there was a disappointing decision from the Environmental Protection Authority expert panel today on an application from Ngāi Tahu for deep-sea salmon farming. Of course, a lot of work has been done in Southland around the potential of turning aquaculture into a billion-dollar industry in Southland and they have, unfortunately, been turned down with this application. The comment is that we need specific aquaculture legislation because the changes in the bills that we are considering are going to take probably 10 years to be brought into reality and they are still clunky and time-consuming.

Minister, I wonder if you can give me some assurances—and, in fact, assurances for Ngāi Tahu and those in Southland who were looking forward to being able to develop an aquaculture industry—as to just how this is going to be made possible through the bills before us.

Well, I would note, first of all, to that member, Penny Simmonds, that we are just considering one bill at the moment and we are considering Part 2 of that and we’ve already considered the Natural and Built Environment Bill, which does have more to say on aquaculture. I acknowledge the issue that she is talking about, with a different hat on, really, but for this bill—the regulatory framework is in the other bill; this is the larger spatial scale which, of course, can look at the coastal marine environment. Yeah, but I think it’s safest not to talk too much about that now, given it’s the other bill.

Going back to Stuart Smith’s question when he was looking at the different instruments that are to be considered at clause 24, and he asked about other organisations. In Schedule 4 at clause 1(3)(g)—this is the identification of relevant matters and specifically the “non-governmental organisations with an interest in the content of the strategy or its implementation” including community or environmental groups or interests or industry or development sectors are included at that point.

I move, That the question be now put.

Before I take the next call, can I just say my opinion is that especially Simon Court has been a bit repetitive on some of the issues. I call the Hon Scott Simpson.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to come to clause 34, which relates to the process containing key steps. Now, at the Environment Committee, there was quite a lot of debate about the word “key”—how “key” should be defined, what a key step should be, and whether “key” was the right word at all for use in this legislation. So if we go to clause 34, it says that a process must contain key steps. I was going to read it out, but I’m not going to do that. That then leads us on to clause 54(1), and it says: “For each key action in a regional spatial strategy, an implementation plan must—(a) identify each lead for the key action;”. So that, I would assume, means a nominated individual, perhaps with a title who will be the identified key lead for that specific action. And then paragraph (b) says: “state whether the agreement of any person to being identified as a lead is subject to any conditions or limitations and, if so, what they are;”. So I’m interested to know from the Minister what potentially those conditions or limitations may be, in her view. And then clause 54(1)(c) says: “set out—(i) a summary of the key steps that will be taken to implement or progress the key action; and (ii) the extent to which work on the key action is already under way; and (iii) the extent to which the estimated funding and other resources needed to finish implementing the key action have been secured;”. So this is an area that places quite a lot of onus on a key person, a key individual, a key person with responsibility, whether it be by name or by job description or title.

And so my questions to the Minister relate to this key person who will be monitoring and reporting on the key actions that are required in the statute.

Stuart Smith: John Key.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: No, not John Key. He was a very good Prime Minister.

No, but as I say, this is quite important because there’s not a lot of point in establishing these regional spatial strategies, setting out the requirements of what must be or must not be included, and then not having any accountability for sort of making sure that the key actions and processes that are required in the statute to be identified and then for a nominated person to apply those—I’m just sort of grappling with the practicalities. How is this going to work in practice? What happens, for instance, if halfway through the 30year cycle of lifetime of a spatial strategy, it’s perfectly likely that the person who has been identified as the key person, as the key lead, will change, multiple times, potentially? How is that going to be administered? What are the parameters around responsibility for that key person’s role? How are they going to report on the key action and how is all that going to link and work in practice? So if the Minister could give us—for the benefit of not only those of us in the Chamber this evening but also those that might be listening on their wireless or indeed watching on television—an idea how that key action is going to work. Thank you, Minister.

So back in Part 1, both lead and key action are defined, and in the Natural and Built Environment Bill a person is defined.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Minister, I have a question about clause 23A, “General requirements: use and presentation of information”. It’s absolutely vital that spatial plans are made with the best information. That could be light detection and ranging data, scanning from aircraft, satellite, hydrogeological data about what happens to groundwater in a region when rain falls.

Minister, clause 23A(1) says: “A regional planning committee must ensure that its regional spatial strategy is,—(a) as far as practicable, based on robust and reliable evidence and other information, including mātauranga Māori,”. Are we to infer, Minister, that robust and reliable evidence and mātauranga Māori are incompatible? One is robust and reliable; one is mātauranga Māori. That’s not how it’s been pitched, but that’s how it’s written.

And, Minister, if we come to clause 25, “General considerations: other matters”—matters that must be considered—it says “(2)(d) any technical evidence and advice, including advice on mātauranga Māori,”. Now, technical evidence may include, based on my participation in resource consent hearings and in planning hearings—and, Minister, I understand that in your former role as a resource management lawyer, a practitioner, you would be familiar with evidence—

Hon Scott Simpson: Eminent practitioner.

SIMON COURT: An eminent practitioner, the Hon Scott Simpson says. So, fortunately, we probably have the most qualified and competent Minister in the chair right now when it comes to resource management law. Minister, “technical evidence” I assume would include geotechnical evidence, evidence about slips, fault lines, soils, erosion; evidence about water quality could include the background chemical composition of soils and the background or natural chemical composition of water—technical evidence and advice.

But, Minister, what advice would a submitter or somebody giving evidence provide about mātauranga Māori? Well, Minister, the ACT Party proposed a definition of mātauranga. We would have been satisfied if that definition meant traditional Māori knowledge—knowledge that was derived or acquired before European settlement in New Zealand; knowledge that might relate to an oral tradition, say, for example, of when a tsunami hit the East Coast of the North Island and what that did to the people who lived there, what that meant; if it wiped out the double-hulled waka that were on the beaches that day; if it killed the navigators and the waka builders. If that information could be correlated to the geological record of when that tsunami hit and how far inland it reached, that might be very useful traditional Māori knowledge. It would be very helpful to have had a definition in this bill and in the Natural and Built Environment Bill of what mātauranga Māori might be so that decision makers and planners could give weight to that knowledge.

Now, one of the problems with the mātauranga Māori is that because it’s an oral tradition, after a number of retellings it becomes unreliable—

Shanan Halbert: Problem?

SIMON COURT: And there are a number of studies that demonstrate that, Mr Shanan Halbert, that it becomes unreliable after a number of retellings over generations.

So, Minister, the ACT Party has proposed—in fact, I proposed in committee to move the following amendment: that we delete reference to including mātauranga Māori and advice on mātauranga Māori, in clauses 23A and 25. Because in the absence of a definition of mātauranga Māori and in the absence of any conditional application of that knowledge—in other words, how it should be weighted given the number of retellings and its degradation in terms of quality of evidence, as you would be aware of, in your role as a resource management practitioner—shouldn’t we, Minister, simply delete it if it can’t be identified as to what it means?

I move, That the question be now put.

The question is that the Minister’s tabled amendment to clause 21 and the Minister’s amendment to Part 2 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 390 be agreed to.

The question is that Simon Court’s amendment to Part 2 set out Supplementary Order Paper 395 be agreed to.