Planning Bill

When we are in Government, we will fix this planning system and restore the mana that iwi and hapū deserve.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Just before I take the next speaker, there is an ability for me, when I’m in the Chair, to take a holistic approach to a debate and not break it down into its component parts. Particularly, this has been quite a good quality debate, and even some of the cracks across the floor have been reasonably well-informed. So in making a decision on a comment that probably the member would reflect on and think she probably wouldn’t make next time—all those things are taken into account.

Mr Speaker, thank you. Coming back to the Planning Bill and the intricate details of the Planning Bill—because it is a very complex piece of legislation, of course, which our committee spent hours and hours working on—it is a bill that is about making it easier and faster to get things built in this country. That includes housing, infrastructure, and renewable energy, and these reforms help address bottlenecks in infrastructure delivery, ensuring that vital projects can move forward efficiently. This Resource Management Act (RMA) reform reduces unnecessary delays and provides certainty for investment for big projects. Through these positive changes, we are ensuring that the planning system supports both growth, vibrant communities, and protects our environment.

Again, I thank the Environment Committee for all the hard work that they have done: hours and hours of work on this bill. We made hundreds of constructive changes to the Planning Bill. This bill streamlines planning and environmental management, maintains strong environmental safeguards, supports development, and recognises Māori interests and Treaty settlements.

Many submitters spoke about the clunky RMA system at the moment and the lengthy, expensive consenting processes under this current RMA system, and there was broad agreement across multiple submissions that we need to change the planning system. The RMA reform creates a system focused on people’s enjoyment of their land and the use and development of natural resources while protecting and enhancing the natural environment. The Planning Bill introduces greater standardisation and planning that reduces consenting and permitting requirements, it enhances national consistency, and it makes the system quicker and cheaper.

The new regional spatial planning requirements enable growth and development more effectively. The bill improves the process for designating land for infrastructure. It creates a system with fewer plans overall, in order to enhance consistency, certainty, and strategic alignment within regions. The bill creates a modernised heritage framework focused on significant historic heritage to protect what matters most, while providing flexibility and certainty for landowners.

A new planning tribunal will be introduced for fast, low-cost resolution of disputes, including unjustified consenting demands and disproportionate consent conditions. There’s a new regulatory relief framework to require councils to proactively consider impacts of specific planning controls on private landowners, respecting property rights. The Planning Bill strengthens requirements for climate change adaptation and mitigation, ensuring that future developments are resilient and environmentally responsible.

New Zealand needs a planning system that stops getting in the way and starts getting things done: more homes, faster infrastructure, more renewable energy, a stronger food and fibre sector, and practical environmental protection. I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): I just wonder whether, as the chair of the committee, that member may have had a much superior knowledge of the bill than many others and may have been able to lift her eyes from her notes occasionally.

Kia orana, Mr Speaker. Well, it’s like Groundhog Day. The last bill, I followed the chair of the Environment Committee, and it’s basically the same, where, I think, graciously, 3½ minutes was the—

Grant McCallum: Well, sit down then.

TANGI UTIKERE: Well, I won’t be sitting down, actually, because I’ve got a lot to say, and I think members want to hear what I have to say. I would have thought that the chair of the Environment Committee would have gone for longer than 3½ minutes, particularly given she started by saying that this was “an intricate and complex bill”, and yet 3½ minutes is all she could summon up.

I would have actually liked to have perhaps heard how the chair of the parliamentary select committee for environment actually feels about changes that have come after her committee has delivered the report. That is a very good point because there have been a significant number of changes that have been identified after that member’s very own committee, which she leads, spent hours of time listening to submitters and going through the process that by her own definition is something that’s intricate and complex, and not a single little blip comes out of her mouth about her concern or otherwise around what she thinks in terms of what has happened since that report has come back. That is disappointing.

These two bills do go hand in hand for the purposes of Parliament, but they go hand in hand for, basically, nothing else. As we know, planning is synonymous with local government as a sector, and, sure, councils can respond to change, but what councils absolutely struggle with is uncertainty. Anyone in this House who has experience in local government will know that certainty is really, really important in terms of the long-term focus of councils. They need certainty around costs. They need certainty around rules. They need certainty around staffing, either those that are going to be retained or those that are going to be let go. They need certainty around compliance obligations, and it’s important that any legislation—and in this particular sort of sense, the Planning Bill provides that certainty, as well.

