Tuesday, 15 August 2023 [Volume 770] (continued on Wednesday, 16 August 2023) ORAL QUESTIONS QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS Question No. 1—Prime Minister 1. CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all of his Government's statements and actions? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Prime Minister): Yes, particularly the action this Government has taken on the housing crisis that we inherited in 2017. We have reversed the decline of public home numbers by adding 13,000 new public homes, including 10,000 new builds, and delivering 4,000 transitional houses. We've incentivised new builds to reverse the housing deficit, with building consents reaching record levels over our time in Government. We've tipped the balance in favour of first-home buyers—so that they are a larger share of the market—by increasing the first-home grants, removing the house price caps from first-home loans, and banning foreign speculators from purchasing existing New Zealand homes. Let me be clear, banning foreign property speculators has made a difference. If it was reversed, it would put our first-home buyers at the back of the queue, which is where they were under the last National Government. Christopher Luxon: Isn't it embarrassing that having spent half a billion dollars of taxpayers' money to restructure the health system, polling reported in the Post this morning shows that 70 percent of New Zealanders say that the health system has got worse? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: It's desperate times for the National Party when they're quoting their own pollster in the House. Christopher Luxon: Which failure in health does he think is most responsible for the 70 percent of Kiwis saying the health system is worse; is it the record wait times in emergency departments, the thousands of Kiwis on surgical wait-lists, or the collapse in childhood immunisations? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: It's a tragic day when the National Party can't find any evidence to back up its arguments in the House, other than jacked-up polls done by their own pollster. Christopher Luxon: Go talk to some people. How is it possible that he can spend $5 billion more on education, only for 81 percent of Kiwis to say that there has been no improvement since the last election, with 57 percent saying it's actually got worse? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Of course, the biggest driver of the increased spending in education is the increased salaries. The question that the member asked probably explains why teachers got such paltry pay rises under the last National Government, and why it's been up to us to make sure that their wages have been catching up. I am very proud of the fact that teachers' salaries at the top end of the salary scale—which, for secondary and primary teachers, is most of the teachers—have gone up so significantly under our Government from somewhere around 70 grand to over a $100,000 a year. Christopher Luxon: Which of his failures in education does he think is influencing Kiwis the most? His broken polytechnic mega-merger, the record number of Kiwi kids not in school, or the abysmal decline in basic skills like literacy and numeracy? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I will make no apology for the work the Government has done to clean up the mess in vocational education that we inherited from the last Government, where almost all of our polytechnics were going broke, and probably wouldn't still be around if we hadn't stepped in to bail them out. Christopher Luxon: Who is right: the 64 percent of New Zealanders who say that the criminal justice system has got worse since the last election, or the Minister of Police, Ginny Andersen, who says New Zealanders feel safer? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: If the member is going to continue to quote Ministers out of the full context of their quotes, that can go both ways. We could start quoting him out of context as well. Christopher Luxon: Why does he think Kiwis have totally lost faith in his Government on law and order; is it the 107 percent increase in serious assaults, two ram raids every day, or the 70 percent increase in gang membership? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: What New Zealanders can have confidence in is when it comes to issues like violent crime, we are making sure that that violent crime is actually being reported. One of the biggest drivers of the increase in violent crime reporting has been an increase in reporting of domestic violence. That is something that the members opposite don't like to talk about; it's something that—actually—we should acknowledge. More people are reporting domestic violence than they used to. I actually think that that is an encouraging sign that New Zealanders' tolerance for that kind of violent crime is no longer what it used to be. That is a good thing. Christopher Luxon: Isn't it obvious that whether it's health, education, or law and order, it doesn't matter how much taxpayer it spends, this incompetent Labour Government is simply incapable of delivering better outcomes for New Zealanders? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Once again, the member fails to acknowledge where the extra spending is going. Actually, if we look at health and we look at education, one of the biggest drivers of the increase in spending is that we are paying people properly, something the last National Government did not do. For those people who lose their jobs if National gets in and decides to cut public spending to pay for tax cuts, the tax cuts won't mean very much at all. Question No. 2—Sports and Recreation 2. HELEN WHITE (Labour) to the Minister for Sport and Recreation: What has been the impact on New Zealand of co-hosting the FIFA Women's World Cup? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister for Sport and Recreation): The tournament has been an extraordinary showcase for New Zealand. We've had more than 700,000 people attend the FIFA Women's World Cup, in the 29 games held in New Zealand, and watched the exceptional athletes and wonderful football that has been on offer. We've seen record crowds for a football match in New Zealand, at 43,217; the biggest stadium crowd for a sporting event in New Zealand so far this year; the biggest TV audience for a football match shown in New Zealand in 20 years; nearly 165,000 people have attended FIFA fan festivals; and more than 20,000 international visitors have come to watch games here in New Zealand, providing a boost to the tourism and hospitality industries during what is traditionally a quieter period of time. I'd like to thank New Zealanders for getting out to support this event, as well as those involved in the organisation, and, in particular, the 5,000 volunteers who have put their time into making this tournament a success. Helen White: What other impact has the tournament had on New Zealand? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The tournament has caught the attention of football fans around the world. FIFA has reported that the group stages alone saw records broken for ticket sales, broadcast figures, and digital media. The tournament is set to exceed the 1.1 billion people who tuned into the last world cup, in 2019, and, in doing so, highlights New Zealand's unique value and raises the country's international profile. The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment will carry out a post-event analysis to determine the economic impact of the tournament. However, a report for the Hotel Council Aotearoa found that hotel room occupancy rates were 7 percent above the equivalent month before the pandemic and represented the highest increase in occupancy rates since the pandemic. As one tourism operator was reported as saying, they've experienced "three weeks of mid-summer levels of business, almost exclusively because of this tournament". Helen White: What legacy has been created by co-hosting the tournament? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, the event has provided us with an opportunity to create significant social benefits for our country. Communities across New Zealand will benefit from newly upgraded sporting facilities as a result of $25 million that the Government has invested across 30 sporting facilities, including pitch, lighting, and facility enhancements, unisex changing spaces, and event infrastructure. Funding has also been set aside to support a leverage and legacy programme, which includes 50 projects around the country, including several projects that are being delivered by mana whenua groups. This aligns with the Government's strategy for women and girls in sport and active recreation: to grow visibility, participation, and new female leaders in sport. Helen White: How does the FIFA world cup align with the Government's women and girls in sport strategy? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In 2018, the Government launched New Zealand's first ever women and girls in sport strategy, with three themes: participation, leadership, and valuing visibility. I am proud of the strides that we have made in promoting women's sport across New Zealand and across the world. The FIFA Women's World Cup 2023 is the culmination of New Zealand's hosting of three major international women's sporting events: the ICC Women's Cricket World Cup, the Rugby World Cup, and the International Working Group Conference on Women and Sport. By creating a platform through which to encourage and inspire women and girls to be involved in sport, these events play a key role in further advancing each of the strategy outcomes in Aotearoa New Zealand. I'm immensely proud of New Zealanders' hosting of this event. Question No. 3—Oceans and Fisheries 3. Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green) to the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries: Does she agree with the statement in the State of our Gulf 2023 report, "recent events have underscored the precarious nature of the situation and the ecological tipping points we seem intent on testing"; if so, does she consider that the Hauraki Gulf Fisheries Plan is an adequate response to the situation? Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): To the first part of the question, yes. The fisheries plan and wider marine protections announced last week are a significant milestone in protecting the Hauraki Gulf. The plan itself is the first of its kind: an ecosystems-based approach tailored to the unique challenges facing the gulf. However, our work does not end there. Just this morning, in a speech to the New Zealand Seafood Conference, I called the industry's attention to the very report the member references. The Hauraki Gulf is one of the most beautiful and productive waterways in the world and it is under stress. We need action, working alongside mana whenua, communities, and wider industry, and that is exactly what a Labour Government will continue to deliver. Hon Eugenie Sage: Is she confident that the fisheries plan will restore fish stocks once abundant in Tīkapa Moana—the Hauraki Gulf—such as snapper and kahawai, and prevent any further fisheries from collapsing, as the scallop fishery has? Hon RACHEL BROOKING: The plan will continue to look at what all those species are doing. It is a five-year plan, and it has an action plan for every year, and a lot of the actions include monitoring. Where there are specific measures needed for specific stock within the gulf, further regulatory actions can be taken. Hon Eugenie Sage: Why has she not acted immediately to ban bottom trawling in the Hauraki Gulf given the clear public mandate of more than 2,000 public submissions on the draft fisheries plan and 36,000 people signing a petition calling for a ban on bottom trawling in the Hauraki Gulf? Hon RACHEL BROOKING: At the moment, 27 percent of the Hauraki Gulf has bottom trawling banned from it, and one of the actions in the fisheries plan is to really reverse that presumption so that bottom trawling in the gulf can't happen, except for in very specific areas. We will soon be consulting on the size of those very specific areas, and—to the member's question about why not totally ban it at the moment—in general, of our whole fishery, 67 percent of our fisheries is from bottom trawling, and it is a significant part of our economy. Chlöe Swarbrick: Has she sought advice from Fisheries New Zealand about the risk of bottom trawling spreading the invasive seaweed Caulerpa brachypus, and, if not, why not? Hon RACHEL BROOKING: I've certainly had many discussions with the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) about Caulerpa and its spread. In those discussions, the evidence does seem to say that where the Caulerpa is found is in areas where there are yachts. Hon Eugenie Sage: Is it acceptable that mana whenua and community groups have had to take their own action, such as establishing a rāhui around Waiheke Island and elsewhere, to help restore fish stocks in the absence of prompt Government action? Chlöe Swarbrick: Shout-out to Ngāti Paoa. Hon RACHEL BROOKING: I just heard a little heckle there from the member for Auckland Central, and I do agree with it. There is amazing work being undertaken by community groups in that area at the moment, and I commend them for that. Caulerpa is a biosecurity problem, and that doesn't fall under my delegations, but of course it is relevant to the fisheries in the Hauraki Gulf, and there has been over $3 million spent by MPI on this issue already. Hon Eugenie Sage: Will she take strong and urgent action to ensure the health of the gulf is restored rather than allowing the continued trends of decline, as has happened in the 20 years since the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park was established? Hon RACHEL BROOKING: I consider that this fisheries plan and the work that will continue on as it's implemented is strong action, and there's always more that can be done, both on land and in the sea. Question No. 4—Health 4. SORAYA PEKE-MASON (Labour) to the Minister of Health: What has the Government done to support the health workforce? Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister of Health): So many things. We have taken a range of actions to boost and support the health workforce. We are training more medical students, increasing the number of nursing placements, boosting the number of people working in the public health system, and we are increasing their pay. We are focused on making our health workforce more sustainable, growing our own workforce, and building a workforce representative of our community. Soraya Peke-Mason: What has the Government done to improve the pay and conditions of nurses? Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: We've done a lot to improve the conditions of nurses, including growing their workforce. We've boosted our international recruitment and now provide up to $10,000 in financial support for international nurses to cover their New Zealand registration costs. Proof of the impact of this work: in the quarter from 1 April to 30 June this year, 3,000 nurses got registration in New Zealand for the first time. Now that pay equity has been settled and their collective has been ratified, graduate nurses now earn $73,566 a year and registered nurses on the top step now earn $103,630 a year. Increasing the pay of nurses goes a long way to retaining them in our system, and as a result, in the public health system we have seen over 5,000 nursing full-time equivalents across our time in Government. Soraya Peke-Mason: How will the Government's workforce plan support the sector? Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: Protecting, promoting, and improving the health of New Zealanders is only achievable with a strong health workforce. That's why we have released the Health Workforce Plan with six action areas and initiatives that will make an immediate difference to deliver the long-term shifts we need for the sustainability of our workforce. For example, to grow the number of doctors working in general practice, we will grow our rural generalist pathways, scale the General Practice Education Programme— Simon Watts: Six years of neglect—six long years of neglect. Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: —to 300 places a year by 2026—is someone over there opposed to training general practitioners? Speak up!—and establish a national picture of health training pathways. It will take time for the actions we're talking to to be fully realised, but we are laying the pathway of a much better health system. Soraya Peke-Mason: Great work e te Minita. Supplementary— SPEAKER: Order! You just wasted that question. You got another one? Soraya Peke-Mason: Why has the Government focused on supporting the health workforce? Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: We are working on long-term plans to ensure a representative and responsive workforce to meet the future needs of New Zealanders, no matter where they are, who they are, or where they live. Global workforce shortages and long-term underinvestment has put a lot of pressure on our workforce, and these challenges are not unique to New Zealand. Over the next year, stabilising our domestic workforce and supporting them to manage the day-to-day pressures will be a key focus. Workforce has been a demonstrated priority for this Government, and we have a long-term plan to assure a sustainable, representative, and responsive workforce to meet our future needs. Question No. 5—Finance 5. NICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by all of his statements and actions related to Government tax and spending decisions? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Yes, in the context in which they were made and undertaken, acknowledging that that context can change as a result, for example, of the global and domestic economic backdrop, including the emergence of a one-in-a-hundred-year economic shock linked to a global pandemic or the second-most expensive natural disaster to hit this country. Nicola Willis: Does he think the 80 percent increase in annual Government spending that has occurred on his watch has delivered an 80 percent improvement in public services, and, if so, why don't New Zealanders agree with him? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: To reiterate the words of the Prime Minister earlier, "David Farrar is obviously charging a lot of money, because he has to get many, many mentions of his work in the House." I am proud of the fact that, as this Government, we supported New Zealanders through the COVID pandemic. The large chunk of the extra expenditure that the member is talking about was devoted to getting households, businesses, individuals, and communities through the pandemic in a healthy way and with their businesses still operating and with people still in work. Nicola Willis: Can he confirm net Crown debt has risen from $5.4 billion in 2019 to $73.3 billion today, and what does New Zealand have to show for it? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I can confirm, yes indeed. To get through the pandemic, we did indeed increase the borrowing that we did as a country. What New Zealanders have got to show for it is that tens of thousands of their family and friends are alive today because we adopted the approach we did. What we've got is 3.6 percent unemployment—one of the record-low levels of unemployment because we stepped in and we looked after people and we looked after businesses. The member might want to rewrite history and join Mr Seymour in the faculty of hindsight economics; on this side of the House, we deal with what's in front of us. Nicola Willis: Were Treasury and IRD right when they said, "Fiscal drag has had the greatest impact on average full-time wage earners, and why won't he adjust brackets and allow New Zealanders to keep more of what they earn, when he seems to be able to find billions of dollars each time Chris Hipkins asks for quick cash, but he won't find a cent for working New Zealanders? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: That is absolute nonsense. We have consistently over the last few years increased support for working New Zealanders, be it through the family tax credit, be it through childcare assistance, be it through the lifting of the minimum wage. What I note is that our focus is on supporting New Zealanders to increase their incomes by their wages rising. The National Party seem to think that the only way you can increase someone's income is by cutting their taxes; that is a road to nowhere. Nicola Willis: How can he claim there is no wasteful spending that could better be used for tax reduction when the Ministry for Pacific Peoples can find $40,000 for a leaving party, and how much has he budgeted for his? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In answer to the first part of the question, I invite the member to think about all of the Governments in all of the history of New Zealand and think about things like hair straighteners at Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment or an $11 million sheep farm in the middle of the Saudi desert. The Prime Minister has been clear that that expenditure was inappropriate. There is no budget, there is no leaving party, however, I am prepared to donate to the member's party when she becomes the leader and rolls Christopher Luxon. Nicola Willis: Now that he's had to walk back his views on depreciation deductions, GST, wealth tax, and capital gains tax, does he accept that his real legacy after six years in Government will be a highly indebted, highly taxed economy in which public services have gone backwards? SPEAKER: That's probably the most assertions I've heard in a supplementary. The member can answer however he likes. Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In which case, I will speak freely in response to that. The questions of legacy come when someone is at the end of their political career; I'm not. I'm here because I'm want to make sure that we lift more children out of poverty—the 77,000 that we've lifted. I'm here to make sure that we add to the 60,000 apprentices that we've trained in our time here. I'm here to make sure that unemployment stays low, that wages keep rising, and that we support and look after New Zealanders. The member betrays something, though, doesn't she? It's all about personal stuff, legacies for that member. This Government is here for all New Zealanders; that member is here for herself. Question No. 6—Finance 6. INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri) to the Associate Minister of Finance: What is the Government doing to ban foreign buyers from the New Zealand residential property market? Hon DAVID PARKER (Associate Minister of Finance): When this Government took office, around 20 percent of homes in central Auckland and 10 percent of homes in the Queenstown region were being purchased by overseas buyers. We fixed that within 100 days by introducing legislation to effectively ban foreign buyers of existing residential homes in New Zealand. Now the percentage of foreign buyers of New Zealand homes is just 0.5 percent. This is a successful policy that has delivered on its promise to restrict foreign buyers of New Zealand homes. Ingrid Leary: Why is it important that the New Zealand housing market is set by New Zealanders? Hon DAVID PARKER: This Government believes New Zealanders should not be outbid for homes by wealthy foreign buyers. Whether it's a beautiful lakeside or ocean-front house or a modest suburban home, this law ensures that the market for our homes is set in New Zealand not on the international market. Ingrid Leary: How does the ban on foreign buyers of New Zealand homes interact with our trade agreements? Hon DAVID PARKER: The Government banned foreign buyers before the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal came into effect. If we had not done so, foreign citizens from within that agreement and other countries we have trade agreements with, including China and now the European Union, could not be prevented from buying up New Zealand homes. If that position is reversed by any future Government, such a law may be irreversible without violating our international trade agreements. Ingrid Leary: Does the Government have any plans to loosen the ban on foreign buyers of New Zealand homes? Hon DAVID PARKER: The Government is not considering that because removing the foreign buyer ban would not be for the benefit of New Zealanders; it would only be for the benefit of foreign capital. Giving open slather to foreign buyers would be selling out young New Zealanders who are finally getting a foot on the property ladder, because, under settings like we have in this Government, the percentage of homes that go to people who live in them rather than rent them out—from overseas or New Zealand—owner-occupiers do better under us. Allowing foreign buyers into our housing market would send young Kiwi first-home buyers to the back of the queue. Our position is clear. The position of other parties is for the media to investigate. Chris Bishop: How does he reconcile this opposition to foreign capital with the Government's announcement of a $2 billion fund funded by BlackRock, a foreign capital fund, to invest in renewable energy? Hon DAVID PARKER: Unlike the other side of the House, we've always seen a difference between foreign direct investment in companies and in, actually, commercial property, compared with allowing rich-listers from overseas to outbid New Zealanders for a modest house in South Auckland. New Zealanders want one house to live in. We don't want rich people from overseas outbidding them. Question No. 7—Immigration 7. ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays) to the Minister of Immigration: What percentage of all accredited businesses have had a post-accreditation check completed since the Accredited Employer Work Visa was introduced, and what percentage of Accredited Employer Work Visas logged with Immigration New Zealand have had a verification check completed since applications opened? Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Immigration): To the first part of the member's question, 27,947 accredited employer applications have been approved, 609 post-accreditation checks have been completed, and 1,723 are in progress. Therefore, 2.2 percent of all approved accredited employer applications have had a post-accreditation check completed, and a further 6 percent are in progress since the Accredited Employer Work Visa (AEWV) was introduced on 23 May last year. To the second part of the member's question, 100 percent of approved work visas logged with Immigration New Zealand have been assessed by an immigration officer. Erica Stanford: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The second part of my question was quite specific and asked how many of the work visas logged with Immigration New Zealand have had a verification check completed, and that was not answered or addressed. SPEAKER: I think it was, but you can use your supplementaries to explore that. Erica Stanford: How can he claim that the AEWV will reduce migrant exploitation when Immigration New Zealand have approved 64,000 work visas while only conducting verification checks on 2,330 of these, a little over 3 percent? Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The member's facts are wrong, which is unfortunately par for the course for her. In excess of 77,000 visas have been given to workers under the Accredited Employer Visa work program. Erica Stanford: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to table an email from Immigration New Zealand to an immigration advisor stating that of the 63,800 visas that have been granted, only— SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose, is there any objection? Leave received to table document. Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House. Chris Bishop: In other words you're wrong, as per usual. SPEAKER: Order! Be quiet. Erica Stanford: Supplementary question? SPEAKER: Yes, you can have one. Erica Stanford: Thank you, Mr Speaker. When he told the media that "very few" of the 27,000 accredited employers are participating in fraud, how does he know this, given just 2.2 percent of accredited employers have had post-accreditation checks completed and in light of the increasing number of migrant exploitation stories in the media, Immigration New Zealand have now conceded they simply do not know how widespread migrant exploitation is? Hon ANDREW LITTLE: There's a number of issues in that question, but of the 27,892 accredited employers, they weren't all accredited on day one. That number is as at 14 August this year, and the other relevant figure as at 14 August this year, 80,576 Accredited Employer Work Visa applications have been revealed. And so the member has revealed in her question today just how out of date she is. But to answer the particular point that I think the member was making, the post-accreditation checks are happening, and that is why a number have lost their accreditation, a number have been suspended, and a number are under investigation. That is what happens. I'm just intrigued by that member, who suddenly wants a lot more checks and processes, in light of her comment only a couple of months ago when she said she was "concerned about the over-regulation of these businesses under the accredited employer visa scheme." The member is flaky. Erica Stanford: When he stated in the Estimates debate that "what we are seeing now is reported levels of migrant exploitation that are in fact what they always were;", can he explain if the reports on Monday night of 40 migrant workers whose jobs never materialised, living in a three-bedroom overcrowded home for months with no money, begging for food before, out of desperation, calling the police is as it has always been? Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The events that have transpired in relation to that group of workers who have been the subject of publicity in the last few days have been absolutely horrific and have been absolutely tragic, and they are the victims of a scam and a fraud that now clearly crosses boundaries. Sadly, migrant work exploitation and the exploitation of, for example, students on visas in this country is tragically not new. What we need to make sure of is that we have systems that keep abreast of it, that enable our enforcement officials and authorities to enforce compliance with the law, and that is what is happening right now with that case and the other cases that have come to light—most of which have been notified through the renewed notification processes that this Government put in place two years ago because we knew that migrant worker exploitation was hugely underreported and has been for years. Question No. 8—Police 8. VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour) to the Minister of Police: What updates has she seen about the Police's use of laws to target gangs and organised crime? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Minister of Police): Following heightened tensions in the Manawatū, police last week invoked the use of criminal activity intervention legislation (CAIL) to provide warrant powers to search vehicles—and the occupants of vehicles—of suspected gang members. This is the second time the legislation has been invoked since it came into effect in April of this year. Once again, it has proven to be a vital tool in police's ability to crack down on gangs. Under this warrant, police searched 21 vehicles, 34 members and associates; and resulted in three arrests, three firearms and five other weapons being seized. Most importantly, the law had a chilling effect on gang activities and aided the lowering of tensions in the region. Vanushi Walters: What effect are laws like the Criminal Activity Intervention Legislation Act having? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: Under the Criminal Activity Intervention Legislation Act, police have now laid five charges for discharging a firearm to intimidate and have issued two warrants, in both Ōpōtiki and the Manawatū, resulting in a total of 48 vehicles being seized, seven firearms and 16 other weapons being seized, and 12 arrests. I've also heard from police on the front line that having the warrants in place leads to lowering tensions and a quicker dispersal of gang members. Our commitment of 700 additional officers working on organised crime is having clear and tangible benefits, unlike other silly policies suggested in this House, such as asking gang members to take off their patches and giving them a ticket for hanging out together. Vanushi Walters: What feedback has she received on these law changes? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: What I hear directly from front-line police is that the laws this Government has implemented are making meaningful difference to their work cracking down on gangs and organised crime. Police officers that I talk to directly specifically cite their overwhelming support for the provisions contained within the CAIL that allows for warrantless searches during periods of heightened gang conflicts—also the new abilities to freeze criminal assets, through amendments to the Criminal Proceeds Recovery Act. This Government remains committed to smart legislation that cracks down on gangs and organised crime, not pointless chest beating that does nothing to back our cops. Vanushi Walters: What further reports has she seen on police targeting organised crime? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: To quote the front of today's New Zealand Herald: "Meth: police net record haul". Police have just confirmed that meth bust, provisionally calculated, is at 747 kilos, the largest in New Zealand's history. I would like to commend the hard work of front-line police and Customs in cracking down on illicit drugs to keep that harm out of our communities. I have no doubt that this Government's increase in police funding of 50 percent, an additional 1,800 officers, and continued strengthening of our laws is ensuring police have the rules and the tools they need to actually tackle organised crime. Question No. 9—Pacific Peoples 9. SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga) to the Minister for Pacific Peoples: Is she confident that taxpayers' money is being spent appropriately at the Ministry for Pacific Peoples? Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Labour) on behalf of the Acting Minister for Pacific Peoples: On behalf of the Minister, in general, yes, but it is correct that the Public Service Commission was recently brought in to investigate spending by that ministry. The commission concluded that the spending on a function to farewell the former chief executive was inappropriate, and that is a conclusion that I agree with. Simeon Brown: Which Ministers, if any, were invited to, and attended, the farewell party for the outgoing chief executive of the Ministry for Pacific Peoples on 13 and 14 October 2022, that cost taxpayers almost $40,000? Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I understand two Ministers, at least one former Minister and a current Minister, attended the event. I should, just for the sake of the record, also point out that although a total of $39,262.00 was spent on that function, approximately $11,000 has been refunded by the person in whose honour the event was organised. Simeon Brown: Isn't it the case that the only reason the Government is now criticising the almost $40,000 farewell party at the Ministry of Pacific Peoples is because it finally came to light through an Official Information Act request? Hon ANDREW LITTLE: On behalf of the Minister, the information that Ministers received came as a result of the Public Service Commission investigation into the matter, and Ministers were keen to see that investigation take place, and Ministers agree with the conclusion of that investigation. Simeon Brown: Is she aware of any other instances of excessive spending by the ministry, and, if so, what are these instances? Hon ANDREW LITTLE: On behalf of the Minister, no, and that ministry has now tightened up its guidelines on its spending, but, in any event, it's a ministry whose spending to date has made a difference to many, many members of the communities in whose interests they work. For example, the financial literacy campaign has seen nearly 3,000 Pacific Island citizens and residents learn financial management skills, and that has seen 120 of them now in homeownership that otherwise they would not have been. Question No. 10—Commerce and Consumer Affairs 10. ANNA LORCK (Labour—Tukituki) to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: What recent evidence has he seen that the Commerce Commission is acting in line with Government expectations? Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Seen heaps. Firstly, the commission's recently provided an excellent preliminary issues paper on the market study that I initiated into personal banking. Second, the Commerce Commission has successfully sought the highest ever fine under the Fair Trading Act: $3.675 million against One NZ, previously known as Vodafone, for misleading consumers. Thirdly, I recently appointed the first ever Grocery Commissioner, who has the tools to improve competition in the sector and hold supermarkets to account. This is all evidence that the Commerce Commission is meeting the expectations I laid out: that it will drive competitive markets and it will act with confidence to deter anti-competitive behaviour. The Commerce Commission is playing a vital role in keeping big businesses such as banks, telcos, and supermarkets in check—all part of this Government's relentless focus on the cost of living for New Zealanders. Anna Lorck: What will the banking study help achieve for consumers? Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: The study will look at the range of banking services people take up for personal or household use, with a focus on deposit accounts and home loans. Research shows New Zealand banks are more profitable than in comparable economies over the past decade. This raises questions whether there is enough competition in personal banking. The Preliminary Issues paper published last week proposes to look at how competition is working, and will recommend any actions the Government should take to strengthen competition in the sector once the study has concluded. Anna Lorck: Why did the Commerce Commission take action against One NZ? Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Because the company misled consumers as to the nature of their product and distorted competition for the supply of broadband services in New Zealand. The commission called out the initial fine of $2.25 million as "manifestly inadequate". They successfully appealed, and ultimately the fine was raised to $3.675 million—the highest ever under the Fair Trading Act. Anna Lorck: How will the new Grocery Commissioner help protect New Zealand consumers? Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: There's a lot of interest in the Grocery Commissioner. The commissioner has broad powers to investigate how effectively and efficiently the grocery industry is operating. This includes the ability to examine costs, revenue, and margin, and to require anyone with relevant information to supply it. And the commissioner has adequate powers to ensure that the cost savings from the removal of GST from fruit and vegetables will be passed on to consumers when it comes into effect in 2024. Question No. 11—Agriculture 11. MARK CAMERON (ACT) to the Minister of Agriculture: What advice, if any, has he requested from his officials regarding the Global Dairy Trade Auction Price Index falling by 7.4 percent overnight, and what impact does he expect this fall will have on New Zealand's wider economy? Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): To the first part of the member's question, yes, I have requested advice from the Ministry for Primary Industries about the change in the Global Dairy Trade Price Index. To the second part of the question, I will quote, for a start, ANZ rural economist Susan Kilsby, who said this morning, "We've seen these cycles before, and everyone does get through them,". This will have a big impact on our economy and this Government commits to work with the dairy industry to ensure that market opportunities are opened up and that we assist them with the vital infrastructure that they and their farmers need. Mark Cameron: Is it still his Government's policy to price agricultural emissions, a policy which could decrease net revenue for dairy farmers by 6 to 7 percent despite the fall in the Global Dairy Trade Price Index? Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: This Government's been working with all the agricultural sectors for about five years. We've made good progress in the recent week or two. We are committed to include agricultural pricing in our international emissions reduction programme. I'll remind him and the National Party that it was in 1997 that former Minister Simon Upton committed New Zealand's agricultural emissions— Christopher Luxon: You're making it up. Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: —to our international obligations to reduce them. SPEAKER: Order! Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: Oh, Mr Speaker— SPEAKER: Christopher Luxon will stand, withdraw, and apologise. Christopher Luxon: I withdraw and apologise. Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: Mr Speaker, thank you very much. I'm a little bit deaf, particularly to comments like that. Can I say that it is irresponsible for any agricultural leaders to ignore the market realities that are coming at us. Can I quote, "Fonterra's biggest customer is Nestle. Nestle has a commitment to reduce its Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions by 50 percent by 2030." If we don't participate in that emissions reduction programme and give honest signals to farmers, we are misleading them and they will be locked out of markets. Hon Gerry Brownlee: See if you can respond to a ministerial statement. SPEAKER: Order! That's completely out of order. Come on. Mark Cameron: Has he asked his colleagues to put a hold on essential freshwater regulations which increase cost for dairy farmers via expensive resource consenting and freshwater farm plans, given dairy farmers are facing record high production costs and falling dairy prices? Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I'm acutely aware of the dilemmas that the dairy farmers are facing at the moment. There is a whole range of different dairy farming operations, some that will be paying $4 to $5 per kilogram of milk solids to produce their milk, and others that will be requiring over $8. Resilience is the trendy word of the day. What we are saying to the sectors is that we must be prepared for the cycles that inevitably go down. We have been seeing record returns and prices for dairy and other primary sector income. This year a record $56 billion in gross export earnings have come into this country, a lot of it from dairy. If you have prices so high in commodity markets, the only way for them to go usually is down, and it is important that we warn farmers, including the increasing requirements on market access. And if that member thinks we can continue to have degradation of our water, degradation of our biodiversity, and outrageous animal welfare practice and still get into our high-value markets, he's misleading the dairy industry that he proposes to represent. Mark Cameron: Will he ask James Shaw to dump significant natural areas, a policy that will mean farmers lose even more productive land to Government red tape? Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: Since 1992, when the National Government passed the Resource Management Act, significant natural areas have been a legal obligation for councils to identify. The fact that many of them have not and that now there is a requirement to do so is simply part of the reality that if we are to market into places like the European Union, they require us to be responsible managers of biodiversity, of our natural features and attributes. It's the reality that we face as the producer of the finest food and fibre in the world trying to sell to the world's most discerning markets. We have put hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer money to assist the farmers through this journey. We'll continue to do that. If he thinks that's not necessary, he's misleading himself and the farmers. Question No. 12—Police 12. Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa) to the Minister of Police: Does she stand by her statement, "It is my view that New Zealanders feel safer"; if so, why? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Minister of Police): For those in the back, I stand by my full statement at the time it was given, that it is my view that New Zealanders feel safer with a Government on track to deliver 1,800 extra police. As that member is aware, we have now delivered on that commitment. I further stand by my commitments today that the best way to disrupt gang activity and the harm it causes is by resourcing the police and giving them the proper legislative tools to ensure they can effectively hold offenders to account, not knee-jerk, headline-grabbing slogans. Hon Mark Mitchell: Yeah, like weak legislation. Does— SPEAKER: Was that your question? Hon Mark Mitchell: No. SPEAKER: Hmm, yeah, be careful. Hon Mark Mitchell: Why does the Minister think that Kiwis feel safer when there have been five homicides in 17 days as a result of gang and gun violence? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: The firearms offences of the past few weeks have been incredibly concerning—in particular, the gang violence we have seen within our communities. However, the data does demonstrate that these are isolated events and not indicative of a broader trend. And if we go back through August over the past four years, the numbers are 10, 15, seven, and 14. This Government is doing more to reduce the harm caused by firearms than any other previous Government, including the banning of semi-automatic weapons in the wake of March 15th, buying back more than 60,000 guns, introducing firearm prohibition orders, as well as establishing New Zealand's first digital firearms register. If that member was truly worried about the danger of firearms, he'd talk to Christopher Luxon and convince him to make keeping it a bottom line for National. But he hasn't, and he won't keep that promise to front-line police. Hon Mark Mitchell: Can the Minister confirm that over 50 percent of Operation Cobalt charges relate to traffic infringement and admin offences? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: I'm more than happy to provide a breakdown. Those 45,000 charges are varied, as well as the nearly 500 firearms seized that were illegally held by gang members. We continue to resource Operation Cobalt and I'm incredibly surprised that that member does not support such an effective operation that cracks down on gangs. Hon Mark Mitchell: Point of order, Mr Speaker. It was a very specific question around the Cobalt charges. The Minister said she was very happy to give us a breakdown of them, and then she didn't give us a breakdown of them. SPEAKER: But she did address the question. Hon Mark Mitchell: Does the Minister think Kiwis feel safer when ram raids have increased to two a day? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: I am not happy with the rate of ram raids, but it has been pleasing to see over the past two months that they have continued to decrease and the figures for this month have decreased again from end year. This is a result of police working closely with groups such as Oranga Tamariki and really effective programmes like Kotahi te Whakaaro and Circuit Breaker that roughly see about 82 percent of young people who go through those programmes do not reoffend. That's in stark contrast to that member's policy of boot camps, which sees 80 percent of those people who go through the programmes going on to offend. NATURAL AND BUILT ENVIRONMENT BILL Third Reading Debate resumed. Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Associate Minister for the Environment): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I'll try and talk over the din here, but I am very pleased to be speaking on this third reading of the Natural and Built Environment Bill. It's a single environment—at one point, it was going to be the environments bill. Why I'm so pleased to be speaking on this is because it's such a good piece of work—as opposed to what the last speaker, Chris Bishop, was saying—and it really deals with a lot of tricky issues that we haven't been able to fix with the Resource Management Act (RMA). So some of those things that it does, that I'm going to talk about, is it sets out the outcomes that it wants—and these are similar to sections 6 and 7 in the RMA, but a little bit different. But there are many of these outcomes, and of course there will always be conflict between those outcomes. So it's very clear, in this piece of legislation—particularly at clause 3A—that there is to be a national planning framework. That is something that the RMA—when it was implemented, it was always supposed to have good national documents but they didn't really come along for a long time, apart from the coastal policy statement. So the national planning framework is going to be there and it's going to really try and knock out some of the planning conflicts that you're always going to get in anything to do with planning law. Of course, though, the bill also has some environmental bottom lines, and the purpose clause that we heard about from the previous speaker of te Oranga o te Taiao. Then there's the regional spatial plan. So, at the moment, New Zealand is pretty terrible at planning for infrastructure. We'll have these spatial plans—that's in the next bill that I'll talk about separately, but that that's an important change as well. Then we're going to have the regional natural and built environment plans—or the regulatory plans—which are similar to the current RMA plans. That's where you look to see if you are going to need a resource consent or if you can or cannot do something. At the moment, we've got over 100 of those plans, both made by regional councils and by district councils or territorial authorities. Instead, we're just going to have one per region. You may be aware that we have some unitary authorities such as Auckland and Nelson, now Marlborough and Tasman, and Gisborne and Nelson and Tasman—they're going to go together but Marlborough will go it alone. So we'll have many fewer plans for users to have to deal with, which is a good thing. Other changes from the RMA—much stronger on climate change. It also links with the Climate Change Response Act and you see that and the outcomes that I just referred to. Also stronger on hazards—and there is a national direction coming on those hazard provisions. I understand that there will be a national hazard planning framework and a national policy statement on natural hazard decision-making. So these will provide guidance to local government on how to consider natural hazard risk when making decisions on plan changes and resource consents. This is when they relate to new developments such as housing and infrastructure. The national policy statement is expected to limit new building in areas that are at very high risk from natural hazards, as well as require mitigations for areas at moderate risk. So the ministry is working on those at the moment. Related to natural hazards and climate change, of course, are trees and green space, and the Environment Committee heard a lot about urban trees—and I note that I'm sitting next to one of my West Auckland colleagues, the Hon Dr Deborah Russell, and certainly a good number of her constituents made submissions about trees in the beautiful part of the world that she's from. Also, though, what we've been thinking more about this year is the importance of green infrastructure and green spaces and the ability to soak up stormwater. We've also, of course, been thinking about stormwater as well. So we've seen changes from the select committee and in the Supplementary Order Paper during the committee of the whole House stage, so that now that NPF that I've been talking about—the national planning framework—clause 58 gives some other specific issues that the NPF can include, and that now includes trees and green space. Green space is not defined and, of course, the Ministry for the Environment will need to do some further work and thinking in that, but I encourage them to do that as well and as quickly as they can—it's a very important issue. Also on green infrastructure, for designations now, accepted infrastructure as natural and green infrastructure, and that's defined at clause 497 as "infrastructure that uses natural systems such as plants or soil, or mimics natural processes, to avoid, minimise, or remedy the environmental impacts of activities". It's a very good step in the right direction. We heard from the previous speaker, citing many submissions that were opposed to the bill. Of course, there were many submissions that wanted changes to the bill—I totally accept that point. But when talking, particularly, about renewable energy, and there were there were many submissions saying that proposed short-term consent for hydroelectricity was going to cause problems for that sector of our economy and our energy production. This was amended by both the select committee and the Supplementary Order Paper. That's a really important point to make: is that there's been a lot of listening, a lot of responding, and a lot of dialogue in the creation of this piece of legislation. It, of course, had a process with the Randerson review; it had an exposure draft; and then it had an extended select committee process as well. It's important legislation—it deserves all of that. The previous speaker also said that it was naive to think that this piece of legislation would solve all the problems of the RMA and the planning world. But I think given that process, you cannot say that this is a naive piece of legislation, nor is it a naive idea to think that we can do better with our planning by doing better at both the national level and the regional level. I do accept, though, that implementation of it is incredibly important. That didn't happen with the RMA—as I just mentioned—we didn't have the national planning direction that that was also always considered necessary for the good implementation of the RMA. There is money that's been budgeted for that in this implementation. It will be done with some regions going first so that central government can work with them and work out what works well and what doesn't work so well, so when other regions roll out, we will learn from that implementation and do it as efficiently as possible. It's also crucial for that implementation that both the national planning framework and those regional plans—both at the spatial level and the regulatory level—do make those difficult trade-off decisions and take the community with them when they're doing that, which of course the bill provides for. So it's one of those days in life where on a personal note, I wasn't sure that it would necessarily come, but it has come and I'm very pleased to be standing here in front of you and commending it to the House. BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki-King Country): Thank you, Mr Speaker. So here we are, on the third reading. It has been a very long process for this Natural and Built Environment Bill, and it actually goes way back before I started on the Environment Committee. There was an exposure draft earlier on. I joined this process in about the end of January or the start of February this year. It was a really interesting process when we looked at how we do things in our country as we went through the process of the cyclones. We were sitting there, in live timing, actually thinking about where the flooding in the Hawke's Bay had sat, where things had happened in West Auckland where there wasn't enough room for the water to go. We wondered how, as humans in this world, we had got some things quite wrong over a period of time, to the point where there were a lot of people in this country who were going through personal suffering at the loss of their houses and their businesses. It wasn't particularly due to anyone's fault. It was just the way planning systems have worked. It has been in our rush to get housing built. I think that we all would agree that the old Resource Management Act (RMA) process that we currently have is not actually working to full effect to protect either the environment or the people who live in it. I think the big thing about this is that all of this work is hard. We're looking at an integrated statute for resource use. We've got two bills at the moment: we've got the Natural and Built Environment Bill, and then, coming up after this, the Spatial Planning Bill. They have to fit together. Then when we get the climate adaptation bill—that has to fit in and lock in along with it. Alongside that, doing the Local Government Act Review, and having the Water Services Entities Amendment Bill, and the three waters, which is now 10 waters; there's a lot of stuff going on in this space. People want to be absolutely assured that whatever is put in place by whatever Government—whatever colour it might be—is going to work, that it is not going to, legally, be able to take years and years of, I guess, discussion going through the court system, as has been the case in the past. So it is hard, and there is a diagram in the legislative statement that was put up by the Minister this morning. So what we're taking into account, as we do this process, is the natural environment. Of course, we need development. We want the system to be efficient. We need climate adaptation and mitigation, and that certainly—as I said before—took up a lot of our conversations. Then of course, there's Te Tiriti and the mātauranga Māori aspects of it all. So we've got quite a neat little diagram here that looks at how we put the national planning framework into place, how the regional spatial strategies are going to fit with it along with the Natural and Built Environment Act plans, the consenting system. The Minister actually said in the House this morning, when he spoke, that there should be a 20 to 40 percent reduction in consent processing. Now, if all worked well, under this new piece of legislation, I think a lot of people would be hand clapping and going, "This is a really good idea". I think the questions that still stick in people's minds are: how is this going to work, and how is it all going to lock together? There's still quite a lot of question marks out there. The good thing, from most people's perspective, is that this is actually now going to be a system which takes a shift from managing adverse effects to promoting positive outcomes. Personally, I've long been a fan of catchments being able to do their own—you know, we've got to have a bottom baseline of where we want our water quality to be achieved, our land quality to be achieved, all of the things that go on in our catchment, our carbon sequestration, all the rest of it. We need to have a system where we know what the outcomes are that we want to achieve. What we've had up till now is a system where we've had so many regulations thrown at us. Often, when people are looking at regulations, they don't know if the one that's coming down yesterday is going to complement or be contradictory to the one that is likely to come down tomorrow. I think that's what we've done to people, not just in the farming community, but over a range of various business sectors. Everything is tied up in red tape. We've never looked up—very actively—to see what the outcomes are going to be. So I think the change in mood and the intent of this bill is heading in the right direction, in terms of people just wanting to get up in the morning, not wanting to tick millions of boxes—so I hope certainly that that is going to be a really positive outcome of this piece of legislation—but to actually put their work clothes on and go out to work, whether it be farm gumboots or whether it be some business that's undertaking a mining industry aspect. You know, if you can't dig it, graze it, extract it, or grow it, and it's not a fish, we really don't have it. I say that time and time again and I've challenged lots of people in many rooms to give me something that doesn't fit in one of those categories. So the people that are undertaking those, as well as people who want to develop housing developments, as well as people just wanting to build their own house want to know, "What is the outcome that is expected of me?" rather than ticking a whole lot of boxes, which is something that has traditionally happened in the past. Look, I know even in getting roads built—I've got Mt Messenger in my electorate, and it's good to see it's coming along. There are cranes everywhere. From the time it was put in the Budget process in 2016, it actually took six years to get that started. It's no wonder that we can't actually make some progress. There's still appeals going on, and there's still things happening in that place. So I think we have to get much more swept up in this space. So the intent of the bill is a good one. One of the things I wanted to comment on, and the last speaker, Rachel Brooking, actually alluded to it, was talking about hydro facilities of any size, which the Minister spoke about in the legislative statement and in his speech this morning. It has been amended by the select committee, because it certainly was a real concern, for a country who wants to build much more renewable electricity, that for small hydro schemes it was looking like 10-year consenting was going to rule them out of the ballpark. It would mean that they would never start, because the banks wouldn't lend them the money. So it is good to see that this change has been made. Good projects like that will be looked on favourably, in terms of where we take our renewable electricity work in the future. What I would like to say in this third reading is that I think I spent something like 30 days in that select committee, and I know others spent a lot more time in that select committee than I did; I want to say that the process of that select committee was absolutely outstanding, in terms of people being able to sit around the room, express their views. I have to give credit not just to the members of the select committee but also to the officials that came in for the Ministry for the Environment. Not every question or every change was able to be accommodated, but they certainly accommodated many things when they could, and where they could. I have to say that the chairmanship of the Hon Eugenie Sage and the members of that committee—it was very open. It was very transparent. We worked well together. We started off by splitting people across into subcommittees, because we did have lots and lots and lots of submissions coming through. I think one of the key things was the hydroelectricity, renewable electricity. People were concerned about the purpose of the bill: te Oranga o te Taiao. We spent a lot of time working on defining that. Basically, if the environment is healthy, the people are healthy. The wellbeing of the environment actually leads to the wellbeing of the people. It's not a complicated thing to understand, but it does create lots of discussion. We want to make sure that that is absolutely in a good legal standing when it is introduced. I think the one big thing that locals still need to be convinced of—we heard a lot about local voice and local input, and there's still a bit of concern that maybe, as we lock this system together, that won't be happening to the extent that they would like it. I can certainly say that the process of the committee was a very intense and good one. Thank you. Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I'm very happy to be able to take a short call on this momentous occasion as the Parliament ushers in this bill, which sits at the heart of the new planning system, one that I believe will serve this country well in the decades to come. This Natural and Built Environment Bill, once it becomes an Act, will I think reflect and take into account many of the really important lessons around how we live with and in our natural environment. It reflects a stronger, more urgent desire that New Zealanders have today to protect our natural environment for future generations. It's learnt many of the hard lessons from the last 30-odd years on how the planning system messed up our housing markets and made it really difficult for us to deliver enough quality, affordable housing for the people of this country. It seeks a lighter, more agile process. One of the very tough lessons of the Resource Management Act (RMA) era was that a heavy, slow, bureaucratic, and costly system dragged down people, both those who were wanting to protect the environment and those who were wanting to do things like build our towns and cities. It also reflects the contemporary desire for better and more Māori participation in the public life of this country. I believe this law will better protect the environment. The notion of environmental limits are at the heart of it, and I think about Te Wai o Pareira, the river that runs through the middle of my electorate in West Auckland, and how polluted it is not only by the failure to invest in decent infrastructure but by the failure of the planning system to protect the taonga that our community loves so much, but it has become so polluted. By investing more time and energy in plan making, the democratic process of our communities and our institutions—people coming together to plan what kind of development they want and what places in our country should be set aside and protected from development—it will mean that we will have far more non-notifiable activities. There will be fewer consents needed, and that will result in significant cost savings for people, for businesses, and for the country as a whole. It will be a lighter, more agile system. National direction: through the national planning framework, which is central to this new law, we will have comprehensive and regularly updated national direction. One of the great failings of the RMA was that successive Governments failed to actually provide the national direction that that system was built around, and, as a result, we saw some terrible consequences, both environmentally and in terms of our built environment in the growth of our towns and cities. The planning that will be done by councils and their communities and mana whenua under the Natural and Built Environment Act will be collaborative. Development, transport corridors, water catchments, and regional economies pay no heed to the boundaries of local government, and that's why we are regionalising through this bill the planning process. It will force people to collaborate and to come together and to plan the kinds of environments and the towns and cities that they want. That is a huge step forward. Finally, moving away from the approach of the RMA, which was of managing the effects of development, and towards a more deliberative and deliberate planning approach that will allow our communities to come together to say what kind of development they want and what kinds of places they want to protect is a move away from the neo-liberal thinking of the 1980s, which said, "We're going to manage the worst effects of development, and otherwise we're just going to let the market do everything." That hasn't worked, it was never going to work, and it was really at the root of many of the problems of the RMA. This bill, really, is in sync with the modern thinking that actually doesn't consider "planning" to be a dirty word. We know we can think together, we can plan and prioritise, and we can build the country that we want, and this bill gives us many of the tools to do that. I want to acknowledge the outstanding leadership and work of David Parker as the Minister for the Environment. This is a huge piece of work, and he has been right across it the whole time. He has shepherded it through and taken people along with him, and it's also important at this stage to recognise the professionalism and the talent of the Hon Eugenie Sage in chairing the Environment Committee, who also, I think, did a tremendous job on that. I commend this bill to the House. SIMON COURT (ACT): New Zealanders agree on the problem to solve: the Resource Management Act (RMA) has failed New Zealand in the past 30-plus years. The Resource Management Act has been the single biggest handbrake on developing land for housing. It's made it harder to build warm, dry, and affordable homes. It's led to a range of social problems: people living in cars, but not just living in cars, people considering whether they want to move towns, move cities, or regions for a better job, and finding they can't find an affordable home that matches what their ability to pay is. The Resource Management Act has made it much more difficult to build transport infrastructure. In Auckland, I can think of a number of projects, including the East West Link, which still languish in the Supreme Court awaiting determinations; projects that are absolutely vital to get trucks off local roads, improve productivity, and allow people actually to get on with building businesses rather than wasting money on expensive consultants and RMA lawyers. The RMA has resulted in less competition, even between supermarkets until recently—higher prices for everything, lower productivity. If you can't build efficient roads what that means is trucks spend longer delivering materials to site or to supermarket—we need to put more trucks on the road to achieve the same volume of work, it leads to traffic congestion and lower productivities. Ultimately, the Resource Management Act, and I hate to say it Minister Parker, for all the work you've done the replacement bill will only lead to an ongoing decline in standards of living. This is not going to work, because what Labour has done is take the advice of people with vested interests; the same lawyers and the same advisers who advised on the Resource Management Act back in the 1990s were the same people engaged to tell this Labour Government how to fix the Resource Management Act. And you know what happens when you let a fox into the hen house? It has a good old feast on the hens, and that's what's happened for the last five years of consultation on the RMA—very, very disappointing for practitioners, for people like myself who have come from the building and construction sector, to see what Labour and what Minister Parker has delivered. