Resource Management (Consenting and Other System Changes) Amendment Bill

We come first to the Resource Management (Consenting and Other System Changes) Amendment Bill. When the committee was last considering the bill, we were on the debate on Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 70 to 81 and proposed new clauses 82 to 90—amendments to the schedules of the principal Act and amendments to other enactments—and Schedules 1 and 2. The question is again that Part 2 stand part.

I would like to start by going right to the back page of the amendment and then to the start of Part 2. This, at the back, is about transitional provisions for natural hazards and rules that control fishing. These are new sections 59 and 60 of new Part 8. What this is saying is that there will be immediate legal effect of natural hazard rules. This is a very good thing, because we have a problem in New Zealand where the rules for natural hazards are not strong enough and the council does not have enough ways to stop people from doing things in hazardous areas. We’re very much in support of the immediate legal effect of natural hazard rules.

Then there are the rules that control fishing. We’ve talked a little bit about the relationship between the Fisheries Act and the Resource Management Act, and I’m not going to go into that now, except to ask the question that, given that in Part 1, in a part that we didn’t actually get to cover or we covered in some part, the Minister now says no, or the Act will say no, to new plans. No new plans can happen unless there’s an exemption. I realise that one of those exemptions relates to natural hazards, but I can’t see anything on fisheries. I’m wondering why it is that we are even having transitional provisions about things to do with changes to fisheries rules when there cannot be any new plans until December 2027. I note that this block on new plans until December 2027 is something that was put in the amendment that was released yesterday, so this may not have been considered. I would like to know if there has been any analysis of whether it will be able for there to be rules that control fishing—whether there will be any plans that will be able to do this.

Also, on that natural hazards piece—acknowledging that there is an exemption for natural hazards, but often a plan change will combine a number of different factors—has there been any analysis of whether or not there were plans in progress that did more than natural hazards that might now be stopped because of the block on plans to 2027? That’s the question there.

It also relates back to clause 70 and the “Pre-notification requirement for proposed rule that controls fishing”. If we have this block on plans, why do we need this now? Surely, with the change that we have where we can’t have any plans until the end of 2027, that demolishes the whole need for any of these fisheries provisions, and they would be better put into what the Minister calls Resource Management Act stage 3, because there won’t be an opportunity for those rules to progress, unless he makes a special exemption, before then. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Last night, I put some questions to the Minister responsible for RMA Reform about my own area, because it is actually the most impacted by the schedule in the new amendment, which is about the building up of high-rise around the train stations in Mount Albert. I told him that I live in one of those areas; I’m absolutely directly impacted by that move. I have had many emails and consultations, in my role as the MP in that area, with people who are concerned, and I have had emails today from groups of people who are concerned because they can’t actually ask questions in this process because it’s all happening so fast. There are some of those concerns that I would accept might have been—they could actually have had their fears allayed if there was a process by which they had an opportunity to ask questions, but there simply hasn’t been the time.

My first question is: why not? Why aren’t we having a consultation process over this at all? I’m not into consultation for its own sake, but some of the questions that I’ve had have, quite frankly, been ones that have worried me in terms of people’s understanding of what’s happening. For example, one of the questions I got was: is the Government going to buy all of the land in the Baldwin area at that train station? The Minister might look at me and make that face, but that was a question I got, that there was a public works issue here. That’s because the general public are not here all the time and they don’t know what the nature of this enabling legislation is. I want to ask the question as a demonstration of what the issues actually are out there in terms of concern.

There’s also a concern about—and I accept that the Minister talked last night about how long this would take, but that’s a common question: how long will it be? There is also a concern that the areas that they’re in might end up looking like Hong Kong. It’s not going to happen and it’s very unlikely to happen, but those are questions that constituents are asking in this area, because, in fact, they have lived there for a long time, and this will enable the building of 10-plus storeys. I just wanted to make sure that that was on the record.

I’ve got some specific questions about the impact of those buildings based on those conversations. One of those questions is about the issue of the building of level crossings, and that is because in the Auckland Transport plan there has been a plan to build over certain crossings, but that’s actually out in another area, whereas here we have an intensification of housing around a corridor in the railway line. Surely, it makes sense that that would get the priority in terms of enabling those train stations. Have there been discussions about aligning the intensification with the upgrading of those rail lines?

Another question I’ve got is with regard to the quality of the builds and whether there are any controls. You can understand why people are worried about that. On Morningside Drive, we have several apartment blocks which are not 10 storeys but they are multi-storey. They are right next to the railway line and they have issues with fractures in some of those buildings because of the shaking of the railway track. What kind of intention is there in this legislation to make sure that the buildings that go up are quality buildings?

Another issue is height to boundary. Now, it may be that this is the enabling legislation and the Minister might just say, “Well, all that’s going to happen somewhere else.”, but height to boundary is a big deal. In the plan in the inner city, when we were looking at intensifying in the inner city, there were actually view shafts that are built into that intensification so that people get enough light and they get views, and it makes the whole thing much more of a quality build and we end up in a city that’s better. Is there that kind of intention here? If we’re going to enable the building, will there be height to boundary issues involved?

One issue that comes up frequently is: what’s the projected intensification here? How many houses—[Time expired]

I thank the member Helen White for her questions, which I think I can deal with in order. She had lots of emails of concerns saying, “Why is this going so quickly?” Well, it’s actually not, to be honest. I mean, Auckland has been required to upzone since 2022, and here we are, in 2025, and there’s a variety of reasons for that, some of which I canvassed last night. The law allows them to upzone but doesn’t let them downzone. They need to do that as a response to the floods—that’s fair enough. But the council itself has taken too long, frankly, on some of these issues, so Parliament has acted, with the agreement of the council—so this is not some Parliament unilaterally acting.

Someone said the other day—well, it was an Auckland City councillor, actually. He said, “Oh, you’re bullying Auckland Council.”, and I said, “Well, it’s a bit of a strange situation when you put out a joint press release with the mayor about what Parliament’s doing.” It’s a slightly strange situation and a weird definition of “bullying” to me, but anyway.