I want to follow up on the comments from my colleague the Hon Rachel Brooking. She has put a challenge to Minister Bishop to seriously consider the amendments that this side of the House will be advancing in committee stage. I guess that comes in the similar vein of first reading where we sent this bill off to select committee in good faith, thinking about the possible changes that might follow.

We have already heard reference to the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment and his view, basically, that in terms of a synergy between both bills, it is not there—it is absent. The conflict that’s meant to be resolved if there is a dispute resolution process is via the Minister who holds the warrant at the time. That is doomed to fail. We’ve heard already this evening that there is a process of consultation, but is there? I mean, is there a process of consultation that the Minister would be expected to go through; if so, what are the thresholds—what are the sort of guiding rails that many members in this House have referred to this afternoon to allow the Minister to reach that particular point? Maybe we’ll get to that at committee stage. We don’t know; we’ll have to wait and see.

One of the real concerns with this bill is the regulatory relief provisions. I understand that this was a significant issue that was covered during the select committee process. Now, what is of huge concern, I think, is that the existing environmental protections that are currently in place could lead to the trigger of compensatory liabilities that might exist.

If we think about communities all around our country at the moment and the various protections that exist, but there is no change in terms of what is being done with those protections—so, for example, biodiversity is a good example. Landscape is a good example. Heritage is a great example, actually, where heritage buildings and heritage provisions often sit dormant for many years. They don’t initiate any change and they don’t undergo any change. But if there is a trigger at some point in time where there is a review process under resource management law, that could potentially lead to—

Cameron Luxton: Is this in the bill?

TANGI UTIKERE: —the requirement for the—it is in the bill, Mr Luxton. It is in the bill. This leads to a requirement for the council to, basically, compensate property owners by the mere fact that there is some sort of designation or requirement over whatever that might be.

It is a significant consideration that councils will be required to turn their mind to whether or not they have to actually head down a relief provision sort of process. Now, that is a change, and what that means is that this Government is prepared to yet again lump on top of councils an additional consideration about the financial compensation that they would be required to actually put in place. As part of the information that was in front of the select committee, the potential cost to councils is just shy of $2 billion.

Ryan Hamilton: According to one person.

TANGI UTIKERE: Look, we hear from members that that’s just according to one person. Well, what I’d like to hear from Government members is the alternative information, because that is not what we’re hearing being put forward in this particular debate this evening. We’re not hearing alternatives. MartinJenkins estimates that $1.9 billion nationwide could be the potential liabilities that would fall on—who? It would fall on ratepayers, who are finding it tough under this current Government right now.

What is really interesting is this. The question needs to be asked or put to the Government around how those costs could be absorbed, and the Minister and others will say things like “Well, you could potentially have rates relief.”—that’s one example that they’ve given. Another is “Land swaps. You could look at council land”—whether it’s recreational land, green space, or community facilities—“and you could possibly hand that over to the property owner as a form of compensation.” Perhaps it could be the other one, which is development rights that might fall in favour of one party or the other, or basic cash payments or, indeed, specific grants.

Now, they all come at a cost. Government members over there might think that a land swap is not going to come at a cost and that it’s an exchange of a resource. It comes at a cost because if you are in a community where that land is potentially tagged for recreational use, community facility, institutional use, educational use, or whatever, that comes at a cost. It is deeply concerning that we have in front of us a Planning Bill—and these were issues that were identified when this bill was first introduced and was sent off to select committee. I challenged the Minister and I challenged members of that committee to turn their minds to this provision to see what was workable and what was not.

Now, again, we come back to the fact that we have a bill that’s been returned from the select committee that is far worse than the bill that was actually sent there in the first place. How bad is that—

Grant McCallum: No, it’s a lot better—a lot better.

TANGI UTIKERE: —and how rare is that? Well, if members opposite like to think that this is a better bill because it’s going to lump additional costs on to ratepayers and it’s going to stymie the ability for councils to do the work that they do, then they have a very different definition of that, and of localism, as well.

