Resource Management (Duration of Consents) Amendment Bill

Members, the House is in committee on the Resource Management (Duration of Consents) Amendment Bill. We come to clause 1, which is the debate on the title clause. The question is that clause 1 stand part.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s unusual in the committee to go with the title first, but it is all in one part, so I understand that. The title is: “This Act is the Resource Management (Duration of Consents) Amendment Act”. What I’m interested in and will ask the Minister questions about as we go through this bill is the limitation of the duration of the consents. On first look, you look at this bill and you see “35 years” is mentioned at one point, but then we see this date of “31 December 2027” throughout the clauses of the bill on the next page. If he could confirm that the duration of the consents is just for those two years and if, in fact, it would be clearer for the title to be something along the lines of: “This Act is the Resource Management”—rather than “(Duration of Consents)”, it would probably be better to be “(Extension of Consents for a Maximum of Two Years)” or “(Extension of Consents to 31 December 2027)”.

If you could comment on that, because this issue of that time frame and it being limited to the two years—we’ll get to it when we’re on to clause 5, but it is relevant for the title. Thank you, Madam Chair.

I think the title of the bill is reasonably reflective of its content, and if it was as long as the member is suggesting, it would be the same length as the entire rest of the bill.

Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to ask the Minister some questions about clause 1. I note that it is the tradition in this committee that clause 1 is a wide-ranging debate for members. Especially in this context, where we are debating this in all-stages urgency, it is right that we would be able to ask some questions about the purpose of this bill in this part. But can I start with some amendments to the title. I have proposed to the Minister four or five, which will be coming to him soon. I hope we can debate each of those and that he’ll have a chance to see them. Broadly, they relate to the idea that this is a transitional and savings set of provisions in this bill. Government members have had that in their speech notes today. I would agree with them, but not for the reasons they suggest.

My questions to the Minister are around including in the title of this bill that this is specifically around transitions and savings that are related to the Government’s ministerial directions that relate to planning changes. Madam Chair, if you’ll allow me, when I’m making these points, I’m thinking about, for example, the changes that are allowed by clause 5 of the Minister’s changes, new section 123C. The purpose of those is to save those resource consents that existed before ministerial directions changed planning changes, as they were in effect, and we will debate those later, but for the Minister’s information, I’ll be asking him about the interplay between Plan Change (PC) 78 and PC 120.

Given that, we think that there is a reason why these transition and savings provisions are useful. They provide natural justice to those people who were impacted when PC 120 came into effect. It is right that they might have some transitional and savings provisions. But why, then, weren’t the transitional and savings provisions provided for in legislation before those rights were extinguished? Why are we back in this committee looking at transitional and savings provisions, once those right holders that did have rights—in this case, resource consents for activities that were relying on the medium density residential standards and have now been extinguished or otherwise, and we’ll debate that in that part. But why are we now creating transitional and savings provisions? This was something that the Government members themselves pointed to consistently. They said, “Well, these are sort of transitional arrangements anyway.” Doesn’t it follow that this bill should all be seen in the context of transitional and savings provisions that should have existed in other legislation, and isn’t this what we are here for, in urgency, at a time when the Opposition hasn’t been taken through what these changes are intended to fix? If it was simply about extending the two years that Government members repeated to us ad nauseam, then surely that would have been included in another one of the resource management bills that were working their way through the House.

I would suggest that the title should reflect exactly what this is, which is a fix up of provisions that were missed. Now the Government has created a situation where there are people who had resource consents that they can no longer rely upon, and the Government knows that, and they are then creating transitional and savings provisions for future situations to avoid that.

