Resource Management (Duration of Consents) Amendment Bill

Members, the committee is resumed on the Resource Management (Duration of Consents) Amendment Bill. We were last debating the bill before the dinner break. We’d completed the debate on clause 1. We now come to clause 2. This is the debate on the commencement of the bill. The question is that clause 2 stand part.

Thank you, Mr Chair, for the opportunity to take a call on the commencement date. There are a few amendments on the Table that I will invite the Minister responsible for RMA Reform to consider. I know he has not had them for long, given that we’re in all-stages urgency, but I welcome his feedback on those.

The main contention here is that given it is Christmas time and we’re missing key people in the process of Royal assent, would it not be more sensible for the Minister to amend this clause to include a power to set the date by Order in Council? That’s something which is quite ordinary for this Government to do. In fact, the pieces of resource management legislation that we have considered have had parts or the entire bill with dates which are relatively flexible in them. Given that this is a bill that introduces transitional and savings provisions that have a time impact, would it not be more sensible to be able to have this debate and to then allow the executive to set a time that was later?

Some of the amendments that I have proposed to the Minister set a date for the executive to consider an Order in Council date-setting provision after a certain time, and then some of them provide for the executive to be able to set that date after a certain date but to consider it at any time. Those are different. It is useful here that we are able to traverse with the Minister when he intends for this to come into effect, because, as the Minister who was in the chair before him noted, some of these provisions have retrospective effect.

To be able to give us the most flexibility here, it would be useful to then be able to have an Order in Council provision in the commencement date clause but also for the Minister to then discuss, as this is his only chance to do so—we don’t have a select committee stage to be able to ask these questions—what the timing provisions that are on his mind are. If this was to come into effect tomorrow, would there be any material difference to it coming into effect at, say, the end of January next year? That will be on the minds of some of the groups that are affected here.

From the departmental disclosure statement that we’ve been provided with today, we also note Māori groups have not been consulted about the implications of this bill, but instead the Minister intends to tell them about it, which is a bit different from consultation. Nevertheless, would it not be more sensible for the executive to have a power to set the date so that these provisions would come into effect to allow the Minister to do that—to inform the groups which he proposes to work with?

It notes here that “the Crown is generally obliged to consult on proposals affecting Māori interests. To address this, the Minister intends to inform Māori groups about the proposal.” If that is a mere sort of information-sharing exercise, it should be short, but perhaps the Minister can give us a time frame in which he would expect that he would be able to inform these Māori groups. Be it by letter or by face-to-face meetings—either one of those shouldn’t take too long. I’ll bet that a number of people out there are keen to engage with him on this, and so surely it would be useful for the House to allow a number of weeks for that informing process to happen.

Mind you, colleagues, we are in slightly unusual territory here, where consultation like this would often take the Government anywhere between six weeks and six months. That’s not what we are proposing here in the time it might take to change the commencement date clause. We’re simply saying that if consultation is not to occur—it’s not what we would choose; we would choose to do the consultation that we think is an obligation of the Government under Te Tiriti o Waitangi. But if a Government was so minded to skip that consultation requirement, then would it not be reasonable for the executive to have some flexibility to allow that informing process to happen in a way which was respectful of the rights and interests that are at play here?

It would also allow for officials to be able to gather the information about what consents are impacted. Officials have provided advice around the 35-year water consents being about the length that you might have an extension for, and more than that might impact very unfairly on Māori rights. It would allow them more time to actually work out what consents those were, and to engage with the impacted hapū and iwi for whom those consents are within a catchment area that they are kaitiaki of. That would allow the Minister to do this important work, which officials have noted is already under way anyway.

This is a relatively simple question with a relatively simple answer: the Act comes into force on the day after Royal assent. The Government is not proposing to change that. For the reasons outlined in the first and second reading debates, the Government wants to provide certainty as quickly as possible, so as soon as we can get the Royal assent done, we will, and it comes into effect the day after Royal assent.

Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you to the Minister for that response. I do support the member Arena Williams’ amendment, because I have exactly the same amendment as well, which is to consider, rather than a specific date, a date set by Order in Council. Now, I hear what the Minister is saying in terms of the first and second reading, but contrary to what the Minister said, based on what we have in terms of the departmental disclosure statement and the lack of any other form of information, this is anything but clear.

In terms of confidence, I would be curious to know exactly to whom is this confidence that the Minister is speaking of or referring to, is supposed be—because it certainly isn’t for collective groups that the member Arena Williams has just stated. I do think it is important for the Minister to consider such amendments when we are looking at it as we are going through the bill, because there are definitely a number of things in other areas I will speak to at the later clauses on—well, on clarifications, not necessarily concerns but clarifications, that we’re seeking from the Minister.

But just on the date itself, in terms of “This Act comes into force on the day after Royal assent.”, I do want to check with the Minister if other things have been considered—you know, for example, was a date set by Order in Council considered as part of that?

As we see in a number of other things, including within the Resource Management Act itself, a lot of the dates that are specified are not specified per se but specified in the context of either by Order in Council or certain discretions or based on the kind of consent that is being applied for. Indeed, that’s some of the things that we’re seeing later on, in both the Natural Environment Bill and also in terms of the Planning Bill.

With that in mind, I did want to check with the Minister before, and also just ask the Minister to consider the amendment, again, on how is this bill supposed to give confidence to people when the fact that the departmental disclosure statement says that no consultation was done and there’s, basically, very, very little information that has been related to this?

Thank you, Mr Chair. My question about the commencement is just slightly related, I think, to that last contribution—that is, the relationship of this through those other bills that have not yet had any debate in this House and have not been sent to select committee.

I was wondering if the Minister responsible for RMA Reform would consider—and he might want to comment, given that he is now in the chair, on the unusualness of the situation whereby there is a transitional provision coming for legislation that’s not yet had a first reading that is in a separate piece of legislation. I mean, that just seems like an incredibly unusual thing to be doing. I would be interested in the Minister’s comment on how that works and how that sequencing of the bills—because, I don’t know, it could be that the commencement comes into force the day after those other bills are reported back or some other trigger that is actually related to those other bills. At the moment, this just seems like a random extension to consents for perhaps two years—and we’ll get into the two years soon, but I’m wondering what other considerations have gone into that commencement and also what the urgency is here.

Now, the Minister said before in a speech or in a motion that they want to get on and do the resource management reforming, but why is this urgent now? There was the comment made that “Well, this will provide some relief for different consent holders.” Why does it matter today? It’s come in all stages of urgency today and will commence as soon as it has had its Royal assent, and there’s no post-enactment review or anything like that. Those things don’t make very much sense to me, and I look forward to the Minister’s answer.

I don’t have a lot more to add to what has already been traversed. The Government’s laid out, I think, a pretty clear transition plan. As I said during the second reading debate, any transition to a new regime is going to be relatively complex. There are a range of things in the Planning Bill and the Natural Environment Bill that are not subject to this bill, but the member did ask about them.

The intention of this bill, in the short term, is to provide some immediate certainty for those people who are stuck in the current consenting framework. Some of my colleagues, during the first and second reading debates, have made mention of some of those difficult situations that people have found themselves in. If this bill passes, there’ll be an immediate two-year extension transition while the bills work their way through the select committee—the Planning Bill and the Natural Environment Bill. Then those bills have a consent extension provision in there as well, which is, essentially, a twoyear extension beyond when the system turns on.

We don’t know exactly when the system will turn on. We roughly estimate around 2029—that’s certainly what we’ll be aiming for. There’s a whole lot of work to do, between the spatial plans and the regional combined plans and the natural direction underneath the new bills. There’s quite a lot of work to do in the next three years, and so it’s a layered approach. You’ve got the bill that we’re debating currently, and you’ve got the consent extensions in the transitional phase of the Planning Bill and the Natural Environment Bill. Then some bits of it—and this is where it does get a little bit complicated—some bits of the new regime will turn on straight away. Things around proportionality and some of the procedural principles, for example, will turn on straight away, so people will be able to get the benefits of that straight away. It’s complicated in one sense, but on the other hand, it’s also not that complicated—whereas this bill is actually, as I say, a simple bill.