There are other effects in terms of this bill, and on the issue of effect, that whole regulatory relief provision will have a chilling effect when it comes to the ability for decision making, because councils will be forced to actually not consider the environmental bottom lines or the environmental protections because they know that the financial implications for them and their community mean that they’re not going to be able to afford to pay that. For a country that actually prides itself, and for others who pride sort of looking at New Zealand for our clean, green image and our resource intensity, there are going to be real prospects for change in that space.

I think that it is deeply disappointing that we have a Government that wants to progress a law change in the resource management space that is actually looking to curtail opportunities that exist for environmental protections and environmental bottom lines. They are in areas of biodiversity, and while members opposite might not think biodiversity actually matters, it is a key consideration in terms of identity for New Zealand and of who we are.

As I say, this bill has come back to this Parliament in a different sort of shape—a worse one. Previously, they said that it’s going to—and I will end on this—build roads. Well, I really don’t think that this Planning Bill is going to build more of their “roads of National Party significance”. It’s a financial inability to actually add up and set aside the money that’s going to stymie their ability to deliver roads in this country.

This Planning Bill has been ill-thought-through. It has gone to a select committee in good faith and it has returned in bad faith. It has had significant change that would make a difference that is detrimental for resource management in this country. On that basis, we do challenge the Government to consider the amendments we will be putting forward, but we continue to oppose this bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): The time has come for me to leave the chair for the meal break. The House will resume at 7.30.

Sitting suspended from 5.58 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Good evening, members. The House is resumed. When we broke for the dinner break, we were debating the Planning Bill, second reading. The next call is call No. 9. It’s a National Party call.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Look, it’s great to speak on the second reading of this very important Planning Bill. Why is it so important that we pass this? Well, ultimately, one of the key challenges we’ve had in this country over recent years is housing affordability, and one of the main reasons that this has been a problem is because the Resource Management Act and the extra costs put on people who wish to build and the increase in land development costs and so forth has really put a lot of pressure on the next generation. This is the Planning Bill. There’s plenty of light reading there if anyone would like to take it up! I just think it’s really important that we progress this bill so we can really fix the basics and build the future. I commend the bill. Cheers.

That’s another terrible response from the Government to something that’s really important. That member should hang his head in shame. He’s a disgrace to the North.

Grant McCallum: Do you know what you’re going to say, Willie?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: That’s all I’m going to say. I just came from a book launch for Kiritapu Allan. It’s quite ironic and the timing was amazing really, because Kiritapu Allan did so much mahi in this area. I said, “Yes, those dirty, rotten”—I won’t go on, just in case I get point of ordered—“that lot on the other side are changing all the stuff that we talked about, Kiritapu, in terms of tikanga, in terms of the obligations with regards to the Treaty, and in terms of consultation.” I just remember so much work that went into this in terms of recognising Māori rights, recognising tikanga, giving effect to the Treaty—giving effect to the Treaty. That was a major move for us—never mind this “acknowledging”—what is it, Camilla?—“the Treaty” or “honouring the Treaty”. Giving effect to the Treaty is a major move for any Government. I was proud that Kiritapu—and I’ll put David Parker in there because he was actually leading it all.

I want to say to the Opposition—not the Opposition, but soon to be Opposition. I want to say to the soon to be Opposition that we had our own debates within Labour in terms of Māori rights and in terms of giving effect to the Treaty. David had his views, which were very challenging, and we worked through them constructively, and we came out with stuff that, I think, you could be very proud of. Sadly, now, with the tribunal coming out and hammering this Government, quite rightly, this bill must again be highlighted, particularly in these areas in terms of the Treaty, because the Minister says that decades of varied lawmaking created messy, inconsistent terminology ranging from “honour” to “give effect” and that standardising language brings predictability and certainty to the law. Well, standardising and getting rid of “giving effect to the Treaty” is not the way to go. “Giving effect to the Treaty” recognises the legal obligation that the Government has and brings comfort to Māori.