I acknowledge the legitimate concerns that the member is raising, and there will be an opportunity. This is not Parliament micromanaging every single street next to Baldwin Street Station or Mount Albert Station; this is Parliament, essentially, making the council undergo a process around a replacement plan change.

We’re replacing plan change 78 with a new plan change which will be required to give effect to what is in this piece of legislation around the City Rail Link stations that are listed in the Act. But that’s not the end of the process. The council will be required to notify that by October, and notification sets off the plan change process. After that, it’ll be public discussions and there’ll be an independent hearings panel and there’ll be all sorts of opportunities for the public to engage, and I’d encourage her to encourage her constituents to do that.

The second question was: is the Government going to buy all the land? No, we’re not going to do that.

Thirdly: will it look like Hong Kong? No. Anyone who’s been to Hong Kong will, I think, find that that would be somewhat out of keeping with Auckland.

But will it mean more apartments by train stations, for which the Government is spending billions of dollars building train stations? Yes, it will mean more apartments by train stations, and I don’t know many Aucklanders who don’t think that one of the necessary responses to a $5.5 billion, or probably closer to $6 billion, metro underground rail in Auckland should be to go, “Do you know what? Here’s a great thing: let’s have single-storey family-zoned houses next to these hundreds-of-millions-of-dollars expensive railway stations.” That does not seem like a particularly rational outcome.

Hon Rachel Brooking: That’s not the question. Just engage.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: What’s that?

Hon Rachel Brooking: Just engage with the actual questions. It wasn’t about single-zone houses.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Yeah, let’s not have chat across the House.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, no, it’s a legitimate point.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Yeah, and I’ll give them a call to make that.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, I’m answering the question. So it’s not going to be Hong Kong, but we are going to see more apartments, OK? Actually, the Government wants that, and I reckon that, actually, the Labour Party wants it too, apparently—

Hon Rachel Brooking: Yes, we do.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yeah, well, there you go. Rachel Brooking says that they do. I reckon that the Greens want it, I reckon the Government wants it, and I actually reckon most Aucklanders want it too.

Yep, there are some people who don’t necessarily like the idea that cities change, but guess what? The world changes, society changes, and, actually, young Aucklanders deserve the opportunity to have housing choice. We need small apartments, we need big apartments, we need small terraced houses, we need medium terraced houses, we need big McMansions, we need smaller McMansions, we need—

Rima Nakhle: I choo-choo-choose Bish.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: OK, yeah—maybe that, too. We need suburban greenfields houses, we need—the whole point is we need housing choice. All housing is good, and we need to stop turning up our noses and saying “Oh, we’d like this, but not that. That’s OK, but not that, and I’m all good with that, but not that.”

Hon Rachel Brooking: You’re being disingenuous.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: No, no, I’m not. I’m answering the question. She asked me if it was going to be like Hong Kong, and the answer is that it’s not.

Fourthly, she asked whether there has been an attempt to link intensification along railway lines, and the answer is yes. That is the purpose of this, which is we’re building the City Rail Link, and our view is it makes sense to upzone around the City Rail Link stations in the same way it makes sense to upzone around the National Policy Statement on Urban Development provisions, which is the existing railway lines, as well.

Finally, she asked about build quality. That is not a matter dealt with under the Resource Management Act (RMA). It’s not an effect, and it’s not an externality dealt with under the RMA. Build quality is dealt with under the Building Act, which, fortunately, is not something that is dealt with under the RMA.

I’ll let Helen White finish her line of questioning.

Thank you, Minister, for answering the questions. I think it’s really important that we treat people who are actually the ones who will pay the price—and they will be in these areas—with some respect. They’re entitled to be concerned about what’s going on and to have answers to those questions, and it doesn’t mean that they don’t, too, agree that our city needs to intensify along its rail lines. In fact, that is the frequent thing that people in my area tell me—that they do not want to be cast in that light, but they would like to know what’s going on.

For example, last night I asked the Minister about schools in the area. It is absolutely important that we address the need for communities that are being intensified to have facilities that are actually going to meet the needs of the people who move in. Now, I told the Minister that in that area, Mount Albert Grammar School has 3,500 people in it. It is very important that we have a plan for schools, and it is perfectly OK for me to ask the Minister how this fits within the plan and what conversations he’s had when he’s put together this amendment about the need to support this with infrastructure like that.

Another thing that I am frequently asked about is green space, because things like the all-weather sports fields are incredibly important if you’re intensifying and you want affordable housing not to be something that’s second class. It should be first-rate. We need all-weather sports fields in our area desperately because there just aren’t enough. So those are two things that I want to highlight.

I also want to ask some very specific questions about the nature of the actual provision, so I’d like to turn to those now. I want to ask about—this is clause 4 of new Schedule 3C, which is to be inserted by Schedule 1 of the bill. It’s on page 71, and it’s a really sensible little thing. It crosses the bridge. It’s specific about clause 4, but it’s also something that I’m frequently asked, which is what’s “walkable”. These are enabling more intensification in a walkable area. From what I can see, if somebody has drawn a circle and it’s like anything within a 10-minute walk zone, it’s walkable, but am I right about that?

What is walkable, because I can see, in my own area, that St Lukes mall has got a huge amount of land in that area. Some of it falls in that circle and some of it doesn’t, and yet that actually seems to be an area where the housing has been bought up by the mall. It isn’t particularly character or anything, and it seems to be something where it’s very connected with the shopping, as well as the train station, but it seems to be arbitrary as to where the line is.

Is there in the definition here a definition of what’s walkable, or is it a matter of nuance? That’s something that I’m often asked about. Is there any room for nuance on this plan? I take on board that the Minister gave me genuine answers last night about, for example, the advantages of this plan when it comes to areas that flood, because this will allow more nuance in terms of choosing areas so that they are not ones that are likely to lead to a risk of flood. I take it on board that they may be answers to these questions. I’m just trying to get them on the record so that my constituents know what they’re in for, and that’s what’s important.

I also wanted to ask about the decision that we have in clause 4—and it’s clause 4(1)(b)(i)(A) and (B) that I’m talking about. It’s a decision on wording which says “(i) heights and densities commensurate with the greater of—(A) demand for housing and business use in those locations; or (B) the amount of housing and business use that is appropriate given the level of accessibility to commercial activity and community services in those locations;” and it goes on. What I would like to know is why is there a “greater of—” and then the “or” there, when it seems to me that the logical part of that is subsubparagraph (B). It’s the amount of demand for housing and business use that is appropriate, given the level of accessibility.