But this isn’t just what this bill does. It is also retroactive and retrospective in effect. Why is that? If every Government member was correct that this is about the farmers, giving them a good go—I think the quote from Joseph Mooney was “two-year extension, job done”. If that was what this bill was, then it would have been included in another one of the bills that this House has debated around resource management. If it was purely about the future impact on resource consent holders, then that would have been a different discussion. But Government members know, because they have been told to say it, that this is about the transitional and savings provisions that should apply. The Minister responsible for RMA Reform should be clear about that, he should put it up front in the title, and he should address at the outset why it isn’t clearer to everyone in the House that this is a fix-up about the transitional and savings provisions that should have existed in legislation before this, or he should clarify that the other sections in this bill, which are retrospective and retroactive in impact, do not apply.

We should be clear about what we’re doing in this House, especially under all-stages urgency, where we cannot ask the experts who are advising Government, and experts from local councils, what this actually means, because there is still a lack of clarity around whether this is intended to be retroactive, and we need answers for that. If it is retroactive, it should say it in the title: “(Fix up with Retroactive Transitional and Savings Provisions) Amendment Bill”.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It is great to come straight to the title, because it says a lot about this bill, in that it’s simply referring to the duration of consents, but we know, and what is really clear from the time frames associated with the actual commencement date—and we’ve heard a lot about 2027—is that the real implication of this is more like 2031. The Government made it clear in their press release when they announced this bill. They said existing consent expiry dates will be extended to two years after the end of the transition period for the new system. Based on current expectations, this means most consents will be extended till 2031. That’s quite different to 2027, and it’s misleading with this commencement and title that that’s not actually accurately captured.

I would suggest a more accurate reflection would be “Resource Management (Delay of Environmental Improvement) Amendment Bill”. That’s not just throwing that around; the very unfortunate implications of this bill mean that the planning rules and regulations that would have otherwise applied—that sit in district plans, in unitary plans, in regional plans, and in policy statements—no longer apply. What is very concerning about that, and why I think it should be very accurately reflected in the title, is that we know a lot of these consents that will now be delayed for another two to five to six years are ones that were granted before these planning rules that the community put time, effort, consultation, and money into. They will no longer apply.

Now, the insult with that is absolutely that these communities will not have a voice when it comes to the reconsenting of these at this stage, because they’re just going to be rolled over. Particularly for iwi and hapū, that is incredibly unjust—particularly when a lot of these consents have very serious implications for sites of significance, for wāhi tapu, for wai Māori, and they just simply will not have a voice. Whether it says this bill is the “Resource Management (Delay of Environmental Improvement) Amendment Bill”; it could say this bill is the “Resource Management (Delayed Application of Planning Rules) Amendment Bill”—because, again, these are the rules that communities have actually put in place that, all things equal, if we did not have this bill, would be enacted on the consent renewal of these consents. That is a huge concern, and it’s unclear, not only from the bill itself but certainly from the bill title, that this is the case.

I think, across so many of our environmental domains—whether we’re talking about water, air, even some of our highly productive land rules—this is a huge concern and an accurate reflection of the fact that they do not apply and there will be continued delay. We’re, as yet, unclear about the actual time frame that this bill extends to the reconsenting or automatic blanket reconsenting of these consents. It would be, I think, pragmatic and do some justice to the transparency of the implications of this bill if the Minister and the Government did reconsider the title so that people actually had awareness and visibility. As I’ve already stated in the previous readings, this was part of an eight-part press release, and this is just one aspect of it. It’s very hard for communities to actually know what’s going on.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Now, in my last contribution, I was asking about the two-year time frame, and I acknowledge that that comes later in the bill, and the Minister answered, “Well, that comes later in the bill.” But I was also talking about this word “duration” versus the word “extension”. I would like an answer from the Minister on that point, because, in fact, this is all about extending consents. As we heard, there is a retrospective element to this bill as well, which is very worrying, and I know we’ll come to that later.

That’s one question. The other one is that I’d like the Minister’s comment and thoughts on the sequencing of this bill—and the relevance goes to the title as well: how you sequence different pieces of legislation—and its relationship with two other bills that have been introduced but have not yet had their first reading or gone to select committee. It seems very unusual to me that you have a transitional provision in a separate bill that comes before two other bills that have not yet been considered. That could be reflected in the title as well. It could be something like the “Resource Management (Extension of Consents to Align with Some Future Bills That Have Not Yet Been Passed)” or the “Resource Management (Extension of Consents) (the Wrong Way Around Transitional Provisions) Bill”.

