Resource Management (Duration of Consents) Amendment Bill

Members, we now come to clause 3. Clause 3 is the debate on the principal Act. The question is that clause 3 stand part.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I think clause 3 is one of the more substantial parts of this bill, because, again, although we’ve touched on some of the other bills that are being introduced—in terms of the Natural Environment Bill but also the Planning Bill—I think the idea that this bill amends the Resource Management Act (RMA) is significant in lieu of a select committee stage and any advice from officials. This particular clause allows us to ask the Minister responsible for RMA Reform maybe some broader questions in terms of the policy intent of this bill and the magnitude—that it affects the Resource Management Act.

In terms of the remainder of this section, we do see that this is supposed to be limited to consent and duration of consent. But I guess my first question to the Minister—and I’m sure that my colleagues will have other questions on the implications that this will have to the broader understanding of the Resource Management Act—is whether there are other aspects that were considered as also being amended as part of this bill, or whether this is the only part? That’s the first question.

The second part of this question would be: is, then, section 123, in terms of the duration of consent, the only section within the Resource Management Act that the Minister considered in terms of increasing the duration of consent, or are there other sections within the Resource Management Act that are also relevant to the duration of consent that aren’t captured as a part of this bill? Those are my first two questions.

I guess another question is, as we’re looking at some of the clauses that will be covered a little bit later, just even looking at the Resource Management Act—and, of course, I’m no expert when it comes to the RMA, but it is interwoven and interlocking in terms of various subclauses within the entirety of that Act. I just—again, under urgency, considering we have not seen this bill and it hasn’t gone to the select committee stage—want reassurance from Ministers that all potential fish-hooks within different subsections that are affected by the changes that are being made in this legislation to the Resource Management Act are also well captured within this piece of the bill.

This is the most narrow clause on the planet. It is about the principal Act, and the purpose of these clauses is to indicate to the Parliament what the amendment bill is amending. This is the resource management duration of consents. The amendment bill is amending the Resource Management Act (RMA), because we are dealing with resource management consents. That’s literally all the clause says. The clause says the Act is amending the Resource Management Act 1991, because it is. It doesn’t affect other Acts, and the reason it doesn’t affect any other Act is because the intention is not to amend any other Act; it deals with the RMA. That’s literally all it is, and we don’t need to spend any time considering whether or not we should amend any other Acts, because the bill’s purpose is in the name. It is an amendment to the Resource Management Act. It’s not an omnibus bill. That’s all it is. The principal Act—in clause 3, it says it amends the RMA. It’s that simple.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, I take the Minister responsible for RMA Reform’s point that this is about the Resource Management Act (RMA) only and it’s not about the future bills that we’re yet to debate, even though they’re related. I’d just like to get the Minister’s confirmation about that. In some of the material I saw today, there was discussion around these various different transitional and extension provisions. It read as if some of the changes were to those other pieces of legislation rather than this principal Act. My point is can he confirm that this bill is just about the Resource Management Act, the future legislation will repeal the RMA, and they will have their own transitional provisions that will be separate?

Yes, I can confirm that. This just deals with the Resource Management Act (RMA). We’ve traversed the two years and how long and all the rest of it. It’s that simple. The RMA Planning Bill will come into effect at some point next year. It’s a whole other bespoke regime which will pull over consents issued under the RMA into the new system, obviously, and the RMA will wither away on the vine, back into the dustbin of history, where many people wished it were until now.

Hon Rachel Brooking: Just like it was in August 2023.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I think it was later than August 2023, wasn’t it? But anyway, I take your point. I know what you’re referring to. We’ll finally do away with it in the spirit of bipartisanship, and Christmas bonhomie will break out across all the land.

Tangi Utikere: No.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: No? Apparently not. OK. Well, one can only hope.

Hon Rachel Brooking: Show us the bill first.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The bill’s—I’ve introduced it. It’s on the floor of the House—oh, you’re talking about this one?

Hon Rachel Brooking: Yeah.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yeah, well, it’s available now too. It’s literally a five-clause bill. It’s not that complicated. Anyway, it just affects the RMA.

Just a very small follow-up question for the Minister responsible for RMA Reform. I understand that this clause just amends the Resource Management Act, but I want to check with the Minister: does it need amending in the first place? Again, I don’t know the Resource Management Act myself, but I’m checking with the Minister if there is any other regulatory-making power that would have achieved the same goal and outcomes as expected—as the Minister wanted to do with this particular bill? I don’t know. Is there any other regulatory-making power that would have avoided a bill being introduced in the House in the first place, in urgency?

Just before I take another call, if I can ask members to focus on this very narrow clause. The Minister has addressed a number of the issues—probably not to the satisfaction of some members—but it is a narrow clause, and if I could ask members to focus on the narrowness of it and not to step outside that, that would be very helpful.

Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. I will say—I won’t take unnecessary time—but I think it is important, given the absence of a select committee, to ask a few questions. If you go further down in the bill—and it relates back to this clause—of course, we’re talking about resource consents relating to water. The questions around the Act it should be amending—and the Minister responsible for RMA Reform has got in the bill here, of course, the Resource Management Act. My questions are: did he consider looking at the valuation Act? If this bill didn’t go through, will that have affected the valuation of any of the land, and, indeed, if that had been considered, perhaps it should have been in the regulatory impact statement (RIS), but I know we don’t have a RIS. That’s why I’m raising the question.

The other one is the Local Government Act. There may be implications through this because of the change to water, or, actually, the securing of the permits to continue, but given the different circumstances that the councils might find themselves in now in addressing these applications for resource consents, then maybe the Local Government Act should have been amended and should have been one of the principal Acts referred to in clause 3, alongside the Resource Management Act.

Maybe the Minister can say: had he considered or was there any advice or would the RIS have included any reference to the effect on the evaluation of the property of all sorts—the property that is being reconsented, although consents are being extended—and, indeed, is there any impact on local government for the management of this, and was there a need to look at amendments to the Local Government Act?

I move, That debate on this question now close.