Surely that’s the test: can we do this, and will it work for our populations? But we have a “greater of” which—[Time expired]

I can answer those three questions. They’re legitimate questions, and I wasn’t meaning to imply that the member’s questions were bad or anything. I was genuinely trying to answer them.

In terms of schools, the short answer is yes. We will take account of school populations as they rise and fall, in the same way that the ministry does that right now. Is the ministry perfect at it? No. I think all members of Parliament would have examples in their own constituencies of schools in which the ministry resolutely insists that no new classrooms are required, only for a big batch of five-year-olds to turn up and start working their way through the system and the ministry finds that, actually, more classrooms are required. Equally, there are schools in which there’s vast vacant classrooms that are empty, which is not a particularly rational use of land. The ministry’s not perfect at it—and actually, that’s partly why the Government’s creating a new school property agency, to get better at that.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: So you’re going to sell the land?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: No, I didn’t say that. But there’s other ways to make use of school land.

In terms of the second question she asked about the definition of “walkable”—it’s a good question. The answer is: it depends. The National Policy Statement on Urban Development does not define it but gives an example of 800 to 1,200 metres as to what “walkable” means. The honest answer is, it depends, right—on the topography of a particular area; on a particular community—what “walkable” means. The Wellington independent hearings panel went through a long and convoluted task in order to work out what “walkable” meant, and they decided that “walkable” in Wellington meant different things to what it meant in other cities, because here in Wellington, we have hills—

Hon Rachel Brooking: Like Dunedin.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, Dunedin’s got hills as well, but they don’t have housing density issues in Dunedin to quite the same extent.

Hon Rachel Brooking: We need them on Carroll Street.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, if only we did; that would be a great thing. But the short answer is: it depends. One of the issues the Government is looking at through phase three of Resource Management Act reform is to provide a bit more clarity about what “walkable” means. But there are pros and cons of doing that, because the more specific you get, the less accommodating of local circumstances you are, as well. So there are costs and benefits.

I am, however, also keen to avoid interminable debates about, you know, is a particular area 923 metres, as the crow flies, from a train station “walkable”; and is 1,010 metres “walkable”, because there happens to be something else on the way and you’ve got to go over a bridge, and—just ridiculous debates. So, anyway, there are pros and cons either side, but the short answer is that for this bill “walkable” is up to the council, and the point is they will take into account local circumstances, and I would expect that local councillors in Auckland Council and members of the local board would engage with local MPs, like the MP for Mt Albert, when it comes to these issues. The answer—

Rima Nakhle: Daniel Newman—great councillor.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, I mean, let’s not start listing councillors. We’ll be here all night. There’s lots of them.

In relation to her third question about “the greater of” in relation to “enable, within at least a walkable catchment … (A) heights and densities commensurate with the greater of … demand for housing and business use … or (B) the amount of housing and business use that is appropriate given the level of accessibility”—I don’t see the issue here. The point is, we need the maximum amount of housing that we can get, and so you either go for “demand for housing and business use in those locations”, or “the amount of housing that’s appropriate given the level of accessibility to commercial activity and community services in those locations”. I think it’s relatively straightforward. Then it sets a bottom line of at least 10 storeys in relation to Baldwin and Mount Albert, and 15 storeys in relation to the other three stations. I think it’s all relatively straightforward.

Kia ora. I want to take it back to the moana and look at Part 2, clause 70 amending Schedule 1, and the pre-notification requirement for rules regarding fishing, noting that the director-general must regard these matters and consult with Te Ohu Kai Moana on the proposed decision.

Now, I’m wanting to ask the Minister in terms of these proposed rules for regional coastal plans, knowing that within our own rohe, in Tai Tokerau, it provides provision for us as local iwi to have coastal management within our own tribal rohe—

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Have you got the page reference?

HŪHANA LYNDON: That is page 48. It’s just Part 2, clause 70, “Schedule 1 amended” to insert new section 4B, “Pre-notification requirement for proposed rule that controls fishing.” Kia ora. It’s relating to regional coastal planning. Within our rohe I understand that we as iwi have allowance of rights for coastal management within our tribal rohe. Within that tribal rohe, that could have statutory acknowledgments, we could have Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act (MACA) claimants, hapū, iwi, and customary rights, as well as commercial. Within these proposed amendments, I note that the director-general is only required to have consulted with Te Ohu Kai Moana on their proposed decision for extension and around these proposed rules.

My question is: is this a narrowing of who the director-general needs to engage with in terms of iwi Māori and regional coastal planning? As tangata whenua, we have had provision for engagement and input. Te Ohu Kai Moana is a really important stakeholder in the commercial space as voice for iwi, but I do worry that within the proposed amendments it ignores statutory acknowledgments, which are upheld through Treaty settlements. For myself in Te Tai Tokerau, we can look at Te Rarawa, Ngāi Takoto, Te Aupōuri, Ngāti Manuhiri, Ngāti Pūkenga—a whole range that have statutory acknowledgments within their tribal rohes, but they’re not provided for in this. Also, we have MACA claimants, takutai moana claimants, who are in the process—in hearings and also researching their claims to affirm their ongoing mana takutai moana. Then, of course, in the hau kāinga you have hapū and iwi who execute their rights and interests on the daily for customary purposes.

I want to understand from the Minister: are we just narrowing the Māori engagement for these purposes just to a commercial lens or are we going to be a bit more consistent? In other parts of the legislation, it’s iwi authorities, it’s MACA claimants, it’s rohe moana, it’s Mana Whakahono—a big list of Māori groups to engage with. But in this one, it’s just Te Ohu Kai Moana, so it’s quite peculiar, whereas we have a bigger list of Māori for the director-general to engage with.

Regional coastal plans are important for Māori. They are important for our entire community, and I’m reviewing just my own local regional coastal plan for Tai Tokerau tangata whenua, who are important, are upheld, and I just wonder about why we are only talking to Te Ohu Kai Moana for this purpose, for the director-general.