This is very unusual that a Government says, “We are going to make some laws in the future, and those laws will have their own transitional provisions, and we need these laws because we brought back a piece of legislation that the previous Government had repealed, and now we’re saying that even though we haven’t debated and passed those new laws yet, we want this bill in all-stages urgency to deal with some transitional provisions that relate to those future bills.” Like, that does seem a very wrong way around way of making laws. I’m very interested in the Minister’s comments on that and how that could be reflected adequately in this title.

As we heard from Arena Williams before, in her contribution she was saying, “Well, why is it that we need this piece of legislation to look at these transitional provisions, this extension of consents, when we’ve just had in this House a number of pieces of legislation amending the Resource Management Act? If this bill was truly about the Resource Management Act rather than those other two bills that we’re going to discuss at some other point, why wasn’t it in those amendments that were amending the Resource Management Act?”

We had in front of the Environment Committee the Resource Management (Consenting and Other System Changes) Amendment Bill, and that dealt with a range of issues. We’ve also had in front of the Primary Production Committee the Resource Management (Freshwater and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. We’ve also had legislation in front of us around extending marine farms. There have been ample opportunities for this sort of legislation, if it is really about the Resource Management Act and extensions in the Resource Management Act, to come before this House. But in fact, it seems—I’m interested if the Minister can clarify it for us—that this legislation is to do with pieces of these other bills that are still in their infancy and have yet to progress through this House.

Two questions: one is about swapping out duration for extension—and, of course, I would like that to specify the two years—and then the other question is about being clear in the title about how this change does or does not relate to the other two bills that the House is going to debate at some point in the future.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks to members for their contributions. I’ve made a number of notes that I think reflect points that deserve reply. In terms of the Hon Rachel Brooking’s point around extension, yes, the effect is to extend existing or expired consents, but, of course, it’s an extension of their duration, so I don’t think it’s fair to say that we’re not talking about or concerned with the duration of consents—notwithstanding that the thing that we might be doing to the duration is extending them.

In terms of other legislation that’s contemplated, as the member notes, to come into this House, yes, there’s a complex interplay. The member herself will know as well as anyone that replacing a Resource Management Act (RMA) regime is a complex endeavour. Indeed, she has experience in exactly that. But I don’t think it’s entirely reasonable to suggest that the title of this legislation should reflect all that complexity in the interplay between those other items of intended legislation.

As for the particular point under the heading that the RMA is not the sole focus of this bill and therefore, I presume, the title of the bill shouldn’t be the Resource Management (Duration of Consents) Amendment Bill, of course, to the extent that the other items of legislation will be repealing and replacing the RMA, they too, and therefore this legislation, are intimately connected with the fact of the RMA being as of now the law of the land. I think it’s entirely fair and right that the title of this legislation, being an amendment bill of the RMA, be named as such.

In terms of the points made by Arena Williams, it may be, and of course it is true, that there’s retrospectivity and/or retroactivity in the nature of the bill, but that is not a reason that we need to spell that out in the title, to my way of thinking. I think, in general terms regarding retrospectivity and/or retroactivity, the fact that there is, overall, very clearly a benefit in the extension going back in time to expired and soon-to-be-expired consents doesn’t raise the alarm bells that we’d ordinarily feel in a constitutional context—for example, introducing retrospective legislation in the criminal realm, which, of course, the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act has things to say about. As for other bills’ content, again, I think, with all due respect, it’s something of a red herring to suggest that the title of this bill—which is, of course, the clause we’re engaged in now—should refer to that in this section.