It was interesting talking with Kiritapu today. We recalled all those arguments, and she said how we talked through the whole kaupapa of the principles of the Treaty—about relationships, about partnership, and about good faith. All those principles should be expressed fairly in this legislation. I ask the Government tonight: do you really think that those principles are being fairly exhibited and expressed in this legislation? I say no. The reality is you have watered down—watered down—the obligations that the Government should have to Māori, and I’m really proud of the Waitangi Tribunal and judge Caren Fox for challenging this Government over their nonsense. Shame on Minister Shane Jones—typical New Zealand First, going after the chief judge of the Waitangi Tribunal. All she’s doing is highlighting how this Government is trampling on the rights of tangata whenua. I want to congratulate the tribunal.

This legislation is a prime example of a breach of principles and a breach of obligations in terms of the Government to Māori. We obviously will oppose this. We’ll keep opposing this, and we’ll be able to turn it around probably in November or December this year. We look forward to that time. Kia ora tātou.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. We all know the Planning Bill is about replacing a system that has become too slow, too expensive, and too unpredictable. For example, in Japan, Japan has 13 planning zones. In New Zealand, we’ve got 1,175—all with different rules and bespoke provisions. It’s too hard, and it’s too complex, so this bill is about making it simpler. It’s about saying yes to more homes, more infrastructure, stronger economic growth, more jobs, and more opportunities. I commend the bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. The RMA, or the Resource Management Act, was a significant piece of legislation that aimed to do two things: to improve environmental protections and to lend itself to town planning reform. It achieved a number of things, but we’re here today—and we’ve been here in this House before—because, on both sides of the House, we do agree that there were inefficiencies as a result of that piece of legislation and that it needed to be reformed. Now, on this side of the House, we had two Acts—the Spatial Planning Act and the Natural and Built Environment Act—that took quite a long time to get to in the previous Parliament. One of the first things that this Government did when they took office was to scrap those.

Now, here we are, back discussing two more bills that replace the RMA. They are reasonably similar in terms of aim but significantly different in terms of how they—

Grant McCallum: Much better—much better, Priyanca.

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: No. Much worse, Grant—much worse, Grant.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Use the member’s full name.

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: Grant McCallum—Grant McCallum, much worse bills unfortunately. While, on this side of the House, we get along and have had a fair bit of collegiality on the Environment Committee, sadly the process that these two bills underwent made an absolute mockery of the select committee process. They were badly drafted bills that were considered fulsomely by the select committee, albeit with a six-month full process for two bills, so it was incredibly rushed as a process in that sense. Ultimately, what did we get out of it? Worse bills. None of what the select committee submitters came to select committee to tell us around environmental protections through the Planning Bill and the Natural Environment Bill was taken on board, and what we have here is two bills that many have told us will be unworkable.

With the Planning Bill, I want to quote the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment (PCE) here. He has been very clear in a note that he has sent to all members of Parliament that is publicly available on the PCE’s website. For me, this bit stands out because this is a Government that campaigned on localism—they said, “We’ll bring localism back. It’s all about listening to the communities and to the regions.”—and the PCE has said, “The Bills represent a wholesale rejection of localism.” With the Planning Bill, for example, many have called for stronger national direction, and they have got that through this bill. There will be one consolidated source of a national policy direction that will, basically, override what regions and local communities may want to do. So almost everything that is undertaken at regional and local levels of government will, ultimately, be scripted by central government through this legislation.

Many who came to select committee talked about how problematic the funnel model is. Basically, what this legislation does is impose some sort of a hierarchy, where most of the decisions will be made by the Minister—a lot of it through secondary legislation—that will prevent matters that are settled at a higher level from being able to be reopened when it comes to a lower level. Basically, if the Minister gets it wrong, everything that follows will be problematic, and there’s no recourse through regulation to fix that. That is incredibly problematic. It is very significant, because it takes back the regulatory power by central government, by a Government that campaigned on localism.

The other bit that I want to talk about, which is also relevant to the rejection of localism, is that a number of matters have been, over time, considered by local communities to contribute to the feel or the livability of the area that they live in—for example, things like green spaces, protection of local landscapes, amenities, the contribution of private trees. All of that now will be taken away from local communities. The Parliamentary Commissioner of Environment points out—which I thought was quite poignant—“A requirement to provide for ‘amenity’ made its first appearance in the statute book in 1926.”—through the Town Planning Act 1926—“Exactly a century later, it is being [completely] removed” by this legislation.