I’m advised that this doesn’t constrain. This is a specific step that will occur after a council has already gone through a plan process in which it will be required to consult with relevant iwi as part of the process of developing that plan.

Thank you, Mr Chair. It’s great to be back on this bill, which has such significant implications. I want to really clearly point out where I’m at in the bill and how that actually differs from where my colleague was, because it is on the same clause, which is clause 70. My colleague Hūhana Lyndon was specifically talking about new section 4B(2)(b), and I have questions about the rest of it, which have not yet been touched on, so I’m really keen for some answers from the Minister.

This clause is really about addressing a lot of the marine biodiversity concerns that we heard a lot of at the select committee stage, not only from environmental groups but also from local government and a number of individuals. If a regional council does then intend to propose a regional coastal plan rule that controls fishing in the area, to what scope are those controls on fishing? Is this applying simply to commercial fishing? Is it recreational? Is it customary? Is it the whole entire lot? Now, why I’m interested in that is because, further, it talks about this concurrence rule where “the Director-General must have regard only to the matters described in section 32(2A).” Sorry, these are on page 12, so it refers back here.

Now, these are quite specific and directional in terms of where the extent of fishing can actually be carried out. It talks about “overall impacts” as well that need to be assessed and the director-general having to think about these things. What I’m interested in understanding is what actual tests apply here when the director-general is making these considerations. My understanding of the concurrence rule is that they must be satisfied that the rule does not have undue effects on fishing. Now, what species, for example, and what scope of fishing and the species that are in the ecosystem that could be construed as fishable—what species does that include? When we talk about the impact on fishing, what kind of impact are we talking about? When you think of a blanket ban on fishing, then it’s absolutely clear that there will be impacts there. But what is the scope and the percentage? Is it like a 1 percent reduction or a 5 percent reduction in terms of the impact on fishing? I’m really interested to hear from the Minister what this actually refers to in practice and what the assessment would be. Thank you.

Thanks very much to the member for those questions. Quite simply, clause 70 relates to all species and all aspects of fishing. So, hopefully, that gives the member some clarity. Obviously, the quicker we can progress this bill, the quicker we can get on to the Hauraki Gulf bill, which is obviously a really important bill that we want to be talking about, I’m sure, across this House.

Thank you, Mr Chair. There are lots of bills to talk about and, of course, there’s a whole other bill to get to before the Hauraki Gulf bill as well, and I hope the Minister will take these questions seriously. Now, noting, of course, that my last question has not been answered, and that was what was the point of having transitional provisions for making new rules if there are going to be no new plans—that was that question.

I’ll go through Part 2, and I’ve got a number of questions. On page 69 of Amendment Paper 347, there are new clauses 87, 88, 89, and 90, which are about “Amendments to Regional Plan: Water for Otago”. There is a requirement in new clause 90 that “Otago Regional Council must notify amendments”, and my question here is very simple. We’ve covered in Part 2 the interesting situation that we’re in, now that Otago Regional Council has to make rule changes because this Government stopped them from notifying their new plan last year. So my question here is simply: does he see the irony in now legislating for the Otago Regional Council to specifically notify amendments when just last year this House considered, in the committee of the whole House stage with a last-minute Amendment Paper, the stopping of that council from doing its job and notifying its plan? That’s one new question.

Now, I’m flicking through the Auckland things, and I asked a question about that yesterday, but I would like now to go to the process for Christchurch City Council and its withdrawal of plan change 14. This starts at around page 76. My first question on Christchurch is related to the definitions in clause 10(7) in new Schedule 3C, in Schedule 1 of the bill, of “30 years of adjusted demand” and “feasible”. I know that these are terms that have come around in various different urban intensification documents, but in making this policy decision to provide Christchurch City with this way to withdraw plan change 14, is the Minister aware of any advice on what the current supply situation is in Christchurch and what sort of gap there is between what currently exists and what would be 30 years of adjusted demand, and then what is feasible? So, just there, if he can comment on the advice that he’s received, and if he wants to make any comment on what his expectations are for what will happen in Christchurch with the withdrawal of plan change 14.

Then, on page 79, there’s a mention of section 77I, which I traversed yesterday in relation to Auckland Council. If plan change 14 is withdrawn and there is an alternative, then in clause 13(6) of new Schedule 3C, “Christchurch City Council may make the requirements in policy 3 less enabling of development than provided for by policy 3 if authorised to do so under section 77I.”, and section 77I is the section, I believe, that goes through the different qualifying matters for intensification. We had a discussion yesterday, in relation to Auckland, of whether those qualifying matters had to be site-specific. My question for Christchurch is the same, which is: does that application of the qualifying matters here have to be site-specific, or can it be broader? This is because of various different conversations about character areas. A qualifying matter is something that is in Part 2 of the Act, which includes historic/heritage, but not amenity values that don’t make it into section 6 of the Resource Management Act, which is “Matters of national importance”. Then, Mr Chair, I might leave it there, and I’ll come back in a second.

Thank you very much to the member the Hon Rachel Brooking for those questions. In regards to the Otago Regional Council question of clause 90, there is an exemption process which Otago Regional Council could have used. In effect, that clause there is providing a short-term fix to allow them to move to a new system. I acknowledge that some of that is repetition from previous answers that the Minister responsible for RMA Reform has provided.

In regards to the transitional provisions for fish, again, that is providing provisions that may be used if the Minister chooses to do so in regards to plan stock. In summary, that aspect there is really ensuring that we’ve got clarity and confidence for fishery stakeholders.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Sorry, I know we can cause confusion for you all. I want to turn to a different part of Part 2, also clause 70, relating to the streamlined planning process as it relates to matters of heritage. Just starting at page 13 and, just to be clear, looking at the commentary from the Environment Committee, there are some notes there off the back of submissions that wanted some more direction and guidance around this part of the bill. I’m just talking to pages 53 and then jumping back to page 51. These parts amend Part 5 of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act (RMA). It specifically talks to, as I mentioned, the streamlined planning process as it relates to heritage.

