Resource Management (Consenting and Other System Changes) Amendment Bill

Members, we now come to Part 2. Part 2 is the debate on clauses 70 to 81: amendments to the schedules of the principal Act and amendments to other enactments, and Schedules 1 and 2. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

Point of order. Thank you, Madam Chair. Speaking to Speakers’ rulings 68/3 and 68/5, Madam Chair, this is not a question of whether you are the sole judge of whether a committee stage should accept a closure motion—of course we are not arguing with that. The problem is that in that very longstanding ruling—it is one of the longest-standing rulings in this House, that dates back to 1930—it’s still expressed in that reading that it shouldn’t be used too harshly. We find ourselves in the situation now where it has been used to limit the contributions of two front-bench Labour members on farm plans and regulation, which is new material that hasn’t been dealt with.

I have two points of order on this. The first is this: I seek leave for the Hon Rachel Brooking to give a 10-minute call and a five-minute Q and A on farm plans and regulation.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? Yes, there is.

ARENA WILLIAMS: Point of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Second point of order.

ARENA WILLIAMS: Thank you, Madam Chair. In the case that it’s not the will of the governing parties to allow the spokesperson to make a call on what is new material and has not been dealt with, we find ourselves in some trouble, because anyone following along in this committee stage will know how important those farm plans and regulation changes are, but they haven’t had the opportunity to follow questions that haven’t been raised by the spokespeople. I’m asking you to remedy that situation by allowing the Hon Rachel Brooking to make a call, as it relates to Part 2, on those two things. You may hear some material, Madam Chair, which does not directly relate to Part 2 but is related to the farm plan.

OK, so on this point of order, we are up to Part 2, and I will allow any questions that relate to Part 2, but I won’t allow anything added into Part 2 that’s not in Part 2. In relation to the closure, I had been watching for some time, and I did hear a number of warnings from the previous Chairperson about things becoming repetitive. If something hasn’t been brought up at that point in time, if it’s becoming repetitive—and we have a discussion as we change over—and the call was made, and if something hasn’t been brought up at that point, and repetition is going on, then I stand by my ruling. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to jump ahead given that previous ruling and that I didn’t get to some very important parts in Part 1, being farm plans and the new totally Draconian regulation-making power that the Minister will now have, that we haven’t discussed.

Hon Simeon Brown: Cheer up.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Oh! And members opposite just tell me to cheer up. No, I will not cheer up by this terrible lawmaking process that we see over and over again by this Government, where they introduce huge amendments that do not go to select committee and that arrive on the legislation website on the day that we are debating them. This is a terrible thing. I want to talk about Schedule 1, and this is about the Auckland—[Interruption]

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’m trying to hear the member, please. Schedule 1—I didn’t hear what the member said after that.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: I’m interested in—it’s Schedule 1 of this amendment, new Schedule 3C inserted, and it’s the process for Auckland Council to withdraw Plan Change 78 and do a new one. I’m sure other members will have many questions about the ins and outs of how this will work, but what I want to focus on is qualifying matters.

Why I want to do that is because I sat on the Environment Committee in the last Parliament, where we had bipartisan support for the MDRS, the medium density residential standards. The National Party then campaigned on getting rid of that, and we’ve had a process whereby the bill as introduced was going to make it optional for councils to do the MDRS, and then, as reported back, no longer made it optional—well, it provides a way for Auckland and Christchurch to do intensification in a different way. I’m sure our Labour spokesperson will want to speak on that point and that we are not opposing these particular changes, and that we do note that the Minister has talked about these for some time. I note that he’s also talked to the Auckland Council about it.

The part I’m interested in is these qualifying matters. When we did the legislation last term for the MDRS, there was a lot of discussion on the qualifying matters. We see here at clause 4, in Part 1 of new Schedule 3C, the requirements for Auckland Unitary Plan if Plan Change 78 is withdrawn. At clause 4(2), it says it requires this density—that I’m sure other people will talk about, including the 15 storeys at locations around some train stations—but then it says, at subclause (2), “or policy 3 if authorised to do so by clause 8.”, and clause 8 is the qualifying matters.

Jumping to clause 8, why I’m interested in this is that this amendment is saying you have to build—if you’re going to get rid of your planning instrument that’s been implementing the MDRS, that’s OK, so long as you do this intensification. When you are doing that intensification, there are some qualifying matters, and those qualifying matters in clause 8(1)(a) refer back to sections 77I(a) to (i) of the Resource Management Act. Very quickly, those qualifying matters relate to section 6 matters: matters of national significance, things that are in national policy statements, things like the Waikato River Authority, the Hauraki Gulf, nationally significant infrastructure, open-space designations, special iwi provisions, and providing for business land. These are the things that are already in the Act that relate to the MDRS.