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reform the resource management process—the way we use land, the way we protect the places that are special to us—but instead Labour has doubled down on some of the things that have frustrated development. It's extended the red tape. It's included metaphysical concepts in the Natural and Built Environment Bill, spiritual and animist concepts like Te Mana o te Wai. The purpose of the bill being to uphold te Oranga o te Taiao. It's a novel term. Lawyers told us at the Environment Committee that it could take a decade or more to unravel what that means. This bill includes undefined terms like "mātauranga Māori" and "tikanga Māori". Well, you can go to court and ask a judge what it means, or the Minister might have agreed with me when I tabled an amendment to this bill at committee stage that we could include a very simple definition of what traditional Māori knowledge is if that's what mātauranga Māori means. But the Minister refused. This bill will carry over national policy instruments that have been one of the greatest handbrakes on moving on and developing productive land in New Zealand—getting on with building. The freshwater plans, that national policy statement which defined three bulrushes in a paddock as a wetland—three bulrushes in a paddock as a wetland—that's one of the national instruments that's going to be carried over with David Parker's enormous 1,000-page bill. Now, when I pointed out to the Minister that three bulrushes in a paddock are a wetland and getting consents to disturb a wetland was prohibited, the Minister belatedly, after 18 months, finally changed the definition of a wetland in that national policy statement. Eighteen months of quarry developments—we depend on the aggregates, we depend on the sands and other materials to make concrete to build roads. Eighteen months of developments not able to get consent because the Minister accepted the advice from officials that three bulrushes in a paddock makes a wetland. All of that nonsense is being carried over in the Natural and Built Environment Bill. Counter-productive policy that slows New Zealand down costs money. The Infrastructure Commission made a good point in a recently released report: consenting alone, stacking up the documents to apply for consents, spending their time in court—Environment Court, High Court, Supreme Court—cost New Zealand infrastructure- and asset-owners $1.3 billion in the year that they assessed; $1.3 billion just to get consents, not to do the bat survey, not to put up the silt fence, not actually to sort out the traffic management—$1.3 billion on consenting. Completely unacceptable. That is what is holding New Zealand back. This bill will make it worse, much worse, because it will take 10 years to work out what half of it means. So what do we need to do? What could we have done differently? Well, a different policy approach that was rejected early on in the consultation by the Minister was to separate environmental protection of our special places from building and construction, from urban development, because it doesn't make any sense to apply the same environmental protection principles and approach and framework and tests to, say, somebody who wants to build a gondola up the side of Mount Cook as it does to somebody who wants to build an urban motorway through a paddock, or a subdivision. But that's what the RMA did with its integrated approach to land-use planning and environment with sustainable management, that 30-plus-year failed experiment. The Natural and Built Environment Bill, which will soon become law, doubles down on that approach. What would ACT do differently? Well, we would say it's time for a radical reset. When I came to Parliament, I gave a maiden speech. I said I'm not here to just cruise along with the status quo. I said I was a radical environmentalist, and that's because we need to take a radical approach if we want to solve the problems of environmental damage and pollution and loss of biodiversity. We need a separate environmental protection Act that just focuses on environmental improvement and we need a separate urban development Act so we can get on with building infrastructure that actually allows our cities to grow, allows our regions to be connected to ports, to workers, and to markets. ACT would do that through our proposal for building New Zealand and conserving nature. You can find it on act.org.nz. We spent 18 months researching this. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr Court— déjà vu. You know where to go—back to the bill. SIMON COURT: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The opportunities that this bill neglected were actually to change the focus; instead of having more people decide how you use your land, to go back to the principles of common law and private property rights. So the presumption should be not that we have to beg for permission from a planning tribunal or from a judge, but instead we have the right to use our land as long as we don't affect our neighbours or discharge to the commons. Now, there are different ways to regulate discharges to the commons, like to fresh water or to air, than having to apply for permits over and over. The Natural and Built Environment Bill will soon become law and will still require people to get consents and permits for things that they can simply cut and paste from a code of practice. What ACT would say and what the Infrastructure Commission said in advice they gave to the Minister when preparing this bill, is that 80 percent of consents are unnecessary because we already know how to carry out those functions. That's why ACT would say, "Let's avoid all the consenting nonsense, and for common activities—in fact, all of those except for the most high risk in the most sensitive environments—you shouldn't have to get consents at all". ACT can reduce the cost of consenting permitting under any type of resource management law from the $1.3 billion a year to a fraction of that. Now, what are the opportunities to come? Well, this bill will be passed. Councils will have to face this problem of how do they implement something not knowing whether it will proceed. In fact, most likely it won't because there will be a change of Government, and a Government that involves ACT has an alternative solution. So all of this transition cost, all of this wasted effort, all of this five years may be lost—or it won't, because all the good advice we have will go into ACT's policy prescription for resource management reform. Look forward to sharing it with you. Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. Very pleased to take a call on the Natural and Built Environment Bill. Some people have said that the Labour Government has not been transformative, yet this area of resource management law has required tremendous leadership by the Minister, the Hon David Parker—and supported by the Associate Minister for the Environment, Rachel Brooking—to actually initiate this reform and to pursue it because of the huge complexity. As the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment said, and I quote, "Complexity in legislation of this nature is inevitable. The environment we live in is not simple. It intersects with everyone's property rights. There are many interdependencies between property owners as well as many spillovers from their use of environmental resources. The natural environment also goes to the core of Māori identity. Any attempt to manage these frictions or conflicts, whether through regulations or markets, will involve complexity and demand high levels of specialist expertise."—and that's what we've had in terms of the Minister's leadership of this reform. Others—National and ACT—say that they're just going to jettison it, but they do not provide any detail of what they're going to put in its place, and I would contrast the tub-thumping bluster of Mr Bishop's speech with the much more measured contribution of Barbara Kuriger, who sat on many, many days of submissions and hearings on the select committee and who was recognising that there is a need for change and some of the ways that change would improve things. So we have, on the one hand, what could have been cross-party agreement around this bill—there was the kernel of that in Barbara Kuriger's speech—and yet we have the political positioning we have seen from National and ACT in opposing the bill from its first reading and not being prepared to engage in the changes that were needed in response to submissions. Can I record again thanks to all of those individuals, organisations, councils, iwi, hapū, environmental organisations, and others who made submissions. The bill was substantially changed through the parliamentary select committee process because of those submissions. I acknowledge other members of the Environment Committee, the secretariat, Parliamentary Counsel Office, and everyone else in the Ministry for the Environment and all of the mahi that was put into that process. I think it's easy to say "We'll repeal the bill", but why turn one's back on all of that effort? The bill, in the time that it's been available in Parliament, is the best that it could be. Land users, councils, and others all need certainty. Passing this bill and making it clear what the new legislation is the best course from here. The bill certainly still has shortcomings from the Greens' perspective. We think the infrastructure override provisions, in relation to places of national importance and areas of highly vulnerable biodiversity value, are too broad. We think that the Minister has too many powers and they are still not adequately constrained. The fast-track provisions endure, despite the legislation purporting to be a more efficient process, and there's inadequate recognition and protection and of regionally and locally important landscapes. But it is the best that could be done in the time available. I think it's the debate over the purpose clause—clause 3—to uphold Te Oranga o Te Taiao, which "enables the use and development of the environment in a way that promotes the wellbeing of present and future generations.", subject to this being achieved "in a way that—(a) protects the health of the natural environment;". It's that debate which has really been the nub of the issue, because we've seen from ACT that it just wants to get rid of any planning process and any consenting process, and we've seen from National that they do not recognise that the economy is a subset of the environment. To National, the environment is just something to exploit to promote more revenue generation. So this bill, with its focus on that purpose, and with the 18 outcomes beneath that purpose, is about driving towards more positive outcomes. It is with the recognition, as the Randerson review did, that the Resource Management Act (RMA) has really failed the natural environment. We've seen that with increasing loss of indigenous vegetation cover, the indigenous biodiversity crisis, and the declining quality of our waterways. So, yes, there will be litigation around clarifying the purpose. It does incorporate a Te Ao Māori perspective. That, I think, is really important in this place of Aotearoa, because Māori have recognised for generations that humans are part of nature, not separate from it; we have an intrinsic relationship with it and that all parts of the environment—te taiao—are interconnected. For the first time, we are trying to put that into the purpose of legislation. It is fundamental to who we are in Aotearoa and to our environmental management law, and it also is the basis for much improved participation by Māori in the way our environmental law works, particularly through the representation of mana whenua on the regional planning committees. The 18 outcomes: there were a lot of submissions about the lack of priority here. There is potentially still a concern that the lack of priority in the legislation and the competition between the outcomes could go back to that overall broad judgment approach which has been problematic under the RMA, but the national planning framework has a critical role here in doing that prioritisation and giving recognition to key outcomes. Some of those new outcomes are absolutely fundamentally important, particularly in relation to climate change. We're seeing severe weather events happening at an unprecedented rate and having to contend with those, so the outcomes in clause 5 around reducing greenhouse gas emissions so that we meet our targets in the Climate Change Response Act, and to reduce the risks arising from natural hazards and the effects of climate change are really important, particularly as the bill does enable some encroachment on existing use rights where there are provisions in regional plans to ensure that we meet those outcomes. There will be a lot of work done on environmental limits and targets. We hope to see quite a few of those in the national planning framework, including those in the current national policy statement for freshwater management. It's been the lack of targets and limits that has been problematic under the RMA until last term, Minister Parker strengthened the national policy statement on freshwater and it was no longer the tissue-paper document that it had been under National. There are new provisions that will be in the national planning framework—and the Green Party pushed hard for these—around urban trees. I heard Chris Bishop talking about the bill being far too pro-environment, yet it has been incredibly hard to get recognition of urban trees in the legislation despite that being a major public concern. We finally did, and through a very late Supplementary Order Paper, we ensured that the first national planning framework will provide guidance on urban trees, because urban trees and green spaces, and the whole concept of "spongy cities" and using nature and green infrastructure as part of the solution to climate change is increasingly important. It is very cost-effective, it adds to urban amenity, and now that there's this reference to urban trees and green spaces, there will be direction in the national planning framework around that. I totally agree with the comments by the Hon Phil Twyford about planning, the need for a very effective planning process, and the value of planning, but there does need to be a major change in planning culture to get rid of the turgid, waffly, very lengthy plans that we have where people have to get consultants in to actually understand them. There is a requirement around succinctness and plain English in the bill, and I really hope that this occurs in the cost-benefit analysis and the evaluation report, and that this also is driven through into the plans. This has been a massive exercise, and it is now going through its final stages in the Parliament. I hope that it delivers improved outcomes for te taiao as the basis for a healthy society and a healthy economy, and congratulate all of those—particularly the Minister, officials in the ministry, submitters, Parliamentary Counsel Office, and the select committee staff and members for the mahi that has gone into this. Kia ora. ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is an utter pleasure to stand here today and to speak on this bill. It has taken such a lot of time in this term to go through, so before I thank members etc., I want to just talk about the fact that we consulted on the exposure draft as an inquiry in 2021, so those members on the Environment Committee have been sitting with this process for a long time. We had the Randerson review land in July 2019 and we began our work there, and then of course we had the Natural and Built Environment Bill come to us. We have spent many, many, many months working on this piece of legislation, but rightly so because it has been 32 years since there was a proper and actual review that needed to occur across the whole system. We have carved up, cut out, and added to the Resource Management Act in too many ways for that piece of legislation to effectively protect our environment, so I'm really delighted to be here speaking. I want to acknowledge, as others have, the stellar chairing of the Hon Eugenie Sage, who had the foresight to work with us all in such an amazing way to ensure that we all kept talking. She was completely over the detail of every submission and was such a valuable chairperson. We are very lucky to have had her in our select committee and I—we've all said it, but actually this is 1,000 pages of legislation that she knows every word of. So I do want to acknowledge that, and I would also like to acknowledge the Minister David Parker for the collaborative work that he did across the community as well. This bill does something that very simply—very simply, we have moved from a Resource Management Act to a Natural and Built Environment Bill. This means that we have put the environment back into our legislation. We have put the environment at the front of— Simon Court: Environmental protection? ANGIE WARREN-CLARK: I won't say it again, but that's what it has done. So we are incredibly—on this side of the House, this is a piece of work that we have been working extremely hard for. Simon Court: [Walks to exit] I'm wasting my time with you lot. ANGIE WARREN-CLARK: I'm extremely proud of the fact that we have got this across the line, and as a consequence— DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr Court! Simon Court: Yes, sir. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Excuse me, you do not make gratuitous comments while you're walking. You will go back to your seat, and you will stand, withdraw, and apologise. Simon Court: [Returns to seat] I withdraw and apologise. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. Now make a nice, quiet, dignified exit please. Can I just add that time? Add another minute to the speaker. ANGIE WARREN-CLARK: Another minute? Thank you, sir. I'm actually just about to take my seat. But what I do want to say is that I'm incredibly proud of our Government for doing this piece of work. We have done it on behalf of the people of this country. Each and every person who has ever worked under the Resource Management Act has found some difficulties, and we're fixing them. I commend this bill to the House. TAMA POTAKA (National—Hamilton West): I'm honoured to present on this third reading of the bill. National supports Resource Management Act reform but it should improve the status quo. In my view, this bill does not do that. I respect Minister Parker and the select committee for their mahi. There are some parts that are progressive and interesting but, in my view, ultimately flawed—flawed culturally, commercially, and constitutionally. The bill's purpose to uphold te Oranga o te Taiao demonstrates the vacuous drafting at play. That a Māori-sounding concept such as te Oranga o te Taiao can guide decision making is commendable. In this Chamber, defining these concepts implores caution and integrity, particularly when the concept is actually new to Māori communities. The definition proffered around te Oranga o te Taiao is near Picasso-esque: a thing of mysterious beauty that not many if any really understand. It reminds me of my fourth form art work down at central Hawke's Bay. In my opinion, the use of a Māori phrase here, defined by ambiguous English language, is a boondoggle drafting experiment. There is an absence of hierarchy across the constituent parts of the definition. There's an absence of direction for those who invest across territorial and marine environments, including Māori who have a relationship with te taiao based on whakapapa and an aspiration to do something, like aquaculture in Whakatōhea, goldmining in Tara Tokanui, and corporate dairy farming like Wairarapa Moana and Parininihi ki Waitotara Incorporations. These absences, which are nearly as provocative as absences across our schooling system, have caused many diverse commentators to raise their concerns: the Chief Justice, Helen Winkelmann; Federated Farmers; and the Environmental Defence Society, who commented that the purpose of this legislation is wrapped up in word soup that allows fertile ground for litigation. Clause 5 demonstrates legislative cubism, where the bill sets out system outcomes that must be achieved to ensure that the purpose of the Act is achieved. Clause 5(10) provides that one of the system outcomes is as follows, "The relationship of iwi and hapū, and the exercise of their kawa, tikanga Māori (including kaitiakitanga), and mātauranga Māori respect of their ancestral lands, water, sites, wāhi tapu, wāhi tūpuna, and other taonga, are recognised and provided for." But on questioning during the committee of the whole House the Minister was ill-prepared and unable to define what "kawa, tikanga" constitute. Time and again that question was asked, and what did I get? Crickets. I'll tell you what, I'll probably get the crickets from the former Minister of Conservation—their epistemological foundations, their practical implementation, and their interface with one another are not known by the decision makers let alone applicants and the entire bench. We should have kept our three wānanga here today to help us and guide us as to what they actually mean. We will definitely need our pyjamas for that conversation, though, because wānanga, as the member for Manurewa knows, best happen beyond the hours of urgency that the House holds. It is absolutely outrageous that the Minister and the select committee chair cannot define what kawa, tikanga, and mana mean but are eager beavers to throw it into the bill. Absence again features in this clause—an absence of hierarchy between kawa and mana, tikanga and mātauranga. There is an absence of direction around what kawa is important and whose kawa? Ngāti Toa? Ngāpuhi? Tūhoe? Or te whānau of Waipareira? There is an absence of clarity. Our constitutional Westminster system has a number of foundational principles and the rule of law is the central poutokomanawa of all of them. In this moment, in this third reading, that rule of a law and legal certainty is immeasurably compromised. We've thrown more coals on the fire of legal activism, and for what? Another tick on the Government's insatiable long list on omniscient kāwanatanga aspirations. Minister Parker has described that National and others might have fiddled around the edges to reform the resource management system. This conclusion, I would recommend, is myopic. It makes cubism seem like basic art. Even the Green Party, fortunately, knows the only way to get genuine green outcomes is through blue. To suggest that the Treaty provision, now effectively similar to section 4 of the Conservation Act, will give clarity and stimulation is completely at odds with the actions of the current Government and the former Minister of Conservation, which failed at nearly every single step to implement genuine partnership with Ngāi Tai ki Tamaki in the Hauraki Gulf—the very iwi who sought and achieved favourable Supreme Court guidance regarding that clause. Instead, the young minds, the young talent, the young brilliance of Māori working out there in the tribal domain end up judicial review and litigation processes instead of developing the socio-economic wealth and wellbeing we desperately need. Kia ora tātou. ANGELA ROBERTS (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I always love a bill where we get to quote economists—yay. It's a good day—a good day in the House. As we know, economics is fundamentally about the systems that we use to allocate our resource, right? You know, who gets to decide what we do with our stuff? Do we use it, do we transform it, do we protect it, and who gets to benefit from that? In recent years, we've seen a shift away, more and more, from those decisions being driven by the market and being driven by an insatiable desire for growth. The Resource Management Act was an attempt to try and help manage the damage that was done by allowing our resource decisions to be made by the market, fundamentally. We've seen shifts in the ways economists think and sociologists think and Treasury—we can see, as they've incorporated our living standards framework. This bill is another piece that helps us to shift fundamentally from a growth-led to a sustainability-led economy. It's quite exciting. It enables us to fundamentally shift the way we operate our economy. Students of modern-day economics—not those of us who studied when Mr Gekko was around in the last millennium—would have heard of Kate Raworth and her concepts that she introduces in Doughnut Economics. She talks about us living between where we've got fundamental social foundations that are strong and healthy and an ecological ceiling, and we have to try and live within that. This bill helps. The intention—the collaboration that was required to tackle such a complex problem is evident. We've heard about the years of reviews and consultation and engagement and the changes that were made at select committee, and that collaborate is valued by those of us who, luckily, just got to sit outside and watch this massive piece of work being done. I'm going to finish by quoting Kate Raworth. She says, "Today we have economies that need to grow, whether or not they make us thrive. What we need are economies that make us thrive, whether or not they grow." And so I commend this bill to the House. ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I am very glad to have a call on this bill, which is a great bill because this has been a long time coming and this reform is something that Minister Parker and the Ministers involved in this can be extremely proud of. From the beginning, Cabinet, since 2020, has been committed to an objective for these reforms being to give effect to the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and to better recognize Te Ao Māori, including mātauranga Māori. I am going to use my time today to clarify three of the objectives which were subject to much discussion in the committee of the whole House and in speeches that have been given today. They are, first, Te Oranga o te Taiao; second, the Te Titiri o Waitangi clause; and, third, the National Māori Entity and its role. First let me take you to Te Oranga o te Taiao. It was, you know, very simply summarised—and well summarised, I thought—in the speech of Barbara Kuriger when she said, basically, if the environment is healthy, the people are healthy. It's not complicated. And I appreciated that, because I think that's something that all New Zealanders can understand and appreciate. Te Oranga o te Taiao is a concept drawn from Te Ao Māori and indigenous understandings of the environment, but those are not at odds with the modern demands of how we must care for our environment. Upholding Te Oranga o te Taiao is the purpose of this law. The concept has been deliberately developed to be an environmental ethic for all people in Aotearoa. Better recognising Te Ao Māori results in better outcomes in our planning system and for all New Zealanders. Te Oranga o te Taiao is defined in clause three of the bill and the definition reflects what the Resource Management Review Panel called the fundamental truth accepted in all communities: that the health and wellbeing of people is dependent on the health and wellbeing of the taiao. Some members raised questions about Te Oranga o te Taiao being a new term in the legislation, and that that would therefore create uncertainty. We've heard hyperbole from the other side today about the number of lawyers, the many years tied up in litigation. But as the Minister, David Parker, dealt with in the committee of the whole House, he said even if we had kept the old Resource Management Act (RMA) purpose clause, this still would have been interpreted differently because this legislation creates a new planning framework. It would be unrealistic to create a new planning framework and then expect the courts to interpret the words in the same way. The idea that there can be significant resource management reform without the courts interpreting the words used, whatever the words are, is simply incorrect. The bill, as discussed in the committee of the whole House, provides clauses to assist with the clarity and certainty of Te Oranga o te Taiao as well. I've heard questions from the other side of the House today about the way that the hierarchy works. The good news is that the bill is set out in a way which assists ordinary people to understand how to implement it. The purpose, like the purpose of all pieces of legislation, does not stand alone. Unlike the RMA, the key means of achieving this purpose are coherently set out. This is in clause 3(a) of the bill. Upholding te Oranga o te Taiao will be achieved through these means, in line with the approach outlined in King Salmon. There is a cascade of instruments that will progressively provide more detail on upholding te Oranga o te Taiao, from the legislation to the National Planning Framework to Regional spatial plans to plans. I also note clause 3(a)(ii) of the bill sets out very clearly that upholding te Oranga o te Taiao must be achieved in a way which protects the health of the natural environment, and that subject to this—subject to this—it must be achieved in a way that enables use and development of the environment. That is clear: there is a clear hierarchy of priorities. I want to underscore that the Ao Māori worldview does not see rigid distinctions between environmental protection and use of the environment, and both are provided for in this legislation. As Minister Parker outlined in his speech, protecting our environment and fostering responsible development are not mutually exclusive. Let me then bring us to Te Tiriti o Waitangi clause. I want to speak about how this clause is the same in both the Natural and Built Environment Bill and the Spatial Planning Bill. It requires all persons exercising powers and performing functions and duties to give effect to the principles of Waitangi. You might be familiar with those words, "give effect to the Treaty of Waitangi", because they are what's used in the Conservation Act and they have been in effect in that Act since 1987. They are not new words to our court system and to the lawyers who use them or to the developers and people who use our natural environment. The give effect weighting to the Treaty clause is important because it's been tested in the courts, but it is a strong weighting and it sends a strong signal. The courts have said that "give effect to" simply means implement. On the face of it, it is a strong directive, creating a firm obligation on the part of those subject to it, and the question is: why is that important? In over 15 reports of the Waitangi Tribunal, they have found that the RMA falls short of the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and that Māori interests guaranteed under Te Tiriti are balanced out under the RMA. Importantly, most submitters at every step of this nearly four-year reform have asked for a "give effect to the Treaty" clause. This is well-supported change and it will help ensure Māori interests are no longer balanced out in the resource management system. It's an important step forward for our system as a whole, and I believe that it will deliver better outcomes for all New Zealanders. Let me then turn to my third point, which is the National Māori Entity. It's the last mechanism that I wanted to speak about, and it's an independent statutory entity. What's important to note here is that the entity doesn't take over the role of iwi, hapū, and Māori in the system, nor is it a substitute for those relationships which already exist between the Crown and Māori. The role of the entity is to add an additional support for the roles of iwi and Māori provided under these bills. The mana of iwi, hapū, and Māori is not usurped by the entity. Its primary function is set out in clause 30ZH of the bill, and its function is to monitor whether or not the resource management system is giving effect to the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. The entity will develop and publish a framework for this monitoring function and regularly monitor those who will be required to give effect to the principles of Te Tiriti under the Natural and Built Environment Act (NBEA) and Spatial Planning Act (SPA). It's an important step within this process and when viewed with those first two things that I've spoken about. It's also an opportunity to support decision makers to continuously improve how they give effect to the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, because, as we've experienced with the RMA, the expectations of people change and our decision makers need to evolve their decisions too. In summary, the bill provides important mechanisms for meeting the Government's objectives: that the reforms give effect to the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and better recognise Te Ao Māori. The new and improved roles for Māori provided by the bills support the roles in resource management that successive Governments have agreed with iwi, and these are things that all Governments of all colours need to continue to support. These reforms will deliver real benefits for New Zealanders, and that's why I'm glad to have had a call on this bill and to support it today. STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is a pleasure to speak on the Natural and Built Environment Bill. What we've heard is quite a bit of passion from both sides of the House. I think one thing that anyone listening to this debate can be certain of is that everyone in the House cares for the environment. What we're hearing is a contest of ideas—a contest of principles in which we should approach the management of the natural and built environment. We should not be afraid of that. We're about to go through a contest of ideas when the House rises on 31 August through to 14 October. Not agreeing on something is healthy, actually. If we all agreed on it, probably the bar is not high enough, I would suggest, or it's too woolly to worry about. The member who just took her seat, Arena Williams; I don't agree with everything that she said but I cannot for a moment question her passion on this idea, and I think that's great—it's fantastic. But also, equally, my ACT colleague earlier also spoke with great passion with a diametrically opposed point of view, and I don't think that's an unhealthy thing. I have not had the pleasure of being on the Environment Committee through the hearing of all the evidence for these bills, but I do want to take a moment to acknowledge the chair of the select committee Eugenie Sage's herculean efforts to steer the select committee through that process and to all the other permanent members on that select committee, because it was a heck of a job. What a pity, after all that work, to have almost 1,000 pages of a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) dumped on the table, which really I think was a kick in the teeth really. Hon David Parker: That's not true—that's just not correct. It was done at select committee. STUART SMITH: Well, I think the Minister has had his turn. And I think that that SOP is just too much to bear. The exposure draft—I did go through that exercise—was also futile because there were so many empty clauses that meant nothing really; they were all placeholders. So we heard evidence—a lot of it actually quite prescient when we went on to find what the bill was and warned against the very things that we have in the bill. For example, the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi—what does that mean? And we actually asked—and I was present when that was asked, I'm pretty sure, I do remember that—the officials: "What are the principles then?" And they said, "Well, they're evolving." That is the issue that, time after time, we did hear and we asked many questions of the Minister in the chair: "What does that mean? How is that going to be interpreted by the courts? How is that going to be interpreted when there is no actual definition?" What we heard, actually, in the Environment Committee on another matter referring to the same issue from a constitutional lawyer was that, actually, the law has a principle in that the law should be known by all—should be known by all. You don't have to know it, but you should be able to know it. And what we have riddled throughout this bill are principles and references that are unknowable at the moment. For example, the principles of the Treaty, because they are evolving. The previous speaker said that referring and giving effect to the Treaty was great—that was fantastic. Well, the Treaty ceded sovereignty in article 1, and then it conferred property rights, and then in the third article of the Treaty it gave equal citizenship. Well, no one can disagree with that. We should just do that anyway. So what is the argument here and why is that in the Natural and Built Environment Bill, I'm not sure. We don't know because we didn't get any explanation. We asked the Minister time and again—didn't get a thing out of it. We heard before that the bill was going to put the environment at the centre and at the front. Well, I don't think it's ever not been, quite frankly. To think that this is novel, I think, is not actually all that relevant. Values and actual thoughts and what is thought to be the right thing evolve over time. I'll give you an example of that. In south Marlborough, it was thought by the Forest Service at the time and the catchment board that the best thing to do was to spread pinus contorta around to stop the erosion of the hill country in south Marlborough, which has now turned into an absolute environmental disaster. So having the environment as their cause was why those pinus contorta seeds were actually planted—some of them right up above the bush line, as you know, I'm sure, Madam Speaker, because you've been there. And that has caused a huge environmental disaster today. Further, conifers were advised by the catchment board to be planted to stop rabbits, unbelievably today. It actually gave a better environment for rabbits to thrive. So having the environment at the centre might sound great, but that's not actually the end point. You've actually got to weigh things up, over time things change. This bill does nothing to improve on that. I think my colleague Chris Bishop put it pretty well when he talked about, well, there's so much work going into this, we've got to stick to it and carry on. He said it's the sunk cost fallacy, and I think that's absolutely right. There's a lot of effort gone into this and undoubtedly the officials are beavering away at the moment on the assumption that this bill's going to pass, and unfortunately it will. It will, but it won't last long. Should we win the election on 14 October, it will be gone by Christmas. We've given that undertaking, and rightly so. And we do see a way forward. All the members on the other side have to do is look towards our electrify New Zealand policy, which shows how to deal with resource management in terms of renewable energy, which we're all in favour of. By the way, Contact Energy said this bill, should it pass, will make it much harder to build renewable energy. The New Zealand Wind Energy Association also said it would be much harder to build— Hon David Parker: Rubbish. STUART SMITH: —renewable energy under this legislation. Well, the Minister says "Rubbish". He's such an expert—he's such an expert. Hon David Parker: The fast track applies to wind. STUART SMITH: And the fast track—how fast is that? Pretty slow as it turns out. In one year under our policy. All of these experts have looked at it and they actually have all dismissed the Minister's claims. I think the Chief Justice had something to say about that. What did the Chief Justice say? Was that a ringing endorsement? No it wasn't. He said it was going to be a very difficult bill to navigate, and quite rightly so. They're now complaining about the Chief Justice. Well, you can't have it both ways. It's a contest of ideas and, unfortunately, some people are afraid of a contest of ideas, perhaps because of the weakness of their own argument, I can't possibly say. Angela Roberts said that the growth led to sustainability and ecological certainty. I'm paraphrasing; I'm not quite sure exactly what she said but along those lines. Sure, we're in favour of environment. Our resources are limited, but they are not that limited that we can't have a small impact on the environment. And under this principle of the bill, it says that we must protect the natural environment. We've heard from legal experts that that is such a high test we're going to be tied up in court for decades and it's going to take 10 years to come into effect anyway. I think this bill is a wasted opportunity. I commend the Minister for having a crack, but he went down the wrong track right at the beginning with the wrong principles. He's wasted a lot of time and energy, and, unfortunately, when this bill passes, it will trigger a series of court cases that will go for many decades. The legal profession, actually, I thought they'd be delighted, but they're not because they end up having to defend people and try and get their clients' projects across the line. And with all the uncertainty, no one will know where it's going to go and how much it's going to cost, and it is just a needless waste of this House's time. Thank you. LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It's great to be the final speaker, and it's quite a privilege to speak for the Natural and Built Environment Bill in the third reading. I firstly want to acknowledge the select committee members who worked tirelessly and also the officials from the different Ministries: we worked for months, we had many, many meetings. I also want to acknowledge the chair, Eugenie Sage, who shifted us through collectively. We worked well to hear, to read the 2,945 written submissions. We went the breadth of Aotearoa to hear the over 340 oral submissions and it was very helpful because I was a new member on the select committee. It was very helpful that over a period of months, listening to the current Resource Management Act legislation and reading about the new reforms, working with a planning approach, hearing communities from various local councils, but also industry experts who spoke on their written submissions. One of the biggest features that I heard was the 100 current plans that will be moving to the new system under the Natural and Built Environment Bill to 16 regional spatial plans. It was helpful to understand that they will be phased over time. There were a number of recommended changes that were technical to improve the workability of the specific bill, especially to help the committee to be able to read it better. There was a lot of time spent with officials improving that, and I do want to acknowledge our Minister, David Parker, as well because he helped the select committee to understand the fundamentals of this bill. We also heard about the failures of the current Resource Management Act throughout Aotearoa and why it is very important that this bill improves the environment, because currently what we heard was under the Resource Management Act things are too costly and they take too long to improve. It was helpful to listen to submitters who raised a number of issues around rivers, around landscapes. It was helpful to hear from iwi, Māori, and hapū, and those features like around the motu, fresh water, the concerns about infrastructure, also around consenting and system users who provided analysis and development. Also, to hear—I'm from the very busy building and construction industry—experts in electrical industry. And there are a number of tricky issues that we heard about that would—the new bill and the new legislation once passed will help with the national planning framework. The new limits of the nationwide policy: it is intended that those will have moderate risks, it was helpful to understand that, and specifically what was in front of us was the climate change challenges that we have in Aotearoa, thinking about green infrastructure, stormwater, and productive land. Now we saw that in January when the severe weather events hit Aotearoa. So, lots of meetings, lots of kōrero; there's a big journey around what this means to Aotearoa. We heard from many councils throughout around why local voices are very, very important to be part of the regional spatial strategies. Therefore, the Natural and Built Environment Bill has fundamental framework limits and will help in a fail-safe way to reset the environment that takes into account biodiversity, and, specifically, improvements nationwide. I commend this bill to the House. A party vote was called for on the question, That the Natural and Built Environment Bill be now read a third time. Ayes 72 New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere. Noes 47 New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2; Whaitiri. Motion agreed to. Bill read a third time. SPATIAL PLANNING BILL Third Reading Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): I present a legislative statement on the Spatial Planning Bill. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website. Hon DAVID PARKER: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move, That the Spatial Planning Bill be now read a third time. The Spatial Planning Bill is an important part of the new RM system—resource management system—and it works in tandem with the Natural and Built Environment Act that the House has just passed. The Spatial Planning Bill has a single function: the creation and implementation of integrated regional spatial strategies. Time and again, through the RM reform process, we've been told by developers, environmentalists, councils, that the absence of regional planning is a major problem in the current system. It was also a strong theme in submissions to the Environment Committee. Those who want more predictability and less uncertainty think we need better regional spatial plans to identify where trunk infrastructure and the like should go, what land should be next released for development, what areas are not suited for development. There's a lot of time and money currently being wasted as wheels spin on these issues, and spatial planning at the regional level will be a big step in overcoming this and then help mobilise the necessary private and public sector investments to make these things happen—as cities develop, for example. Regional strategies help achieve the purpose of the Natural and Built Environment Act (NBA). They are prepared by the same regional planning committees that are established under the NBA with the addition of a central government representative. Using the same committee was a recommendation of the select committee that has been adopted. The participation of a central government representative was at the request of councils who otherwise find it hard to pin down central government agencies. Regional spatial strategies are required for each region, and they'll set out a vision and objective for a region's development over a 30-year period. They will focus on the big issues and opportunities facing the region. They're essentially a large map. Regional spatial strategies become a vehicle for delivering infrastructure in the right places at the right time, providing clear investments to the private sector as well as local and central government agencies responsible for things like transport and housing. Obviously, if you identify or require transport corridors early for protection, you'll get better outcomes. A regional spatial strategy will also identify areas that are less amenable for development. These could be areas of significant biodiversity; could be highly productive land. It might be better to direct development in the future on areas of less productive land—the high-productive land should be protected from subdivision where possible—then it might be that there are areas that are at risk for natural hazards like sea level rise that can be identified so that you have fewer battles about those things at the local plan level. A regional spatial strategy isn't intended to be a document that sits on a shelf, but rather it's a blueprint for action. Implementation agreements are provided for, and progress on action can be monitored and reported on annually. Plans under the NBA will put the detailed policies and rules in place to implement the regional spatial strategies. The NBA is, of course, making process improvements like designations being able to be delivered more efficiently. In the end, quite complex mixes of housing infrastructure, corridors, schools, hospitals, commercial developments identified in regional spatial strategies will flow through to NBA plans as permitted activities. This is one of the ways in which there will be fewer consents required under the new system—or fewer notified consents. The legislation allows the regional planning committee to use different public and stakeholder engagement approaches for different issues, but the process must include some specified steps, including a hearing of submissions on a draft strategy. Enabling local democratic voice was a significant area that the select committee received submissions on and made suggestions which have been incorporated so that local aspirations via statements of community outcomes and statements of regional outcomes are incorporated—and regional planning committees are required to report on how they've taken these into account. The central government appointee on the regional planning committee will be responsible for communicating central government priorities. These regional spatial strategies, then, you can see how they deliver an integrated approach, identifying the areas where future growth is likely to occur. On occasion, they might list a population trigger after which these things are released for development—and also identifying the areas where development ought not to occur. This will help infrastructure planning with the investment signals being clearer for those who have to provide the money for infrastructure and housing, for example. Much of the discussion around spatial planning has focused on urban growth and the need to ensure integrated investment in housing, transport, other infrastructure, and, for example, the green spaces that you need around new urban areas. But spatial planning also has the potential to address other community needs—including, perhaps, how we deal with major tourism destinations to help them deliver sustainable tourism, and how we provide a future pathway for delivering resilient infrastructure in rural communities. Spatial planning could also help deliver catchment, restoration, and collective efforts to improve our natural environment; could include landscape scale management programmes that involve multiple parties over a long period of time such as Predator Free or Wild + Pine programmes. An integrated approach can also be achieved for port development, integrated with inland ports, addressing shipping lanes, dredge dumping sites, coastal ports as well as inland ports—as I mentioned—and connecting rail and road infrastructure. Various forms of spatial or strategic planning have been under way in parts of New Zealand and they have included urban growth partnerships and collaborative processes. In many cases, these have been undermined by not having a clear legislative basis, so agreements reached aren't held to, aren't implemented, and don't link into implementation mechanisms such as transport planning and investment—and there are linkages in the Act through to those other transport planning legislation. Work currently under way on some of those spatial strategies can carry through into the regional spatial strategies under this Act. We will continue on natural hazard planning work which we need as a country, and of course that can also feed into spatial strategies. Work by potential investors, infrastructure agencies, and community groups to identify what they want to achieve will be optimised by long-term spatial planning. We do need to get on with this bill without the delay that the members opposite now seem to want. There was a strong consensus in submissions to the select committee that spatial planning of this sort is needed. I find it unclear as to why members opposite want to repeal this legislation. It's a recipe for uncertainty and extra cost. Can I take the opportunity to thank everyone who's been involved in what has been a big project—the resource management reform process—bringing these two bills to fruition? Can I add my thanks to others; to the Environment Committee members? They put an enormous amount of work in. Can I name, particularly, the Hon Eugenie Sage, whose competencies and hard work were evident; members of the Randerson panel; ministerial colleagues—this has been a cross-Government programme—including representatives of Treasury, transport, housing; and, of course, local government who implement most of the system have been an essential partner. Māori groups, environmental NGOs, industry and business groups, and the public have all contributed to this legislation. Stuart Smith, in his last contribution, made the assertion that there's been lots of Supplementary Order Papers to these pieces of legislation. He's just wrong. The work was done at select committee. It is a matter of practice that, to aid the House, the changes made at select committee are shown in a tracked version of the bill which was in the House—and that was done here. Those amendments were 90 percent - plus done at select committee. Can I, particularly, acknowledge the hard work and long hours put in my officials at Ministry for the Environment and at the Parliamentary Counsel Office? This has been a big piece of work and they've worked hard on it. One of the criticisms that seems to be made here is it's a long Act. I've noted previously that the legislation isn't actually long compared with the status quo. But if you look at other areas of legislation, whether it's the cornerstone legislation for tax or customs or the companies legislation in the Commerce Act, legislation does have to—or the Health Act or the Education Act; none of them are short. This is the cornerstone piece of legislation that affects both the environment and development, and obviously you have to do it thoroughly. The other side moaned for decades about the Resource Management Act (RMA). They did nothing about it. They said they were going to repeal the RMA—never did it. Nine years, fiddled—made it worse. The ACT Party and the National Party could never deliver, and it does seem like there's sort of a little bit of jealousy here that they can't admit that we've delivered what they failed to achieve in over nine years. They do have some issues that they have made clear in respect of Treaty-related clauses. It's fine for them to differentiate them. Stuart Smith's wrong about the uncertainty caused by a clause that refers to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. Those same principles were previously referred to in the current legislative package. It's just that the members of the— ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The member's time— Hon DAVID PARKER: Madam Speaker, I thought that there was a mistake made by cutting that short. Have I got that wrong? I commend the bill to the House. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the motion be agreed to. CHRIS BISHOP (National): Well, I actually do want to hear what the Minister was saying. Was there an issue with the time? We're not sure? OK—all right. Well, I was going to seek leave for the member to have a few more minutes. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Sorry, could the member please explain what his question was around the timing? You can stop the clock. CHRIS BISHOP: Oh, sorry—well, point of order. Sorry, Madam Speaker. The Minister seemed to indicate that he thought he had more time than he had; there might've been a stuff-up with the clock. I was actually quite interested in what he was saying at the tail end of his speech. You seem to be shaking your head and saying no, he had the full 10. Well, I mean, I seek leave for the Minister to have two more minutes to finish his contribution. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Thank you for that. Before I put the leave, I just want to be very clear about what has happened here, because the Minister has raised an issue around the timing. I'm not across that, so just let me talk to the Clerk for a moment. Look, thank you for your forbearance. I've checked. I understand, and I'm advised, that the timing that was allocated to the Minister was entirely appropriate. However, the member has asked for leave to—well, would the member like to put the leave? Hon David Parker: Well, I think, appropriately, I have to seek— ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Well, if the member wants to speak, would he like to take a point of order? Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Point of order, Madam Speaker. I think I have to seek leave for myself; a member can't seek it for another. I seek leave for a two-minute extension. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none. Hon DAVID PARKER: Thank you, Madam Speaker, and can I thank Chris Bishop for that suggestion. I was actually dealing with the issue of Māori rights and interests, and I can see from the debate around this Chamber that there is a legitimate debate around those issues. I would make the point in respect of Stuart Smith's comments that the reference to the principles of the Treaty is very common across the legislation in this country, and the change relates to from "taking into account" to "giving effect to" the principles of the Treaty, not the reference to the principles of the Treaty. Members will probably be aware that there is quite a bit of jurisprudence as to what those principles are, and a concern that if you go directly to reference the Treaty itself rather than the principles, you actually create more legal uncertainty and outcomes that might be a surprise because of new jurisprudence. In respect of some of the other issues that I know Chris Bishop has raised in earlier issues relating to the debate, I think there is room for argument around those issues, and I can see why parties might differentiate that and want to change some of those provisions, but the overall scheme of this new legislation, which moves from an effects-based regime to outcomes with regional spatial plans, with plans decreasing from over 100 to 16 Resource Management Act plans, and with a more coherent articulation of outcomes, including outcomes for development, I think there is wide societal agreement that it is appropriate. So it saddens me that the Opposition threaten to throw the baby out with the bathwater and say start again rather than just making minor changes that they could make if they were elected and were so minded. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the motion be agreed to. CHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you very much, and I thank the Minister for that useful contribution, which was slightly less vituperative than his contribution on the Natural and Built Environment Bill. Look, the National Party opposes this legislation but we do so with less hostility towards it than the Natural and Built Environment Bill. For some of the reasons that the Minister has outlined, everyone's in favour of fewer plans—there's no doubt about that. We have too many, they're too long, the process around changing them is too difficult, and they increase complexity. I think the Minister has talked publicly about—well, it might not have been the Minister but it was certainly someone from the Government side—various different housing rules being different in Lower Hutt compared to Upper Hutt. They are only 15 kilometres down the road as the crow flies—builders in both patches have to have different specifications. That sort of stuff's nuts and we all want to reduce that and there's not really a debate about that and nor is there a debate about doing spatial planning better. And actually, as the Minister himself said in his contribution, it happens now and essentially what's happened is councils and communities have just got around the resource management Act and actually come up with some quite sophisticated structures with central government already. So I think of— Hon David Parker: But they don't stick; they're forever re-litigated. CHRIS BISHOP: Yeah, sure, sure. Yeah, I accept that. But the structures are there and so I think about the Waikato, for example, which I spent a bit of time in recently, a forward-leaning, pro-growth region and, frankly, some of the Wellington city councils— Hon Louise Upston: The best in New Zealand CHRIS BISHOP: Well, Louise Upston says the best in New Zealand. Certainly, in some respects they are and, frankly, the Wellington Regional Council, which seems to be going out of its way to stop housing being built anywhere in the Wellington region and involve itself in an endless debate about the fantasy of light rail, could adopt some of Waikato's and Hamilton's pro-growth mindset. But Waikato is getting on with it and actually, to acknowledge the Government, some of that work was started by the Hon Phil Twyford when he was the Minister of Housing. I think about some of what's going on in Tauranga now, for example, where the commissioners are have upended a sort of anti-growth mindset which has resulted in some of the most unaffordable housing prices in the developed world in Tauranga as Tauranga transitions from a small retirement community into what is a city, a big city and a growing city, in the heart of productive New Zealand, situated very, very close to Hamilton and Waikato and the so-called Golden Triangle. So some of that stuff is happening already and so the question is how you give effect to that. And the question that this bill poses is: is the superstructure created by the new spatial planning regime that the right way to do that? We're as yet unconvinced that that is. We worry about the over bureaucratisation of the process. There were legitimate concerns expressed by local government around the anti-democratic nature of some of this. Now, I am not someone for whom local democracy is the be all and end all of existence. There is clearly a balance and a tension between central government's legitimate policy goals and local decision-making. To take the most obvious example, central government spends $4 billion a year on housing subsidies, $4 billion: $2 billion in the accommodation supplement, $1.5 million and change on the income-related rent subsidy, and the rest of it on emergency housing—$4 billion a year is an astonishing sum of money. The reason central government has to spend all that money is in large part because of council planning rules that have stopped cities from growing. And we bear all the consequence of that in central government, and local government just, you know, says no to housing and so there's clearly a legitimate role for central government to compel regions to grow. Hon Phil Twyford: MDRS? CHRIS BISHOP: Well, you know, the medium density residential standard is still there under National's policy; it's just more discretion and flexibility. But the point is they've got to go for growth—they have to go for growth, and our policy is the same as yours was, Mr Twyford, back in 2017 when the Government gave a Speech from the Throne saying the metropolitan urban limit would be smashed. And six years later, the metropolitan urban limit is still in place in Auckland. In fact, the future development zone in Auckland doubles down on the restrictive planning rules stopping Auckland from growing. And the future development zone—there's an article just by Todd Niall in Stuff this morning in which a succession of councillors and planners in Auckland are boasting about the fact that Auckland will not grow as much. It's just demented, actually, because Auckland house prices are some of the most unaffordable in the developed world and the idea that Auckland can just put a ring around itself and basically just hope for the best is, frankly delusional. So thank you for that interjection, Mr Twyford. It allowed me to have a bit of a vent. The Minister mentioned natural hazard planning and he said we need to get on with it. Well, we agree. With respect, where's the bill? Because we were told there'd be a trifecta of bills; we're on to the second one now. Where's the third bill? I mean, we're up for that, on this side of the House and we do want to have a genuine bipartisan conversation about it, because it's really important, as the Minister says, and the Minister seemed to be implying the National Party was opposed to it. We're not. We want to talk about natural hazards and proper planning around that. We're just waiting for the bill which, as yet, is yet to materialise and we want to see that. Maybe, if we have the privilege of forming a Government, we'll get to have a look at where the work's got to. So we wait and see for that. Can I also just, in this quite potpourri contribution speech, acknowledge Eugenie Sage, who's a departing MP, for her chairpersonship of the committee. She did do a good job, as the Minister says. We have our political differences, but she's a very fair minded and genial person who's made a big contribution to Parliament, and I, for one, will miss her. On the Māori rights and interest thing, I think the point is not so much that the bill gives effect to the Treaty. The point, I think, is the change from "take account" to "give effect to", and I do worry about that, because it sounds like a subtle change but I worry about what the effect that that will have on our planning regime. I also worry about clause 7, "Iwi and hapū responsibilities in relation to te taiao", because, as I got into the Minister in the committee stage, the subheading is iwi and hapū responsibilities, but the actual clause says "All persons exercising powers and performing duties and functions … must recognise and provide for the responsibility and mana of each iwi and hapū". So the clause is actually wider than that and I worry about that, from a planning point of view and a certainty point of view. Just finally, as we sort of close off these two bills, with respect to the Minister, it's not jealousy that the Government is reforming the Resource Management Act (RMA) that National opposes it. National has always been up for RMA reform. In fact, we tried and the Minister knows it. We tried in Government. We never had the numbers, thanks to the Hon Peter Dunne, who should hang his head in shame over his behaviour on the RMA. But we never had the numbers and the Government now does have the numbers. We wrote to the Government—this is all on the record—saying that we were up for bipartisan RMA reform; this stuff is really important. And we never really had a response. So we are where we are and the Government has charged off in their own direction, and I feel confident in saying that there are Government members who are worried about aspects of this legislation and concerned about it. I do think clause 3 of the Natural and Built Environment Bill, which is linked to the Spatial Planning Bill, will prove disastrous. We will have to change it, and much of where the Government has landed is wrong-headed. So it's not that we oppose it for its own sake. It's not just party politics for the sake of it. I am really—and we are really—concerned about where this is going. The Government has decided to pass it through before the election, while they have the numbers—we know that—and maybe things will be different after 14 October; maybe they won't. But all we can do before the bills before the Parliament right now is just put on the record our opposition and our intentions, and we're being completely up front and transparent around that. We oppose the bills. We do think they should be off the statute book. We are up for RMA reform and, as I think have indicated, we are up for regional spatial planning. There are some really good things in this bill. There are some sensible things in this bill. Maybe some of them will carry over to the new regime when the time comes, but for now, we oppose. Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Associate Minister for the Environment): Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on this bill, the Spatial Planning Bill. As we discussed in the committee stage, it's not the "Strategic Planning Bill", but the spatial plans do have to be strategic. It's a really good bill and it's a really important thing that we do by making these statutory spatial plans at the regional level. As the Minister for the Environment just mentioned, there are a lot of spatial plans that have already been developed around New Zealand. Some of them are with central government and local government and mana whenua working together: some with different combinations, some focused on roads, some focused on housing, and some focused on both, but, certainly, none of them are focused on all the matters that are in clause 17 of the bill, which is "Contents of regional spatial strategies: key matters". But before I draw some attention to those key matters in clause 17—which, for me, is really the heart of the bill—of course I want to again reference the fact that the word "map" is now in the bill, and I say thank you to the select committee for that work. This is because, of course, when we're thinking about these spatial plans and a lot of the layers of data that will be involved in them, they will need to have a visual component to them—in fact, I would say that that's the main component to them for the users—to be able to see how these key matters play out by the people who are making this spatial strategy. Some of those key matters include things like areas that are appropriate to be reserved for rural use because, for example, they contain highly productive land; areas in the coastal marine area that are appropriate for development or change in use; matters relating to infrastructure, including existing, planned, or potential infrastructure that is or may be required to meet current and future needs; opportunities to make better use of existing infrastructure—that's something that's often forgotten about. We have a lot of existing infrastructure that may be able to be used in a more effective way, and we shouldn't just always be thinking about building new things. Also, there is climate change mitigation, at clause 17(1)(ja): "matters relating to climate change mitigation, including—(i) indicative locations for infrastructure that is or may be required to support the production of renewable energy or other measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions:". That is very specific and important for doing the energy transformation that we need to do in New Zealand by electrifying the country. Also, at clause 17(1)(ja)(ii): "areas that are suitable for land use change that would support reductions in greenhouse gas emissions:", and we've talked a lot today over the debates on the two bills about natural hazards, as well. Paragraph (jb) has "matters relating to risks arising from natural hazards and the effects of climate change, including—(i) areas that are or will be vulnerable to those risks:". It's very important that in the spatial strategies we're identifying those areas that people shouldn't be building new houses on, for instance. I also want to note, going back to those spatial strategies or spatial plans that already exist, that they don't have a legislative standing at the moment, so it's been very difficult for—well, some of them have a little bit of legislative standing, but a lot of them don't. So it's been difficult for people doing their Resource Management Act plans to really make those spatial strategies inform those resource management plans. By having this Act work with the Natural and Built Environment Act, that relationship is clear, and that is very important. We heard in the last speech there about "Where's this other piece of legislation regarding the climate adaptation?", and that is a difficult piece of legislation to do, because the idea or the intent of that is to deal with areas where people already have existing activities and there needs to be some change to those. Part of the problem or part of the complexity of that issue is, of course, the expense. It's expensive to move and to change, and there are questions about who pays and how much. Those are all difficult and important questions that do need to be answered, and, in my opinion, they need to be bipartisan as well. So James Shaw, the Minister of Climate Change, has just announced, I think, yesterday that he's inviting the Environment Committee—a very good select committee, and we've heard about them a lot today—to look at that issue and report back, obviously, after the election. I note also that the previous speaker mentioned the difference between "take into account" and "give effect to" when talking about the Treaty principles, and, in an unusual admission, I do agree with Chris Bishop on that point. It is an important change. It's a big change to go from "take into account" to "give effect to", and it's done on purpose. My last point I think I'll make on this bill is the importance of the central government person or representative that is going to be on the planning committee. So when the planning committees are making the natural and built environment regulatory plans, they don't have a central government person on them, but when they are making these spatial plans, they do have a central government person on them, and the point of that central government person is not to tell everybody what to do because they're from central government, but to try and coordinate what is often a very siloed environment. I've been involved in many plans being made over the years, and often you'll have very different voices from central government representing quite different ideas. So as to the idea that central government can be cajoled, they have a coherent message and can be clear about what plans are there for various different types of infrastructure—and by "infrastructure", I of course do not just mean roads, but the schools, hospitals, and the stormwater that I was talking about earlier in the previous debate. So, again, this is great to see this here at a third reading. Like the other speakers have also said, I do want to thank the select committee for their hard work on it and thank all of the officials and always, obviously, the Parliamentary Counsel Office but also the officials of the select committee as well. The select committee has spent a long time on these bills. It has listened to a lot of submissions and had a lot of to-ing and fro-ing with the advisers, and that meant that the clerks on the committee had a lot of work to do. They of course did a great job, and I'm very grateful for that work. I commend the bill to the House. BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki-King Country): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, here we are on the Spatial Planning Bill, after the Natural and Built Environment Bill this morning and this afternoon. It has been a big job actually listening to all the submissions—almost 3,000 submissions on both these bills—but it was really interesting when the submissions come through between both of the bills, the submissions were very intertwined, all of them, because actually that's what the two bills do. They're designed to work together, and it's not surprising that most of the submitters chose to intertwine their submissions rather than do separate ones. I would like to note that as a committee we were able to make changes to the bill. The officials were very willing and, as I said before, we didn't get all the changes that we might have liked to have made, particularly with the other bill. But I think when it comes to this one, when I said before that the natural built environment and resource management planning is hard—and we know that there's a third stream to this which is going to have to link in, in many ways. That's actually going to be much harder because it's going to be a huge disruption to the status quo for many people. I saw a presentation just recently around how difficult it would be and how many Acts it interacts with, and so if we think this part is hard, going forward into further parts is going to take a huge amount of thinking because it's going to cause a lot of disruption to many people's lives. I think probably where a lot of the objections have come in around both of these bills is around the legal aspects of it. I've not got a background in resource consenting, but I know others have and there is quite a bit of concern from a number of people that there will be some legal challenges around this. Other people will have varying different views and they probably vary quite a bit as you work your way around the House. But I do think when it comes to long-term planning, it is important to put a strategy before the structure, and I think going from 100 plans to 16 plans has to be a good move. If we think about how our regional councils sit now, if we think about regional boundaries, if we have the opportunity as regions to look each other in the eye and do some face-to-face work, we can often come out with some good things. Now, there's a question around local voice and local council and local communities and how they might react to these regional planning committees, but the idea of regional plans in itself makes a huge amount of sense. And I think not just from a regional planning perspective but also from a series of connected maps, because no region is ever an island. If I look at an area like Taranaki, it's quite a nice, compact little region where it's very easy, with the maunga in the middle, to be able to interact. It's not too far to drive. It's much more simple than—and I know the Waikato region and all their good planning has been mentioned this afternoon. If I look at the Waikato region, it goes from up in the Coromandel up where Scott Simpson lives—which has largely been affected by cyclones over recent months—right down to Mokau, which is at the north end of Taranaki, and it fits all into the same regional council and there's a huge amount of varying differences. So spatial planning for that one region in itself is going to take quite a lot of thought into how that works. But then of course each region then links with other regions. And I take note of what Minister Rachel Brooking said before about the map, and we had lots of discussions at the Environment Committee about a map. I think that makes a huge amount of sense to start with a map, look what the area entails, and then have people identify opportunities within that map to show what they see is happening in their region. Because it doesn't make any sense to do it bit by bit by bit. Because whatever we do for nature, nature always wins. Nature is hard. And in terms of planning, we saw the Hawke's Bay floods, we saw pictures of where the historic wetlands were, and then we saw overlaid aerial photographs of where the water sat after the houses had been built. And then we wonder as human beings when we build in some places, without giving it too much thought, why things wash away when we have a cyclone. It's not to point the finger at any particular person, and I'm sure there will be examples in the Auckland flooding, there will be examples in Tairāwhiti. There are things where we say, "Why did we do it like this?" And I think spatial planning really is one of those things that will give us the opportunity to look at what we have and do it differently in the future. We also had, as a committee, the opportunity to work with the parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment around planning where green spaces might have been, and we looked at how the water didn't drain away in some of those places when we had copious amounts of rain. But also, some of the other things, when we look at the heating up and the climate change, that we can cool streets down quite effectively by having more trees than what we might have had in the past. And there's some very good examples of streets where they're not very far apart, particularly in warmer places, and we saw some examples in Australia where trees make such a huge difference. So it is really important that we think about—we see lots of current housing plans and pictures of sub developments where we just have house by house by house. So it gives us a very good opportunity to stand back and look more closely at where we put things. It would have been easy, as a country, when we look at highly productive land to stand back and go, "Well, this would be the best place to put it; this place would be the best place to put it; and that place would be the best place to put it." But now that we're already moved as a population in time, there's no way that you can actually then stand back and do that as simply as you could if you had a blank map. So we need to think quite carefully around that. But the climate adaptation bill is going to be a hard one to fit in, and it will take some spatial planning, it will take quite a bit of spatial planning to figure out if we've got to shift people from where they are now, shift activities from where they are now to where they need to go. And we're going to have to have a jolly good look at each region and each spatial plan to figure out where and how and why we would be doing things. Because what we don't want to do is make the same mistakes in the future. There has been some concern around the people appointed to the regional planning committees and having one central government person. It has been explained to us that that would be a link back to the Government departments and to be able to make those connections with our Government departments in order to help the Spatial Planning Bill make the spatial planning committees do their work. I think it would be unfortunate if we did go to regional spatial planning and then had a central government overlay, which then goes back to the way Governments actually—and Governments of both colours do this. I know that councils and regional councils, in an endless process of planning and long-term planning—before you know it the central government changes the rules and you have another plan in place and another plan in place, and I dread to think how much as a country we would have spent over a long period of time on long-term planning, which actually doesn't turn out to be long-term planning because someone else puts a new idea in the middle and before you know it things are rolling over. And yes, we have to evolve, but we've spent a lot of money on planning over the years, and so if this—well this bill will pass today, if this does come into place, you know, National has signalled that we would be repealing and taking another look at this. But if this was to be in place, I would hope that it would last a lot longer than what the current situation is, because as a country we can't afford to keep undoing and redoing and undoing and redoing all our plans. We have to actually think years ahead, put some long-term plans in place, and get on with it. So hopefully that's what we can look forward to as we progress with more long-term planning. I think it's probably fair to say that it is the Natural and Built Environment Bill that is the harder one for National to accept. This one has some things in it that would need fixing, but we do believe in spatial planning. Thank you, Madam Chair. Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): Thank you, Madam Chair. Well, it's good to follow Barbara Kuriger, an outstanding member of the Environment Committee. In the last term of Parliament, as Minister of Housing and Urban Development, I instigated and oversaw a series of regional planning initiatives also known as the urban growth partnerships, starting in the mighty Waikato, Wellington, Bay of Plenty, and the Auckland-Hamilton Corridor. The approach that we took was to get multiple councils: regional, city, district, together in the room. Mana whenua there right from the beginning, looking out over a 30 year horizon. Central government in the room with local government and iwi. High level spatial plans, maps, looking out into the future, taking into account growth projections for economic growth and population growth, dealing with climate adaptation, natural hazards, infrastructure—the network infrastructure, roads and water particularly, and the protection of ecological and cultural assets. It's basically the approach that is reflected in the Spatial Planning Bill. I saw the enthusiasm and commitment that all of those actors, local government particularly, brought to that enterprise. They were keen as to get in the room with all of the other players, to do spatial planning way beyond the governance boundaries of their councils, recognising that land markets, housing, the movement of people, transport take no account of those boundaries—they are a hindrance. There were two real standout performers—people have mentioned the Waikato councils, but also the Bay of Plenty were fantastic, and they demonstrated a willingness to work together, to think about long-term growth projections, to reform zoning in order to deliver more housing and more urban growth, and also to consider how to futureproof and modernise the transport networks to support the kind of growth they wanted. This bill, the Spatial Planning Bill, enshrines that approach in law and puts it at the heart of the new resource management system. It's an excellent approach. It's long overdue. The regional spatial strategies that will be produced by the planning committees will inform and provide direction and context for the natural and built environment plans. I believe that these regional spatial strategies will significantly improve the environmental outcomes. They will give communities more of a say in the really important choices and challenges facing our regions. They will make it easier for our towns and cities to grow, particularly by identifying the important corridors for future growth, the early marking out of grids for roads and network infrastructure like water, and this will enable the supply of land and development opportunities that will make our urban land markets more competitive, something that has been sorely lacking under the existing planning system now for several decades. I commend this bill to the House. SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Spatial planning is an important tool if it gives people, businesses, and communities information so they can plan where to build. The previous speaker, the Hon Phil Twyford, once had a good plan himself. That was to abolish Auckland's metropolitan urban limit—what a fantastic idea. It was even included in the Speech from the Throne in 2017 because it would have liberated Aucklanders from the artificial constraint of being told where they are and are not allowed to build. But, like so many of Mr Twyford's good ideas, unfortunately, it's disappeared in a puff of smoke. But don't worry, Mr Twyford, ACT might just bring that back. Now, there is a problem to solve that spatial planning tries to solve. It should reduce the number of consents and the complexity of any planning or application process so that people who own land—private property owners or developers, whether they be property developers or asset infrastructure developers—can get on with building the things that we need to actually deliver social benefits. Even though engineers, like me, love watching bulldozers push dirt around, we love watching concrete get poured and buildings go up, actually, all of that infrastructure is for one specific purpose, and that is to deliver social outcomes. What does this bill do? Well, it doesn't make it easier to build. In fact, what we heard from the Minister for the Environment is that the plan will identify where future growth happens, and it will provide a triggering mechanism so that land will only be released for development—around existing urban areas, for example—when a trigger is hit under a regional or spatial plan. So instead of property owners deciding "I want to build something somewhere because it's needed.", they won't. This bill adds divisive co-governance to regional planning committees. A minimum of two out of six of the appointed, not elected—two out of six appointed or elected people on regional planning committees will have to be appointees representing iwi Māori. And you can't vote these committees out, unlike now. If you're unhappy with the plans the council makes and a community decides they're not delivering for them, they can vote the council out—you'll never be able to vote out these regional planning committees. If you think the regional planning committees are doing a bad job, just wait, because this bill also gives the Minister for the Environment, who will become the most powerful Minister in a future Government, the opportunity to tell these regional planning committees what they want them to do—absolutely removes democratic local control from the way communities have planned and decided the way they develop. This bill also will allow these plans to limit how people use their land. For example, what we heard from officials, what we've heard today from Labour Party representatives, is that the bill will say where you are and are not allowed to develop. Now, they use the very important information around, say, where sea levels might rise, where there are coastal hazards, where there are flood zones, and where there are risks of slips or volcanoes or seismic risks. Of course a spatial plan needs to convey that information to people who are building or planning for the future. But colouring in the map in a way that sterilises potential resources, like quarry resources—sand, rock, and all kinds of minerals that planners today don't know are there—is incredibly unhelpful. What is much more helpful is if a regional spatial plan actually outlined places that are so special, that have such high environmental values, for example, that we would actually delineate them and say "No, there won't be any building there." But, of course, if they are on private property, that would actually require the Government to pony up with taxpayer funds if they are proposing to acquire somebody's private property rights or take some of those property rights away by colouring in a map saying what they are and are not allowed to do. This Government doesn't know about private property rights—they don't understand what they mean. So, clearly, that's probably why they've omitted mention of private property rights from this bill. The Associate Minister for the Environment, the Hon Rachel Brooking, also mentioned how wonderful it would be to have one representative from central government sitting on a regional planning committee. Of course, there are so many parts of Government that want to build things and sometimes they don't all talk to each other or the local council that does the planning. Well, can you imagine one representative of central government sitting on a planning committee and trying to work out where everything should go, like a game of Tetris, or like a teenager playing SimCity, a teenager obsessed with central planning and central control? Imagine the health department, the education department, road, rail, ports, airports, and council parks and recreation all having to tell this committee what they want to build and when it is going to be. It's going to be one central government representative who's going to help them coordinate it all—I mean, it's fantastical. I've seen Parks and Recreation—it's hilarious—but that's not the prescription that New Zealand needs. Now, what is the purpose of spatial plans? Well, to convey information to people who need it, so, when they go to build, they can take account of natural hazards. Or, of course, if a transport agency or a railway operator or a port or an airport wants to expand or build, people will know that when they go to build there—that airport, for example, have said, "We're going to build a second runway. You need to know that planes might be flying over a house you build there."