If you look at page 53, replacement clause 84(3), “An SPP panel must have particular regard to the responsible Minister’s statement of expectations included in the direction given under clause 78 and, if the direction is a kind described in clause 78(3B), the panel must also have particular regard to the criteria in that clause.” Now, I’m just going to come to ask questions about the wording of “particular regard” and “criteria.”

Then, if you look back at 51, you’ll see (3B) noted there way down the page: “If the direction relates to the removal, or enabling the removal, of heritage protection from buildings”. I’ll skip through to paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d)—it talks about: “the following criteria: (a) heritage significance: (b) physical condition, including degree of seismic risk: (c) current or proposed use of the building or structure and the economic viability of any proposed use: (d) whether the owner agrees to the removal of the heritage protection.” I have some questions to the Minister responsible for RMA Reform, because this would sit under a direction that would be included in the Minister’s statement of expectation, as it relates to the existing Part 5 of Schedule 1 of the RMA. I’m interested in whether the Minister has considered, firstly, what hierarchy could potentially be imposed on those four criteria as their hierarchy, in terms of the ones that are of most importance. That’s my first question.

The second question that I’ve got is that if you look across page 53 again—sorry I was jumping back before between those two pages—where it says, “must also have particular regard to”, is there a definition of “particular regard”? Like, what does that actually mean the Minister needs to consider in order to be able to include that within the letter of expectation and the direction?

Thirdly, will there be definitions provided anywhere for these four criteria? The reason I ask this question is that, for example, some of this could be subjective, potentially. I see the Minister nodding, so that’s why I thought I was going to ask some questions, because it could be useful to have some exchange here. I might just seek a further call just to round out my question, because I’ve only got a minute and a half to go. For example, looking at heritage significance, that could be quite subjective—what is the heritage significance? The “physical condition, including degree of seismic risk” is potentially less subjective, because you’ve got the New Building Standard, so that might be more easy to determine. And “(c) current or proposed use of the building or structure and the economic viability of any proposed use”, again, could have elements of being subjective if you get different economic analysis provided by different stakeholders around the use of a building; but also “(d) whether the owner agrees to the removal of the heritage protection.” What I guess would concern me is that if you had a building with a heritage protection that did have, say, high significance but was in very poor physical condition, and there wasn’t an obvious use for the building, but the owner didn’t want to do anything about it—now, that, I would suggest, could be unusual. Often, owners in this situation do want to do something about the building but can’t. But what if the owner didn’t? How would you weigh up the criteria and how they relate with each other? I’m quite keen to hear from the Minister about that.

The final question I have is around whether the Minister would actually consider putting any further instruments through regulation around those four criteria so that if—Mr Chair, I’ll just seek a tiny piece of the next call just to finish off—whether the Minister would say, “Well, actually, these four criteria actually, perhaps, do need some further definition, do need some more information provided around the four criteria, how they will be considered by the Minister, whether there is a hierarchy of those four criteria in terms of their importance.” Also, what exactly does have “particular regard to” actually mean in the context of the Minister making the decision through a letter of expectation? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Those are all legitimate, reasonable questions. In answer to them, no, there’s no hierarchy of criteria in clause 78(3B) in Schedule 1. They are equal, for want of a better phrase. I’m not trying to trifle with the member, but “particular regard” just means regard that is particular. It’s just a higher standard than having regard to something. It just means you have to have a particular, specific regard, so it’s like a higher intensity of regard, shall we say. You know, at some level, words just mean what they are. “Particular regard” is used throughout the Resource Management Act (RMA) at various points; in fact, it’s used throughout statute more at various points about, you know, what Ministers and decision makers have to do. So it’s just a higher standard than “have regard to”.

The member’s right about the criteria, that it’s a mixture of subjective and objective—I mean, welcome to heritage law, welcome to heritage value judgments that people have. One person’s great heritage building is another person’s eyesore. That is part of the challenge with this vexed area of heritage. We’re not intending to put in place any more instruments for regulation relating to this. This is what it is, for the moment. I will say, though, that we’re having a good look at heritage generally, in the context of the replacement legislation to the RMA.

This clause came about, to be honest, largely because of the Gordon Wilson flats. Now, we’ve decided to deal with the Gordon Wilson flats, you know, in its own holus-bolus, slightly unusual, legislated demolition way. But leaving that aside, the genesis for this was actually the Gordon Wilsons. It’s not just Gordon Wilson, but there’s a range of other buildings—in Wellington but also other parts of the country—in which people are pretty fired up about the fact that, yep, they might be heritage-listed, but they’re in bad conditions, they’ve often got seismic risk, and it’s not economic to restore them. Everything’s economic up to a point, but there is a limit, and members listening will be aware of quite a few buildings, actually, in small towns around New Zealand that have an odd combination of heritage listing and seismic challenges that don’t result in good optimal outcomes for small towns or indeed for anyone. That is why whether or not the owner agrees to the removal of the heritage protection is important.

Again, Gordon Wilson being a classic case study—you know, successive people have tried to remove the heritage protection of Gordon Wilson for ages. They’ve tried, for ages and ages, and the law has stopped them, because at the moment the current RMA, I would argue, prioritises heritage protection against the evolution of cities. Cities, in my view, shouldn’t be museums; they need to evolve and adapt. It’s not to say we shouldn’t protect heritage; we should. There are special places that will always be sacred, that should always deserve the law’s protection. But we do have to be a bit careful about that when it comes to private property—in fact, we have to be very careful about that when it comes to private property, and we also have to be really careful about that when the owner of a heritage building doesn’t want it to be heritage-listed.

There are a few examples in Wellington—and again I’m thinking of case studies in Wellington—where the council’s listed a private house that someone lives in. They’ve decided that it’s an architecturally recognised house. Fair enough. Some people would disagree about that, but there’s an argument for that. But the owner doesn’t want it to be heritage-listed. They just want to live in their house. Actually, the council turning up and saying, “Oh, well, you should be really grateful that it’s heritage-listed,” is, frankly, not of great comfort to the person who owns the house, who now can’t do a whole bunch of things to the property that she owns. The council saying, “Oh, well, you should be really grateful that the Government’s decided, in its munificence, that it’s heritage-listed,” doesn’t actually mean a lot. The reality is, heritage listings do have an economic impact on owners. They do, you know.