Then we can look at clause 8(1)(b) of new Schedule 3C, which is “any other matter … but only if subclause (4) is satisfied.” Then we look to subclause (4), and that requires that any specific characteristic must be specified and then it also must be justified and it must include a site-specific analysis. My question goes to character areas. These are an issue that is often a political hot topic in Auckland. Would a character area be able to be a qualifying matter if it is not a site-specific analysis, noting that in clause 5 it talks about identifying by location, for example, by mapping—that’s at clause 5(a). Would that mapping be enough to be over a whole number of streets, say, to say that it was a character area, or would something that’s a character area—so, importantly, not a section 6 matter that comes under section 77I(a). Would a general area be able to be mapped and be a qualifying area, or does it have to be a site-specific area if it’s not one of 77I(a) to (i), if you’re following that? Thank you.

It’s a complicated issue, and the member did quite a good traverse through a complicated area of law. The short point is this: special character in and of itself is not a qualifying matter. Despite what many people think, it’s not a catch-all qualifying matter. It comes about through the “any other matter”, as the member raises, and that does require a site-specific adjudication. There hasn’t been any change to the existing medium density residential standards (MDRS) provisions in this bill. Reasonable people can have a disagreement about whether or not that’s the right approach, but we’ve not opened up that debate for this bill.

What the bill does is let Auckland Council withdraw its plan change. It says that if they do do that, they have to provide as much capacity as exists under the existing Plan Change 78, so there’s no loss of qualifying matters. It doubles down on the idea around density around train stations—Morningside, Mount Albert, Maungawhau, Kingsland—and says you’ve got to go above and beyond even what the legal requirements are now. There’s been a bit of commentary about whether or not that avoids the need to upzone around train stations generally. It doesn’t, because that’s an existing National Policy Statement on Urban Development requirement that just says that around City Rail Link stations in particular, given there’s such significant capacity being built into the Auckland railway network that—you know, we think it makes sense to allow for a lot of capacity, particularly around stations like Kingsland, for example. It doesn’t alter the qualifying matters and the approach to them as per the existing law.

We will be in the slightly unusual situation where Auckland and Canterbury will be exempt from the MDRS provisions. There’s lots of complicated reasons as to how we’ve got ourselves into this situation. There’s probably not a lot of point traversing how we got there. The point is that I think this is actually a good solution for Auckland, and that’s why the Government’s negotiated and worked quite hard with His Worship Wayne Brown in order to get to this position. It’s met with the approval of the Auckland Council, and, in fact, they have already started work on the replacement plan change in advance of this bill passing so that they can move quickly by October, November to notify a new plan change.

Thanks, Madam Chair. I have some specific questions about proposed sections 82 through to 86, which are around the Wellington City proposed plan.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Can you just refer me to it, because we are on clauses 70 to 81—oh, thank you. The Clerk’s just clarified with me the new provisions being added, so that’s OK. Carry on.

TAMATHA PAUL: Thank you, Madam Chair. So, obviously, these amendments are specifically related to the Gordon Wilson Flats, which was kind of an area of interrogation that was initiated in the previous part but spelt out in more specificity in this part. Obviously, these are a very specific set of amendments for a very specific building, so I wanted to ask the Minister what his rationale was in only prioritising the Gordon Wilson apartments as opposed to other opportunities in Wellington City that meet the same threshold that Gordon Wilson meets.

For example, my amendment, which was Amendment Paper 336, I believe, addressed the army general headquarters building on Taranaki Street in Wellington City, which meets similar thresholds to Gordon Wilson. It was deemed earthquake prone more than a decade ago. It is owned by a public entity, the Ministry of Defence; in this case, it’s Victoria University for Gordon Wilson. There is no sign of movement on the general HQ building at all, and it could be used for affordable student accommodation in the same way that Gordon Wilson apartments could be used. I wanted to understand what makes Gordon Wilson exceptional in comparison to other related buildings in Wellington City, which I know the Minister will be keen to answer.

I have a couple more questions to ask. Could the Minister dive into why Auckland and Canterbury are exempt from the medium density residential standards? I would be really keen to know, because that kind of goes against the Minister’s direction around having a consistent national direction and trying to steer territorial authorities towards being more permissive of more housing, which, you know, we support as well. I’m not arguing with that, but I just want to understand the rationale, because the answer that the Minister just gave previously assumed that we all understand why there is that different approach, but I don’t. If he could go into that, that would be helpful.