The points made by Lan Pham—I’m not entirely clear on the meaning that she’s taken from the press release, in terms of 2031 rather than 2027 being the date that’s relevant for the extension of the duration of the consents. But I would say, of course, within this committee of the whole House, we’re interested in the legislation as opposed to whatever the PR might rightly or incorrectly say. I’m not suggesting or conceding that it’s not correct, by the way, but I’m saying it’s properly the subject of this debate—what’s in the actual legislation. It’s very clear within that that the date 2027 is the relevant one, besides which it wouldn’t be appropriate to get into the detail of that within the title of the bill.

As for her characterisation of this as delaying environmental improvement, or another way of framing what she considers to be the effect of the bill, again, she might wish to propose that to the House, and the committee will have a view on that, I suppose, in terms of voting on that amendment. But we don’t see that as necessary to describe the content of the bill, which, as I emphasise again, is around amending the Resource Management Act. Hence, it’s a Resource Management Act amendment bill, and duration of consents is the way in which that is being conducted.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll just take a short call on the title of the bill. Points have been raised by my colleagues on the title per se, and, obviously, looking at it myself, I’d read it to be “Resource Management (Consent Extension) Amendment Act 2025”.

The questions I have of the Minister are around, I guess, the passage of this bill. It’s in 2025, but it does relate to extending consents out until 2028, effectively—31 December 2027 being, effectively, on the doorstep of 2028. The question is around the extension period. I know we have two bills about to come before us, and the assumption will be, I guess, that those bills will pass. If there is to be proper process for those bills, it might take a lot longer than the Minister thinks. The question is: does he consider that this is sufficient time to deal with all the complexities of the consents?

I’m less familiar with, and indeed we haven’t had much reference to, any consents beyond agriculture, actually, from the other side of the House. The assumption is that this is being done for farmers who will need to renew their consents—indeed, a lot of them through Environment Canterbury—and that there was a big panic there, so the Government stepped in to do this, which may or may not be positive. I’ve raised those points before in my other speech. One of the questions, in terms of the timing—and the title relates to the timing; it could be extended out—and I’ll ask this maybe later in discussion on the committee stage of the bill. It is really important to know whether the title or the timing of the bill would have been changed, and why it has been determined for the periods that we have within it—therefore, reference to consent extensions or duration of consents, which the Minister and his colleagues have put before the House.

One of the questions I have to ask is: are there any members of the House who may be affected by the extension of any of these consents? It is actually a really critical question. I raise it now in the title of the bill because it might affect the timing and, therefore, the title of what the bill could be in its format, even through this brief passage in the House—what it could, or should, end up looking like. I think the Minister will have to answer that question at some point. It may be asked again: is there any member of the coalition Government who might be affected in any way by the timing, by the renewal or extension or duration of the consents that we’re talking about here? It’s a critical point, I think, and one worthy of some consideration by the Minister.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I can’t speak for all members of the coalition in Government, but I would hope and expect that the rules in the Cabinet Manual around conflicts of interest would be observed, and I’ve got no reason to believe that that wouldn’t be the case in relation to how a consent’s duration might affect them personally.

As for the title of the bill including the date “2025” in clause 1—which is, of course, the title clause—that’s in bold to indicate that the reasonable expectation is that it will pass and be assented to by the Governor-General in this year. But if it’s not, that then automatically becomes the date on which that actually does take place. It could, feasibly, be the case—and let us all hope it’s not the case—that this committee of the whole House stage takes place for the next 19 days—

Hon Rachel Brooking: We’re hoping—we’re hoping.

Hon CHRIS PENK: I know, right? I’m with you! If that’s the case, that wouldn’t be a problem in terms of what is recorded here.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 1, inserting the words “(Addition of Savings and Transitional Arrangements)” be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 1 be agreed to.

Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 1 is ruled out of order as not being an objective description of the bill.

Rachel Boyack’s two tabled amendments to clause 1 are ruled out of order as not being an objective description of the bill.

Lan Pham’s tabled amendment to clause 1 is ruled out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

Members, it’s now time for the dinner break. The House is suspended until 7.30.

Sitting suspended from 6.01 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Clause 2 Commencement