Suze Redmayne: Huge—you’ve got to paint them a certain colour, and—

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Can be very big—can also accentuate property values. So that’s the thing. The short answer is: it depends, like everything in life. This is not about throwing the baby out with the bathwater but about tilting things back towards making it easier to delist heritage buildings. As I say, the starting point was the Gordon Wilson flats, but there are other examples.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I have some questions on the “Amendments to Regional Plan: Water for Otago”. I appreciate my colleague the Hon Rachel Brooking, who touched on that earlier, because I would note that the late Amendment Paper is a substantive document and we weren’t given adequate time last night to really interrogate it properly. I think Shay Schlaepfer of the Environmental Defence Society’s described it as an egregious aggregation of power, which seems to me to be pretty accurate.

The questions I have are about Part 2 on page 69, which amends the Regional Plan: Water for Otago. The context is that as we heard on 22 October last year, the Government took the unprecedented act of giving a stiff middle finger to the Otago Regional Council by introducing and passing an amendment to the Resource Management Act amendment bill restricting all councils’ ability to notify freshwater plans, which the Otago Regional Council was about to do the next day. That plan, prepared at the cost of something like $18 million over years of working with mana whenua, academics, community, farmers, ecologists, environmentalists, was something that was about to be sorted, and the Government stepped in in an act of overreach and stopped it.

It must have been embarrassing, I think, for the Government to then realise that farmers’ water consents would just run out because of that intervention. It must have been embarrassing, I’d imagine, for the Minister to be schooled on the effects of rushed legislation on rural communities and farmers. I’m interested in the types of discussions that were had to try and get a fix—this quick fix that we can see—because we can see the mess that seems to have been created by the Government simply winging it. Then we’ve got a deal with this hasty legislation.

In Otago, the Manuherikia River, which rises in the far north of the Maniototo, joins the Clutha at Alexandra. One thing that members opposite might not know is that that river is in an exceptionally dry place. There’s something like 400 millimetres of water that drops in that catchment annually. It’s an exceptionally dry place. What happened in the 1970s with intensive irrigation and the impact of dairying was that we started taking more and more and more water out of that river. It’s now a bit of a slimy dribble of a soup that runs down that river in summer. What we have is a community really concerned with what’s going to happen now to that river as a result of this legislation. So what I also want to know from the Minister is this: will the amendment to prevent certain provisions of the Regional Plan: Water for Otago that relate to rural diffuse discharges from having legal effect help control limits on polluting practices or will it encourage further extraction and pollution to an already compromised—severely compromised—waterway that suffers from frequent algal blooms?

In the short-form supplementary departmental statement, it says, “Amending a regional plan through primary legislation may frustrate the process, whereby plan provisions have been developed through consultation with communities and other stakeholders through statutory processes.” How does the Minister know that this amendment is not simply adding mess upon mess to his own creation—to the Government’s own creation? This amendment—I can see the rationale—it’s trying to fix up a problem that the Government created by acting with haste. I can see the fishhooks here for the Government, because it looks as though, in trying to do a fix, it is absolutely going to create more mess. Who is going to deal with it? Well, we will in 2026 when we take back Government and deliver something for our communities. I’d like to see why the Government was keen to do this.

Thank you, Mr Chair. From the last Minister in the chair, the Hon Simon Watts, there was a holus-bolus dismissal of my question and a claim that there was repetition, and no—no—it was not repetition. I was asking specifically about the difference between the Christchurch provisions and the Auckland provisions, how the qualifying matters relate to the Christchurch provisions, and if it is the same as what the Minister said yesterday, despite the provisions all being written differently, then it has to be site-specific. That’s an important question that should not be dismissed.

My next question is on who the Minister is. I just say this because, looking at page 76—and I know it’s throughout the bill, as well—there’s this ability for a variation of Auckland housing planning instruments and there are other variations of planning instruments allowed, and the Minister has to amend it. That’s already a process that exists in clause 80 of Schedule 1. I’m just wondering—given the discourse that we had in the committee of the whole House last night, it did sound like it was going to be this Minister in the chair at the moment, the Minister responsible for RMA Reform, whose bill and Amendment Paper this is. If it would normally be the Minister for the Environment, then knowing what his view is on that would be useful.

Then another question is in relation to—over the page—Schedule 2. On page 80, in new Part 8, which is to be inserted in Schedule 12 by Schedule 2 of the bill, there’s new clause 49A, “Application of section 70(3) (rules about discharges)”, and this is to do with the transitional provisions. It says that it applies to any plan that is the subject of an appeal and any ongoing court proceedings. It’d be useful for the Minister to comment on how court proceedings will interact with his changes to section 70. I presume that what this means is that court proceedings under way will have to now look to section 70 as it will be amended by this bill.

Then the question that I would like to know is whether there are current court proceedings looking at section 30 that will be affected by this transitional provision. Finally, I’m just reminding the Minister about my initial question this afternoon, which was: why do we even need to have transitional provisions—particularly new provisions regarding fisheries—when no new plans are allowed to be made?

I’ll deal with a few of these issues. Scott Willis’ points, I think, were well canvassed last night for at least 90 minutes, so I don’t necessarily think there’s much point in traversing those matters again. If the Government hadn’t acted in relation to the section 70 matters, as I’ve said publicly and as I said in the House last night, we would have faced a situation where thousands of farmers would have been required to go and get a resource consent for things that they’re currently allowed to do. The Government was not willing to let that situation continue.

Ms Brooking asked about the difference between Christchurch and Auckland. The salient point is we’ve got ourselves into this difficult situation where Christchurch is halfway through its plan change. They’ve done the National Policy Statement on Urban Development plan change provisions, and they now no longer have to do the medium density residential standards provisions. They’ve got to provide for 30 years of housing capacity plus a margin, and so they may choose to adopt some medium-density zones, or they may not. They’ll have greater flexibility and choice around that, but in relation to the operative qualifying matters, they’re the same.

Hon Rachel Brooking: Site specific.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yeah, yeah, they’re the same. It’s just that Christchurch is halfway through, and they can’t go back and reopen those decisions. The decisions that came to me for decisions as per the law as it currently exists, they can’t go back and reopen—those are locked and loaded, regardless of how many people would like to unlock them.