The other question I had is just on those sections. Obviously, there are very specific amendments to the Wellington City proposed plan and also the Water for Otago regional plan, and I just want to understand why the Minister chose to single those two projects out and what makes them more significant. But I’m mostly interested in the Gordon Wilson apartments, and if the Minister says that the reason is because he had evidence for Gordon Wilson apartments as opposed to army HQ, what evidence was that? My understanding was that the Minister had evidence as to why the Gordon Wilson apartments should be preserved, not demolished—which I’m not advocating for. But what level of evidence would you need to do a similar thing to buildings in similar situations across Wellington and, indeed, the country?

Reasonable questions. In relation to the Gordon Wilson Flats, there’s a couple of things. I mean, firstly, the landowner wrote and asked for this. Victoria University of Wellington is the landowner; they want this desperately. In fact, they’ve indicated that if we get them delisted and make demolition a permitted activity, they’ll move very quickly to put in place new, warm student accommodation for Wellington, which is a great thing. We can get the hideous eyesore that is the Gordon Wilson Flats off the vista of the Wellington skyline as soon as possible. I think most Wellingtonians will welcome that.

That, actually, is the second factor, which is that there’s extremely strong community support—not from everybody in Wellington. The heritage lobby has come out in force, freely willing to spend money that is not theirs on a building that they claim can be renovated and retrofitted at vast expense—not expense that they’re willing to shell out for. It’s all free money in their world. There’s plenty of architects and members of the holier-than-thou brigade who wish to preserve the Gordon Wilson Flats—not willing to spend any of their own money doing it and put their money where their mouth is and say that these things can be done economically or in a sensible way. So not overwhelmingly supported, but that’s Wellington for you. But there is strong community support and a landowner that wishes us to do this and, also, a scenario in which there have been repeated attempts, including by the council, to do this. I think that does create the Gordon Wilson Flats as a kind of sui generis—in and of themselves, their own thing, basically, is the easiest way to explain it—and I haven’t yet found an example of other buildings that are owned by someone that wishes to have them delisted, has repeatedly tried to have them delisted and failed for a variety of complicated legal reasons, and that enjoys overwhelming community support.

Now, I know the member’s got a particular suggestion around some building that she wishes to delist or make easier to delist. If these Amendment Papers and the bill pass, there will be a process that will be available to the council in order to delist buildings in Wellington. In fact, the Wellington City Council, to my understanding, is already working on quite a long list of things that they wish to immediately refer into the streamlined planning process for delisting that will eventually come to the Government. They’re moving really quickly. In fact, they want this bill passed quite quickly so that they can move on those. If the member’s got buildings in Wellington that she thinks should be delisted, I’d encourage her to talk to her council; I reckon she might know a few people on the council who might be able to help her with that.

In relation to Auckland and Christchurch and the medium density residential standards (MDRS), I mean, these are good issues. The short story of a long story is that Auckland has not advanced its plan changes relevant to the National Policy Statement on Urban Development and the MDRS for some good reasons. The floods in Auckland—the Anniversary Day floods—those are the good reasons. The bad reasons are they just have not got around to it quickly enough, and that has been frustrating. Canterbury is the same, where they sought repeated extensions. In fact, the last Government had to send an observer in to ask them what they were doing and why they were taking so long. They have been slow, and I’ve publicly said that, so I’m not saying anything to the House that I haven’t said publicly.

We’ve basically come up with two separate solutions. In relation to Auckland, I’ve already canvassed it: they can withdraw Plan Change 78, but they’ve got to replace the plan with a new one that enables just as much capacity as Plan Change 78 does, which is important. They’ve got more flexibility around not having to use the MDRS anymore, but they do have to do density around train stations, and they’ll have more flexibility around how they create that capacity. That’ll ultimately be a decision for the council and for local communities in Auckland, and I think that’s important. In relation to Christchurch, we said to them, “You’ve got to go for 30 years of housing growth with a 20 percent margin.” To make sure that we do that, the Government—I, as Minister responsible for RMA Reform, will be the judge of whether or not they have met that housing capacity or not.

My understanding is the council’s going through a process around that now in advance of the bill passing. It may be that there are pockets of medium-density zoning in Christchurch—that they may choose to do greater capacity around public transport nodes, for example. They’ll just work their way through that. They’ve already actually done half of the plan change required. That was the thing that happened a couple of months ago. They sent a whole bunch of decisions up to me, and I had to make decisions per the existing law around those. It’s a little bit of a horses-for-courses approach in relation to Auckland and Christchurch, representing change in policy, the function of time, and councils, frankly, not getting on with the job and doing what Parliament asked them to do all the way back in 2022.