The other stark difference between the two—if you’ll indulge me, Madam Speaker; the select committee considered these two bills together through the entire process, because they’re so interlinked, basically. These two bills will ultimately replace New Zealand’s primary environmental protections. We will need to see, through both the Planning Bill and the Natural Environment Bill, what sorts of environmental protections remain, because, while the Planning Bill focuses on urban planning specifically, it’s meant to do that within environmental limits, which is what the RMA allowed us to do.

Now, these two pieces of legislation—and definitely the Planning Bill—give no particular priority to environmental limits at all. That is such a stark contrast to the RMA. This was also something which was raised by a number of submitters to select committee, who were concerned that environmental limits could be breached as a result of this legislation. The legislation said that you could; you just had to provide a good enough reason for breaching environmental limits. So you could plan urban areas and plan infrastructure with no regard to keeping within environmental limits.

The bills—including the Planning Bill—also just have a whole list of unprioritised goals. This was also raised by multiple submitters to select committee. Basically, you have all these goals, and those who were exercising powers under this legislation are only required to seek to achieve those goals. The bills leave it up to the Minister to particularise or prioritise the goals; nothing much in the way of guidance when it comes to determining how conflicts between those goals will be resolved—again, this was something brought up by a number of submitters to the select committee—or how they will be managed. The Minister, basically, gets to make the decision as to how they will be managed, and if one Minister wants to prioritise one goal over the other, they can do that. Successive Ministers can prioritise them differently.

One of the rationales for the introduction of these two bills was, ostensibly, to give people more certainty around planning. This bill does not do that. It does not achieve that. Independent advice to the select committee has pointed that out. They are unworkable pieces of legislation. They have been cobbled together quickly by a select committee that was more interested—unfortunately, in terms of majority members—in terms of pushing this through than resolving the issues that so many raised with us.

It also goes to what I feel is a perennial problem with this Government, which is the false dichotomy that they talk about between the environment and the economy, as though we have to pick one over the other—as though the environment doesn’t predicate all of what we build our economy on. Where the RMA constrained the scope for regulation to managing the environmental effects of activities, these bills give complete discretion to Ministers. Really, depending on the degree to which the Minister is concerned about the environment, they can make whatever decisions they want, to give primacy to environmental limits or not to. How that serves us in the way of increasing certainty, I have no idea.

The last bit that I want to talk about is the regulatory relief framework, which is a concept that is completely new in this Planning Bill. It’s about assessing whether proposed planning rules will significantly impact the reasonable use of private property; if so, a regulatory relief framework will have to be developed. Then, once it’s operative, this regime will need to identify landowners, if they’re impacted, and offer relief. Pretty much every council came to select committee and said that this is terrible. They’re not going to be able to afford it, which means that likely the improvement of biodiversity will fall to the wayside, because, ultimately, what it does is look at—well, it’s about private property rights and what you can and cannot do on your own private property. The particular topics are historic heritage areas, sites of significance to Māori, outstanding natural landscapes and features. If it means that doing any of these things will be problematic on your private property, you get paid out for it. The cost is to the tune of almost $2 billion, which is unworkable for councils.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m pleased to take this last call on the second reading of the Planning Bill. It is said that the number of plans throughout New Zealand is well above 1,000. The endeavour here is to bring it down into the vicinity of 17 plans, incredibly simplifying exactly what’s required to be able to unleash our country and start to get things done.

The funnel structure that is talked about so often amongst these two bills creates the situation where we’ve got a purpose, we’ve got goals set at a national level, along with national instruments, but most importantly there is a local context to be taken into account. That’s delivered by regional plans, which include a spatial plan, environment plan, and also a land use plan. This is all about endeavouring to halve the number of consents and permits required to do things in our country. I commend the bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The question is, That the amendments recommended by the Environment Committee by majority be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Amendments agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Planning Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Climate Change Response (Tort Liability) Amendment Bill

Legislative Statement