In relation to the delegation about—I mean, the law will say the Minister for the Environment, as it does already. The Prime Minister has delegated various functions of the environment portfolio to me at the moment, and, you know, members will have different views about the appropriateness of that, although I’m enjoying it—so, you know, good on you.

In relation to court proceedings, the member raises an issue around that. The short point is yes, it will apply to existing court proceedings. That’s the intent. I don’t know, is the short answer off the top of my head. So I don’t know.

The member asked about fisheries at well, which I didn’t quite understand the point the member was making at the end about fisheries plan changes, but perhaps we can come back to that at another point.

I’ll just quickly clarify that point. The bill as introduced had lots of provisions—and the provisions remain—that are trying to delineate when rules can be made about fishing and when they can’t, and this transitional provision relates to that. But my point is: are those provisions still relevant, and should they still be in this bill, when, in his amendment that was introduced yesterday, councils are going to be barred from making plan changes until December 2027? So what is the point of all these provisions around fish when they’re going to be paused until the end of 2027, and wouldn’t it be better to bring it into his stage 3 amendments?

The short point is there still can be plan changes. There’s a default that they stop, but there are exemptions. There’s the ability to apply to the Minister, to me, for an exemption, so plan changes still can happen—in fact, it’s almost certain that some will. Therefore, the transitional provisions around fisheries kick in at that point.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to ask about the provision that is on page 74 of Amendment Paper 347, which is relating to the Mount Albert area: “Qualifying matters for Auckland housing planning instrument”, clause 8 of Schedule 1 there. I’m looking at subclause (2)(a)(i). It talks about the area that’s subject to the qualifying matter, and I wanted to know what happens if the hazard may be in another area. We have areas where there is flooding risk, and if you build on them—I’ve actually been to sites where the water flows on to another area, so it doesn’t just affect that area. It’s a lesson learnt from building intensely that there are often other areas that are impacted because the water flows down. We have one issue with water. It’s designed so that we have taken advantage of the slope of the hill from Mount Eden, and the water is supposed to flow all the way down to Gribblehirst Park, and it’s supposed to pool there and then drain. But that hasn’t happened, because roads have been built where people haven’t taken that into account, and in the Auckland floods, we got issues with flooding in areas we didn’t expect.

What I want to know is: is this legislation robust enough that we can make a qualifying matter something where one area will be impacted by another area’s risk? What I’m concerned about with that wording is it seems to be it’s that specific area that is in mind. I can see that we’ve got clause 8(4)(a) as well, which talks about “in the area”, again: “the specific characteristic that makes the level of development specified [in the clause] inappropriate in the area;”. So what do we do about those areas? Do you think that we have covered it sufficiently in this legislation?

My next question is about differing heights, because one of the lessons that we’ve learnt in Auckland is we had one height that we made appropriate. You could go up to 10 storeys, I think—I’m talking here about the area above Hobson Street. If you look from Ponsonby into the city, what you see is one height all the way along, because that was the height that was specified for all the buildings, and they all went to the maximum. I asked the Minister in the chair before about whether there were height-to-boundary restrictions but also whether there was a capacity to build a plan for intensification in the areas here where there are actually view shafts. I’ve seen that work modelled in the city. When I look on page 75 of the bill, it’s subclause (5)(b) which says “specify the alternative heights or densities”. So I can see that you can, as the council, change the plan and you can specify the alternative heights and densities in the area. Is that going to protect us from this issue? Specifically, do you have to specify the height, or can you specify different heights, if you’re the council, in your alternative plan, saying, “We will want a range of heights in this area, we will want density in these ranges”—or do they have to specify that in a way that would be uniform?

I have another question, and I appreciate I’ve only got 34 seconds—I might just go over that a little bit for the third question, Chair, if possible; I’ll seek the call. It’s actually on page 76, and it is clause 9A, which is about variations of the housing plan. Now, I think that this is actually about plan variation in the future, so I’d like confirmation about that—that you can have a variation of your Auckland housing plan instrument when it happens. Is that—[Bell rings]

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Are you seeking another call?

HELEN WHITE: Sorry, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Helen White.

HELEN WHITE: Thank you. Is this supposed to allow for an event perhaps that happens? When we had the Auckland floods, it shocked the area how much damage was done and that climate change had happened and there were differences. We got really big slips on Mount Albert. Is it the kind of thing where, as circumstances change, we can vary the plan in this way? Is this what this clause is supposed to be about, or is it somewhere else where there is the capacity to vary the plan if we’ve got it wrong, basically, and it turns out that we can’t do what’s in the original plan?

Thank you. I look forward to the answers to those questions. I’d be interested particularly in the height-to-boundary issue—I’ve asked about that before, but it relates to this. But I really would like to know: are there going to be height-to-boundary rules?

Yeah, thank you very much to the member Helen White for those questions. I mean, quite simply, it is within the discretion of the council to be able to make a determination in regards to the points that the member is referring to. The key aspect required under the legislation is that it needs to be substantiated, and so that does provide a degree of flexibility. But, again, as the member has highlighted—we’re both from Auckland—there are differing aspects in terms of options depending on where you are in the city.

In regards to the question or the point around the variations clause which was there, again, that there provides flexibility to Auckland Council in particular to deal with what would be unforeseen circumstances, and so that’s the purpose of that clause.

Thank you, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): I will indicate at this stage that we’ll be looking for new material.

HŪHANA LYNDON: It’s absolutely new material, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): I look forward to it.

HŪHANA LYNDON: I’m going to be the Māori again. I’m going to ask some Māori questions. This is in relation to page 49, if I can invite the Minister to follow me to Part 2, clause 70, “Schedule 1 amended”, new section 75A(2)(d). It’s around the number of independent commissioners that an authority, through the streamlined planning process (SPP)—how they appoint the expertise relevant for the panel, noting that, within this clause, it speaks to “(d) the number of independent commissioners that the authority wants on the SPP panel and the expertise required of the panel; and (e) the implications of using the process that the local authority wishes to use for any relevant iwi participation legislation or Mana Whakahono a Rohe” for this.