We, essentially, came to the pragmatic view that councils that had already done the MDRS—like Lower Hutt and Upper Hutt did it two years ago; it’s now the law of the land in those councils. People have made decisions based around it. We could require councils to go back through a complicated ratification process, but then what they’d have to do, if they did decide to change their approach, is start a whole new plan change process, and that would fly in the face of what we’ve just voted on in Part 1, which is the plan to stop proposals. We don’t want councils to go through the time and expense of having to do complicated plan changes, because there’s a whole new Resource Management Act regime coming in a couple of years’ time or so. That would fly in the face of what we’ve already just agreed on, which I think reasonable people can have a disagreement about, but I think most people would accept is a pretty reasonable approach. That kind of explains a little bit of the history.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The Minister will know that my area in Mount Albert is one of the most affected by these particular changes. I actually live in one of the areas which will be a walkable catchment near Morningside and, while I can see the ease with which a street like Morningside Drive will take to higher density, there are areas of the electorate that are particularly concerned and asking questions.

I’d like to ask some of those questions. One of those is the area of Baldwin Avenue, which is a very different station. It’s surrounded by bungalows—it’s quite a different area. There’s no industrial area as there is on Morningside Drive. It’s not on a ridge. It’s quite difficult to imagine high buildings, and those buildings under this plan change are going to be 10-plus storeys, not 10 storeys, but actually that’s the sort of minimum of that code, as I understand it.

These are questions that have come mainly from that area. I would actually ask the Minister the first question, which is: would he visit the area? Something that I’ve been asked by the residents of it: will he see the impact on that area? It has a railway line going through it and a small station, but in order to build that station to the capacity for an area redeveloped in the way that this plan change loosens up things, you’d actually have to pull a lot of houses down around the station. It’s not as easy of a plan.

One of the issues, with regard to those railway links, is the first question that I’ve got, which is: is there are a plan around those stations and, particularly, going across them for cars in a way that is safer? Is there a kind of coordination that’s been discussed with the council and is the part of the criteria that talks about community facilities what is meant by that? Do they have to have community facilities like Auckland Transport rail link?

What are we going to do with regards to schooling when we have so many more houses in the area if we go up in the way possible is one of the questions that’s definitely top of mind for people in Mount Albert, because our schools are at capacity. We have 3,500-plus students at Mount Albert Grammar School. How are we supposed to cope, and is there any commitment to greater resourcing from central government into schooling?

One of the questions that I’ve got is about flooding—something the Minister’s just raised. Those are the areas that in the floods in Auckland—in the Anniversary Day floods, the area of Sandringham flooded in pockets. Has there been an account taken of the flooding zones in those areas? They seem to be just a circle around the particular stations in a walkable area, but some of those areas flooded quite badly, and my understanding was that was—if I pop down, can I pop up again? I can see that the Minister would quite like to answer this.

No, probably not within time, so perhaps we’ll give the Minister—

HELEN WHITE: Yes, thank you. I’d love to take another call. I’ve got a whole lot more questions from the residents.

I feel like we’ll still be going tomorrow afternoon, so we can come back to this. I mean, the member makes good points. In relation to the flood issue, that’s partly why we’re doing this bill, to be honest: to allow Auckland Council to withdraw Plan Change 78 so they can downzone particular areas, because the current law only lets them upzone; it doesn’t let them downzone. That’s partly why we’re doing it. Ultimately, flood mapping, and exactly where you can and can’t build, that’s a function for the council, and they’ve got quite extensive work under way around that as a result of the floods a couple of years ago. That’s partly why we’re doing this bill, so I agree with you that that’s important.

In terms of heights and density around stations, it enables it; it doesn’t make it mandatory. It’s not mandatory to go and build a 20-storey apartment block by a train station; it enables it. It’s not mandatory. The point I always make to people is that you will see that Auckland and other cities will change over time. This is about helping to enable that change rather than locking the city into a museum, basically, which is unable to change because of planning rules. You’re not going to see Baldwin Avenue station and you’re not going to see a 20-storey apartment block going up tomorrow; you’re unlikely to see it in two years’ time. But, sure, in five to 10 years’ time, you may well see new apartment buildings going up around Mount Albert, around Baldwin Avenue, and that’s exactly what we want. That’s partly what the Government’s trying to create with this change.

That’s all about making Auckland a much more livable place to live, enabling housing choice and opportunity for people, particularly younger Aucklanders who currently are locked out of the housing market because housing is so expensive in Auckland. I think most Aucklanders, when I talk to them, say, “You know, let’s get on with building housing near train stations, particularly near the City Rail Link stations. We’re spending so much money from central government and from an Auckland Council point of view, and investing in this game-changing new transformational piece of infrastructure for our biggest city, so let’s make it worth it.” It’s sort of hard to disagree with that, because that’s precisely why we invested in the City Rail Link. It’s not just a transport project; it’s actually an urban development project first and foremost, and it’s an important project. Anyway, I look forward to further conversations tomorrow afternoon.

Members, the time has come for me to report progress.

Progress to be reported.

House resumed.