Members are interested as to whether or not the Government will consider a change to the commencement date. The answer to that is no, for the reasons that I’ve said twice now, which is that we want immediate certainty.

Ms Brooking asks around, “Why now?” Well, don’t take this the wrong way, but why not? This is the day we’ve announced our Resource Management Act (RMA) reforms, and, clearly, the RMA reforms have—well, even the anticipation and the lead-up to them have made people say, “Well, hang on a minute, I’m in the consenting queue right now. What’s going on? Am I going to get a consent? You know, my council’s buggerising around. I need some certainty.”

The intention is to do that but also is cognisant of the fact that we do need to move to a new system. We’re not leaving the RMA stuck in formaldehyde. That would be a very bad idea. We think we’ve created a better and new system, but we need to get to that system, and getting there is not an immediate thing. It’s not like you just pass a new piece of legislation and then everything turns on straight away. That’s not the reality. It wasn’t the reality under the Natural and Built Environment Act of the previous Government. It’s not the reality under this Government, either. That will never be the reality. That would cause absolute chaos. I think this is an elegant way through. Members are entitled to disagree, but that’s the rationale for the Government’s actions.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I don’t intend to take up any more time than necessary. I would like to ask for a clarification of the Minister responsible for RMA Reform’s comments just now, particularly around those time frames. We heard earlier a real downplaying of what was, at least, in the press release about the time frames, which said that “Existing consent expiry dates will be extended to two years after the end of the transition period for the new system.” As I hear it, the Minister is confirming that there are going to be various stages, but we’re expecting, roughly, for it to be 2029, and then you’re saying that then that it could be a two-year period after that, to 2031. Why does it say, “Based on current expectations, this means most consents will extend to 2031.”?

Well, it’s just maths, right? If we turn the system on in 2029, two years after 2029 is—the last time I looked—2031. That’s just maths.

Thank you. Why were you downplaying it previously, when you’re saying that it is actually 2031? It’s not just two years; it’s actually 2031, which is five to six years.

This bill is two years, and so it’s December 2027, OK? That’s what this bill does. The Planning Bill and the Natural Environment Bill, which we’re not currently debating—we will next week, and you’ll get a chance to have a thrash next week on that, too.

Those bills, which we introduced today, but they won’t get their first reading until next week—that sets up quite an elaborate, quite complicated transition regime. Elements of that regime are things that the member has picked up on, which is the two years after the system turns on—which, as I say, we expect to be around 2029, but between now and 2029, there are a whole lot of things that have to happen: (1) we’ve got to pass the bills to start with, and then there’s going to be a whole select committee process; and (2) there are two tranches of national direction to bring into effect. One is called the national policy direction, and the other layer is national standards or national instruments. Those will happen in two tranches.

Now, we’re not starting from a blank sheet of paper on that, because some of the work that we’ve done over the last 24 months in relation to national direction will port into the new system. For example, the National Policy Statement on Urban Development and the National Policy Statement for Renewable Electricity Generation, which has been strengthened, have picked up on some of the work of the last Government. A new policy statement on infrastructure and national environmental standards on granny flats, for example, which the Government has been working on—there’s a whole range of different things. There’s papa kāinga, as well. Those things will port into the new system, and so that’s got to happen—that’s number two.

Three, there are plans that have got to be developed—new spatial plans—and then land-use chapters as part of the combined regional plans. There’s a lot of work to be done there.