Now, when I think about paragraph (e), and the local authority wishing to engage with relevant iwi participation legislation or Mana Whakahono ā Rohe, it reminds me of the previous page, on 48, where we are narrowing the relationship and the focus of what is tangata whenua engagement in the Resource Management Act (RMA). But also, if we give local authorities the option to “wish” to engage, they won’t engage. That’s what we have experienced as tangata whenua in Local Water Done Well: when you make it optional to engage with tangata whenua, local councils ignore hapū and iwi. This has another implication in this section, whereby we’re saying if local authorities want to engage with the Māori, they can—and, by and large, they don’t.

I want to thank National Iwi Chairs, Pou Taiao, who have pointed out in their submissions to the Government that they continue to fall well short of the established expectations of engagement with iwi and hapū as Te Tiriti partners on the development of policy. They said that clearly in their submission on this process, and on the opportunities that they’ve tried to engage with officials to input into policy development and ultimately walked away from the tēpu because it’s so hard to engage.

Now, with this here, and considering the Māori that local authorities might “wish” to engage with, it’s only those with participation legislation or a Mana Whakahono ā Rohe. That’s not relevant in local hapū, iwi, and RMA processes, because it’s not determined by a settlement legislation, a Mana Whakahono ā Rohe or a hapū-iwi environmental management plan; it’s much broader than that in the kāinga. Iwi, hapū, marae, tangata whenua, Māori communities—we all input into these spaces. I’m keen to understand from the Minister around expectations of local authorities. By saying “wish”, is that an expectation, or is that an optional “maybe” to engage with the Māori in the rohe? Further, why, again, are we limiting the Māori in this legislation? And it’s inconsistent. In one part, we had Part 1. It was very much iwi authority, Mana Whakahono, Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) claimants—nearly every Māori listed, but there are a few missing, and I wanted to make amendments to say “all hapū-iwi” but got blocked. Now, in Part 2, you’re limiting, again, who the Māori is that local authorities might “wish” to engage with.

So the question is: is this intentional? Are we going to see some consistency in the way that Māori engagement is framed within the legislation? Are you even open to broadening that relationship with tangata whenua, and beyond a Mana Whakahono or an iwi participation legislation?

Yeah, I thank the member, Hūhana Lyndon, very much for that—well, I don’t know if it was a question; it was more just a statement of sort of opinion and views. I don’t agree with the premise of what was said there. There are so many good examples of longstanding and productive relationships between iwi Māori and local government across this country. Actually, in the main, those relationships are longstanding and are very effective. So the premise that that isn’t the case is simply not the reality. Can that be improved and can that be enhanced? Well, of course, and that’s like any relationship. But to say that this is optional is just not simply a statement of the reality that exists today.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Thank you. I’ve got a couple more questions. I’m not going to drag this out any more than is required by the people in my area, who are the most impacted people in Auckland. One of the questions I’m frequently asked is: why them? Why is it their stations that are being affected? I appreciate that the City Rail Link (CRL) brings people up to a certain point, but most of the stations that are in this line are not in the CRL; they are beyond it, and they have been focused on—and they are not being treated like that in Remuera. It’s a comment that is made fairly frequently, that those other areas, those other lines, are not being treated in this way.

I would like to know from the Minister: why are we doing it like this and is there a plan to provide further amenities to this area in a way that makes it much more viable? I understand that we haven’t got all the resources in the world. We don’t want sprawl—we want intensification where we can provide it with service—but is there a commitment from the Minister to make sure that this area gets the schooling that’s required, the green space that’s required, etc.? Now, I heard a waffly answer on that from the Minister before, and I appreciate that there shouldn’t be repetition, but a waffly answer is a waffly answer. Is there that kind of commitment to make sure that if we’re going to put affordable housing into our city, we back it up with a decent school; that we do not just say, “Oh, 3,500 will have to bid with everyone else.”

We know the population’s coming. How much planning is going on in the central government space to make sure that these areas are sufficiently backed up by proper amenities, that they are actually places that are really desirable to live—or are we actually just swapping out and putting all the pressure on one area, while the people of Remuera actually have a very different kind of experience and have the focus on schooling? That is a question I genuinely get asked.

Now, can I ask another question before I finish, which is actually about the issue over clause 4 in the schedule—this is page 71—and it’s the wording “demand for housing and business use in those locations”. I have said to the Minister: why have we got two things? I totally get that there is an issue over “housing and business use that is appropriate given the level of accessibility to commercial activity and community services”—that’s bang on what I’m talking about. That’s about backing it up. But what has been given here as an alternative—and you have to take the greater of, so you have to have higher densities and heights where there is a demand for housing and business use, but none of those amenities exist. That’s what worries me about it.

I’m trying to be really clear: is that what I am reading? Am I reading that if you’ve got a demand for housing and business use but no amenities in the place, “Tough, we’re going to build it anyway. You’re required to do so because it’s the ‘greater of’ ”? What I’m worried about is that there’s a perverse incentive here. If it’s just (B), then yes, we’re on board in that way, because then people will have to give the amenities, whereas if there isn’t, they obviously just have to be left to sink. But what I’d also like to know about that sentence is—I actually don’t know what you mean. Demand for housing and business use in a growing city—isn’t that something that comes? Isn’t it somewhere where we go, “Actually, there will be a demand. We are growing city. We’re going to have a lot more people in Auckland.”? I am all for it in terms of making sure that my kids can live down the road, but actually there is a future focus there, whereas this looks like it’s past demand. It’s what has been demanded and how will it be measured. Thank you very much.

Thanks for the question. The majority of that has been covered by the prior Minister, but the point that the member is noting in the context of whether it is always contingent in terms of new intensification being dependent upon the infrastructure being in play, well, the simple reality is that there’s going to be instances where there’s going to be a mismatch of that situation simply because of the fact of the timing and the other infrastructure requirements. But I think, in terms of the long-term plan around ensuring that we have the enablement of infrastructure in place to be able to support growth, that’s very much the strategy of this Government, and that will be implemented by Auckland Council in this instance.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 2 set out on Amendment Paper 347 be agreed to.

The question is that Lan Pham’s amendment to Part 2 set out on Amendment Paper 305 be agreed to.