Basically, once all of that stuff has happened—which, to be honest, is quite a lot to do in three years. I think that with a fair wind behind us, we can do it, but it’s quite a bit of work. Once that happens, the new system will, essentially, turn on. It’s brought in by Order in Council, by the Government. Arena Williams was making a point before about how the Government likes Orders in Council. It’s not that we like it; it’s just that it’s an effective device for turning systems on—

Arena Williams: Put one in here.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: No, I’m not doing that. Then it’s two years after that. Now, is there a debate to be had about two years versus one year? Absolutely, there’s a debate to be had around that. We’ll send it to a select committee and have a look at it, but you’ve got to give people time for the new system to get in, right? Once the new system is in place with the plans and the national direction, there still needs to be a bit of time after that for people to transition into that new system.

Is two years the right length of time? That’s what the Government’s current proposition is. We could have a debate about that. Reasonable people can disagree around it, but that’s actually nothing to do with this bill.

This bill provides immediate certainty for people right now, but don’t get confused by the 2031 thing. This bill just does a two-year extension for things that are currently in the system to provide certainty before Christmas for those people and their consents.

Taking that and noting everything that you’ve just said—which was my understanding—the implication of exactly what you were describing of that process is that the date is not 2027; the effective date is 2031. The Minister can point to the bill as much as he wants, and the previous Minister in the chair was doing the same “Oh, don’t worry about the press release.”, when you’re just saying that the implications of your own process, the material impact, is 2031. Now, that should matter—

No—no, sorry. The press release is really clear: it’s about the Planning Bill and the Natural Environment Bill. The press release also says that there will be urgent legislation. This bill, which does the two-year consent extensions—there’s no secret about this. It’s all in the public domain.

This bill does not extend consents until 2031—it does not. It does not do that. It does not say that in this bill. It does it until December 2027.

I know that the member is worked up about the other stuff, but to be honest, that bill is, like, next week, and we can have a debate about that then and at select committee. This bill is a really simple, very short bill—that’s all it is.

Is it the case, then, that the press release about the transition to the new system is completely wrong?

Thank you. I’ve heard the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform talk about the transitional provisions in the new system and the complexity of turning that system on, and that you’ll have elements that are immediate and elements that come later, and that we will discuss that in select committee, because that bill is going to go to a select committee.

What I don’t understand, and I haven’t heard from the Minister, apart from it being near Christmas, is why we have this bill in front of us now with the two-year extension—and he’s confirmed that it’s a two-year extension—and whether he expects that if something happens with the other set of legislation, the two-year extension in this bill will have to be amended in the future. Are we expecting to come back to this bill is my question there.

Related to that, again, putting it: what justification is there for this coming through all-stages urgency, with no regulatory impact statement and with the department disclosure assessment just saying no, no, no to everything—that there’s really no analysis? The Minister, I think, referred to this in his second reading speech, as well—that we don’t know how many consents are affected.

On the commencement clause, it’s: why this need for haste when we don’t have the information? We could, as a Parliament, take some time to work through what the consequences are and whether or not, then, there is a good reason for doing an extension to some consents; if the right consents are covered; if two years is the right time frame, given what’s going to come in the other legislation; and whether or not there should be any risk assessments on the type of consents that are being affected.

In terms of the justification, I’ve answered that three or four times now. The member makes a good point around “are we expected to come back?”. The answer is no, because once the Planning Bill and the Natural Environment Bill pass at some point next year, they will take effect. They’ll get Royal assent, they’ll come into effect, and then the new transition regime kicks in, and the Resource Management Act at that point will be repealed, and so this consent transition thing will fall away at that point.

The December 2027 backstop, if you like, is, essentially, a belts and braces approach, but the intention is for Parliament to pass the bills next year. That’s certainly my aim. There’s a chance that they won’t, I suppose—who knows what will happen—but that’s certainly the aim. But this is a belts and braces approach to provide certainty, and that’s literally all there is to it. It’s not actually that complicated, to be honest.

Thank you, Mr Chair. One of the questions I have is the size of the problem here. Because we don’t have a RIS—a regulatory impact statement—we’re really kind of working in the dark a bit. Like, how big is this problem? If the commencement date doesn’t happen this year, as the Minister responsible for RMA Reform implies, if for some reason—and I’d like to think I’m an optimist, but having been in Government through a period of many interventions from left field, or right field for some of it, the fact is that things can intervene. If this commencement date wasn’t after Royal assent and it wasn’t this year—it was pushed out—then could the Minister answer what’s the size of the problem? How many consents would be affected, and in what particular sectors? I guess, if the Minister says this is a transitional arrangement to allow his two pieces of legislation to roll through, then if it doesn’t happen this year, if the Royal assent doesn’t happen in a smooth passage over the next week or so, then what will happen and to who? That is, how many consents will be affected? How many people will be operating outside of the law, and whether that is significant if this was to perhaps commence at the end of January or some other period that the Governor-General gets to sign this off? Maybe the Minister can take a call and answer those things.

Thank you, Mr Chair, and I thank the Minister responsible for RMA Reform for his helpful answer to my questions about the amendments. I take on board that he’s not going to change the date, so I just want to ask him, in light of his comments around providing certainty as his justification for not changing the commencement date—it is important that the law should be certain—and, really, the question is: when does he expect Royal assent to be given?

My question to him was about: it is Christmas time. We have key people in the process of Royal assent who must be involved. Are those people available should this bill pass three days hence, because we’ll be continuing on with this committee of the whole House stage until then? When does he expect Royal assent to be given? Is it this side of Christmas? What certainty is there, when Royal assent isn’t part of that—you know, it’s not a date. He could pick a date; he hasn’t done that.

I think we’re into the realm of the absurd now. I have great respect for the Governor-General, but I do not pick her timetable, and so whenever the bill has passed its third reading, it will get sent at some point to Her Excellency, and I’ve no doubt she will sign on the dotted line.

Arena Williams: That’s not very certain, is it?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, it doesn’t—like, who knows? Who knows? She runs her own diary; I don’t. I have many powers, but I don’t have that, so let’s wait and see. The point is that it’s the day after whenever that happens. My expectation would be in the next week or so. We are—what are we? December 9. Christmas is 16 days away. You guys might clock off early, but certainly we will be working hard. There’s no doubt the Governor-General will be as well.

In relation to Mr O’Connor’s question, how many? I answered this in the—

Hon Rachel Brooking: Because we don’t live in Wellington.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: What’s that?

Hon Rachel Brooking: That’s rude. We might pop off—that’s because we don’t live in Wellington. Not all of us can live here.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, not all of us can live in the greatest city on planet Earth, Rachel. Some of us have to—

Tom Rutherford: Some live on Waiheke.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, ha, ha! In relation to Mr O’Connor’s question: how many? It’s a good question. I answered this in the second reading debate. We don’t know exactly how many, partly because the Resource Management Act is such a dog in terms of the digital systems. We don’t actually know. We roughly estimate between 2,000 and 2,500 consents, but that’s a back of the envelope number, so it’s about that many.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 2, replacing “the day after Royal assent” with “1 January 2026” be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 2, replacing “the day after Royal assent” with “6 February 2026” be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking’s tabled amendment to clause 2, replacing “the day after Royal assent” with “1 March 2026” be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking’s tabled amendment to clause 2, replacing “the day after Royal assent” with “1 April 2026” be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 2 be agreed to.

There are a number of amendments to clause 2 from Arena Williams that provide for the bill to commence on a day set by Order in Council after a specified period. Because they are very similar in nature, I will select three of them for the committee to consider.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 2, replacing “the day after Royal assent” with “a day set by Order in Council that is at least 6 weeks after Royal assent” be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 2, replacing “the day after Royal assent” with “a day set by Order in Council that is at least 6 months after Royal assent” be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 2, replacing “the day after Royal assent” with “a day set by Order in Council that is after 12 December 2026” be agreed to.

Arena Williams’ remaining tabled amendments to clause 2 are ruled out of order as being the same in substance as amendments that have already been put to the committee.

The question is that clause 2 stand part.