—very, very, very useful. But what this Government appears to assume is that by doing the spatial planning, that's enough. They talk about how this planning process will enable infrastructure. Well, how is infrastructure enabled? An infrastructure operator, an asset owner, has to create an infrastructure delivery programme that says what they're going to build, whether it's four-lane roads, whether it's ports, or whether it's rail—whatever it is they want to build, it has to be on a programme held by that asset owner, that infrastructure owner. And while it might be on a programme so that they can accommodate future growth—whether it's a whole lot of kids coming to live somewhere, so they need to build a new school, whatever it is—unless they have funding and financing locked in, unless they have a long-term horizon, none of this stuff can happen. This "spatial planning equals infrastructure" is a "magic happens" approach to solving some of New Zealand's underlying problems, such as how do we deliver more service land at a more affordable price so that housing can be delivered more affordably to people who need it where and when they want to live. That brings me to another problem with this bill. This bill, the Spatial Planning Bill, when passed, will, essentially, extinguish the opportunity for private developers to progress private plan changes that have delivered some of the best, highest-quality master-plan communities for people who want to live around New Zealand—outrageous. Telling people that you can't plan and deliver fantastic communities, build town centres, or build public transport facilities because it's not where a Minister or an unelected co-governance panel of planning tsars tell you you're allowed to. So what would be better than this? Well, you could say just about anything. But we do acknowledge there is an important role for spatial planning—it conveys information. But the bit that's missing is the infrastructure funding and financing component. Now, here's the tell: when this bill, one of three, was first proposed, it was called the Strategic Planning Bill. Maybe that's the tell. Strategic planning involves working out the "where" on a map with the "how", which is the infrastructure delivery programme. Again, far too complex for a Labour Government staffed by a cadre of inexperienced Ministers to ever hope to get their heads around. But don't worry, the ACT Party and our friends in the National Party are going to be able to restore the balance. We won't just be colouring in the colouring-in book like Labour have. We've got plans to deliver infrastructure, to fund and finance it, and to reform resource management law in New Zealand in a way that upholds private property rights, guarantees customary rights to people who have them, and allows Kiwis to get on the building. [Holds up document] And it's right here: ACT's solutions for building New Zealand and conserving nature. People watching at home or listening on the radio can download it at ACT.org.nz. I highly recommend it. It's a practical prescription for progress. That's what New Zealanders are asking for as we go into this election in October 2023—they're asking for practical solutions to problems. That's what ACT is offering. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): E te Māngai o te Whare, tēnā koe. Thank you. I'm really pleased to take a call on the Spatial Planning Bill, and I think this bill has got huge potential to improve the way we plan in Aotearoa and the way we develop new urban areas, our towns expand, where we put infrastructure, how we look after nature, our rivers, and our coast, and how we respond to climate change, rising sea levels, and increased flood hazard events. We are very fortunate that the Parliamentary Counsel Office is very skilled at drafting law in plain English. So this is a more manageable bill, as I've said before, than the Natural and Built Environment Bill, partly because it's a lot shorter, but it's also very easy to read. The purpose of it is to get these regional spatial strategies, which will have a life of planning for up to 30 years and longer, and to ensure that there's more strategic direction to how we manage nature, and how we develop and how we use natural resources. It is about being strategic and it is about integrating with the Natural and Built Environment Bill and the outcomes in that bill. It's about having these strategies developed in a slightly different way from the way we've done planning to date in terms of having a very sort of staged process of everybody putting in submissions, going to a hearing, then potentially going to appeal after decisions have been released. There is a strong thrust in the legislation that the regional planning committees will run a really good and solid engagement process to really get the public's ideas about how do they see the region developing, what are the areas of nature that really need to be protected, and how should we respond to things like rising seas. So, as other members have noted, the fact is that we are now putting into law a requirement for spatial planning. Councils working together have endeavoured to do it, but they've had to develop their own governance arrangements. It has often relied on the initiatives and the personalities of particular councils, lucking on a good independent facilitator or chair. Now this bill is requiring it, except in the Chatham Islands, where it's optional because of the size of that area. So I think and I hope that with regard to the practice that's developed under the Resource Management Act regime, people can draw on what's been best in that and put it into effect as the bill gets becomes law and is implemented. One of the key changes, as the Hon Rachel Brooking has noted, is that there will have to be a central government representative on the committee that develops the spatial strategy. Now, ACT has thundered against that, and ACT's comments fail to recognise that you have one person there, but you can't have them making all the decisions just in the room. But they are the connector to ensure that if Waka Kotahi funding is needed for roads, there is a link-in with the planning that is happening around where the urban development and subdivision is to be, where we need new busways and that that's integrated into that, new cycleways—that the funding then gets bid for in the Budget process, so you get an integration which is not always obvious to date. The bill sets out the key outcomes for and contents of the strategies in clauses 16 and 17, the key matters that they have to deal with. There were quite a few changes that the select committee made here. There was a strong push by Horticulture New Zealand and others for stronger protection of highly productive land, and that is one of the changes that we made, because we do not want urban sprawl to compromise soils that are valuable for food growing. Sprawl, despite what the ACT Party says around plan changes, also leads to transport systems that are not nearly as efficient and are much more expensive and infrastructure that is more expensive. So taking that long-term view of 30 years or more, as councils do with their asset management plans, is about being strategic. I guess I'm a little frustrated, because what I heard from the National Party was some very measured contributions, and I think Chris Bishop said National was opposed with less hostility to this than the Natural and Built Environment Bill—everyone is in favour of fewer plans. So it is a tragedy that the select committee process was not used by National to highlight the things that they saw as needing change in this bill, because everyone agrees about the need to plan well, and so there was the potential for there to be cross-party agreement on that. But, once again, there's been a political position taken at the very outset which has prevented that. Hon Gerry Brownlee: Oh, well, that's unreasonable. Hon EUGENIE SAGE: So—sorry, Mr Brownlee, I didn't hear that. Hon Gerry Brownlee: Yeah, it's very unreasonable. Hon EUGENIE SAGE: So we do want this to work well. I'm looking forward to the guidance that the Ministry for the Environment provides to the regional planning committees in terms of how to implement it but I would really encourage the public and others to actually read the bill, because it is very readable. I guess the other thing is, in terms of the key matters that are to be included in these regional spatial strategies, it's also areas of cultural heritage and areas with resources that are important to Māori. We haven't had that in our planning law. This means that mahinga kai, for example, will get flagged and protected through the planning process. It's taking planning to a new level, so I am very supportive of the bill and commend it to the House. ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'm delighted to stand, once again, to speak in the House on the Spatial Planning Bill. We worked through this bill concurrently alongside the previous bill we've mentioned today, the Natural and Built Environment Bill. It was an interesting process to do that, because I completely agree with the member the Hon Eugenie Sage; the difference in the two pieces of legislation are quite marked. This is a much simpler piece of legislation and, in fact, a piece of legislation that people across the country have been asking for. I spend a lot of time with developers and builders etc.; of course, we have a family business doing so. One of the things that in the community of Tauranga, the Bay of Plenty, we worked across Government and across regionally to work with the UFTI group—the Urban Form Transport Infrastructure group. The biggest ask in that group was that the Government was at the table alongside the central and local councils. That was really important that they were there, and this one of the things that this bill does. Essentially, it's giving that long view of what a community or place-making should look like. It's that up-to-30-years plan, and it's important that we have this oversight. It's about making the right decisions for our communities. It's cutting back from about a hundred plans to about 16; that tells us, really simply, that we need to start thinking about our communities as not being discreet and individual, but also connected. I think this is a really useful piece of legislation. Just before I take my seat, I do want to acknowledge the long—many long—hours that the select committee took, but also for our officials from the Ministry for the Environment, who worked weekends, who worked all sorts of hours to bring us really sound and good advice, and our clerk team, as well, who were there organising and orchestrating the constant movement that occurred; a tremendous effort. To the Hon Eugenie Sage and the Hon Rachel Brooking, as well as the Hon David Parker, this is a good piece of legislation that all three of you have shepherded through this House. I utterly commend it to the House. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The next call is a split call. I call on Tama Potaka for five minutes. TAMA POTAKA (National—Hamilton West): Thank you for this opportunity to speak to the Spatial Planning Bill at the third reading. As mentioned, National supports reform of the Resource Management Act (RMA) and endorses spatial planning as a concept, but respectfully opposes this very readable bill and also the legislative ram-raiding that has resulted in the bill accelerating through this House. The bill continues to be negligent, with illusory and ill-defined commitments to Māori concepts: legislative chicanery at its finest. A proverbial Pied Piper of resource management has emerged and there is a clamouring of consultants, lawyers, academics, and potential committee members awaiting their hungry feast. I've previously socialised what I believe is the Government's unreasonable stumble to maximise kāwanatanga, often uncosted at the expense of rangatiratanga and common sense. This bill does nothing to allay my concern. Kāwanatanga takes over more here, except we call it "regional planning committees". On a Treaty theme, can I refer to clause 5, which mirrors clause 4 of the Natural and Built Environment Bill. The bill doubles down on that powerful clause in reference to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and thanks to the Minister, who confirmed there is no intent to confuse those applicants and decision-makers who are affected by its provision. But the problem here that I respectfully signal again is that the interpretation of Treaty principles have often generated more hope and a lot more dissatisfaction. The Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki Tribal Trust and Department of Conservation decision at the Supreme Court reinforces this observation: lots of resource, years of effort, a major judicial decision, and no genuine partnership between the Crown and Ngāi Tai. [Authorised te reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] A Treaty reference is useful when it results in action, and I'm sceptical about how regional planning committees, in some regions, will genuinely accommodate and deliver on the diverse aspirations of iwi and Māori outside tribal narratives, place names, and some tree-planting programmes for planning purposes. The regional planning committees, set out in this bill, comprising individuals that are appointed, not elected, appear to just be another layer of bureaucracy. It will have the effect of convoluting planning and decision-making and compromising rangatiratanga further, because there are not enough seats for all the iwi and Māori organisations that might wish to be on them. The democratic principle of one person, one vote—which we heartily agree with—is gone; gone by lunchtime, and further shadowed by appointing more and more bureaucrats to join more and more and more committees and make more and more decisions. Who's going to pay for them? Nowhere have I heard what the actual costs for these kumu on more seats in the corridor of decision-making actually constitute. As drafted, these planning committees have more than a symbolic and cursory function. Through my uneducated and thick lens, they look like they're overtaking the responsibilities of councils—who should be really delivering on these issues? They seem under-democratic, time-consuming, faceless, and unreflective of communities of interest. Hamilton City Council—which, by the way, sports three oxen, two pūkeko, and the Waikato River on it's coat of arms—opined in their submission that their own decision-making process will be severely compromised with the current drafting. Actually, what will our council do, David Bennett, if 10 waters, RMA reform, and other Government objectives are legislated? Hosting more world rugby finals and more darts nights is simply not enough to keep our mayor and councillors happy. Hon David Bennett: Bring the V8s back. TAMA POTAKA: That's right, the V8s—that $40 million question. We've opined previously on section 7, which refers to mana, but we're none the wiser about what mana means in this third reading. Honourable use of the terms, yes; unclear use, definitely. During a previous incarnation of this speaker, I spoke to the wisdoms of the wisdoms of that well-known Labour legislator Geoffrey Palmer, former Prime Minister, and his concern with our law being too fast. Sir Geoffrey Palmer referred to New Zealand lacking the checks to prevent constitutional slippage—slippage and ambiguity is the hallmark of this triplicate legislation. If we can't get these terms clear, like "kawa", and "tikanga" and "mana", how do we expect the Māori gold and pounamu miners, the Māori corporate dairy farmers, and the Māori aquaculture specialists to actually get things done and get the country back on track? If we can't get those terms clear, how do we expect to rely on the reliable, independent bench to actually get our country moving? I don't know; I don't know, Mr Smith. But at the moment, what I'm looking at is a series of terms, a series of planning committees, a series of concepts and terminology that have been rushed through a process that's determined to fail— Angie Warren-Clark: Five years! TAMA POTAKA: That's what I see. Five years. And with that, Madam Speaker, I'll take alight and sit. Kia ora. SARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam): It gives me great pleasure to rise in support of the Spatial Planning Bill, although my credulity has been stretched listening to some of the speakers earlier—not from this side of the House, I hasten to add. I was really making reference, as one would understand, to the other side of the House. I would really refer to the previous speaker, Tama Potaka, who referred to his "uneducated lens", and that pretty much sums it up. When we compare the input of the Hon Rachel Brooking, who has had in excess of 20 years as a resource management lawyer, and the many, many years this legislation has been in the creation. I do want to acknowledge and thank the extremely hard-working Environment Committee. I am not a part of that august committee, but I have had the great privilege of sitting on it as a substitute member of Parliament and to acknowledge the hard work of the Hon Eugenie Sage and, of course, the Minister, described as "inexperienced" by Simon Court, the Hon David Parker, elected in 2002 and a Minister for two parliamentary terms, as well as being our Attorney-General. "Inexperienced"—interesting! This bill is going to tackle problems, such as lengthy delays in consenting development applications, high consenting costs—even those for relatively straightforward development plans—inconsistent and poorly written district plans, a lack of national direction and guidance to councils, and patchy, inconsistent, and ineffective environmental protection across the country. This bill will allow for planning for positive outcomes. It will condense 100 district plans into 16 regional plans. It will allow new standardised conditions with fewer bespoke consents. Stronger, more consistent national direction is something that developers across the country have been pleading for for many years, and that is why I would like to commend this bill to the House. DAN ROSEWARNE (Labour): It's a pleasure to take a short call on the third reading of the Spatial Planning Bill. The Spatial Planning Bill has a single function, and that's the creation and implementation of regional spatial strategies. This will do a few things, including national consistency across key aspects of all those strategies. I'd just like to touch on the regional spatial strategies. They will help achieve the purpose of the Natural and Built Environment Bill, which is intertwined. And while the Spatial Planning Bill is a separate and new part of the resource management system, it's intrinsically linked to the Natural and Built Environment Bill. And as the Minister David Parker said in his opening remarks, regional spatial strategies will become a vehicle for the delivery of infrastructure in the right places and at the right time. These are needed to provide a clear direction to the private sector as well as local government and central government agencies like those responsible for transport and housing. The regional spatial strategy will be unique to the region. I've subbed in on the Environment Committee on a number of occasions when this bill was at the committee stage and there were some good submissions, particularly around light pollution around the Tekapō area. Those of you who have been down to that fantastic part of the country will be aware that Tekapō and the surrounding areas are a light pollution - free zone which lies below one of the largest international dark-sky reserves in the world, only one of four such reserves in the world. So whether it's areas that should be protected from light pollution or areas with significant biodiversity or productive land or even the risk of sea level rise, this bill protects those areas well into the future. So it's a good bill, a pragmatic bill, and I commend it to the house. STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is a great pleasure to speak on the Spatial Planning Bill. I want to take up a couple of points that were just raised by Dan Rosewarne, the list member from Waimakariri, right on the southern border of my electorate. It's only a 3½ hour drive from my house to that end of the electorate, and I'm not at the top of my own. I take his point about dark sky reserves and spatial planning. Actually, Kaikōura is seeking a dark sky reserve because the Hutton's shearwater doesn't like lights at night and they fly into them and it causes all sorts of problems. All of those things were never thought of, of course, when lights or street lights were put in—and still not even thought about today. KiwiRail has put in some lights that are quite disruptive to the Hutton's shearwater. They didn't do this deliberately of course; it's just that no one knows unless they're told, do they? The Hutton's shearwater only need them at a certain time of the year when they try to leave after breeding and their chicks have fledged. They head off out to sea. And that is the point, I guess, of spatial planning—to get those things right at the beginning. But, unfortunately, things change over time and people aren't aware of those things initially. I think one of the great examples of spatial planning gone wrong is actually what happened with the red zones in Christchurch, where land was built on that probably never should have been, and, in fact, developers often pestered the council when the council really didn't want them to be built there. But the legal mechanisms to stop that were not available to them and we ended up with whole lot of housing and we know what happened in that area when the earthquake struck. In my own electorate, we had similar issues with people under terraces and banks where the ground opened up, rocks came down, and those houses were then deemed to be uninhabitable even though they weren't damaged. So getting the spatial planning aspect of our Resource Management Act type of legislation is absolutely essential. However, it's not that simple, and I think while we don't violently disagree with this bill, we're not very happy. Of course, as you've all heard on the previous bill, the Natural and Built Environment bill, they do go together and we do have to have spatial planning legislation. But there are concepts in there, as my learned friend Tama Potaka alluded to in a far more learned way than I could appreciate, about the different terms used in both of those bills and that they are not actually clear at all and open us up for, perhaps, what could be endless litigation. I think we have to be careful when we put words into legislation that it's actually the words that are needed to make the legislation and get the outcomes that we need, not just paying lip service to them by adding them in. Now, an adaptation bill will come but spatial planning will be a part of that. We've got areas in New Zealand that are susceptible to sea-level rise or in my case in my electorate actually in most of the Kaikōura Coast, went up recently, although some small parts of it went down. We have the oldest site of known human habitation in New Zealand on the Wairau Bar—1280 AD, it's estimated, for the remains that were found on the Wairau Bar. That bar is a gravel bar with fish traps that were circular, and at high tide the water and the fish would flow and they close off the traps and then the tide would go out, and they'd go and catch the fish. Those traps are above sea level today, or round about the level that they could have been useful 800-odd years ago. So we are in a situation where we don't know exactly what's happening in New Zealand, with such a dynamic coastline because of the tectonic forces that are at play there. So exactly how we deal with those particular issues—we won't solve them all. We will find out that areas that we didn't think were susceptible to sea-level rise will be because of earthquakes, or those that we think that will, might not be because the earthquakes may lift that land up. We certainly know that that the Hikurangi subduction zone is likely to go at any point and there's potentially a magnitude 9 earthquake along that point, and it will push the land up because it's been dragged down at the moment. So we know that the sea level will change, but this piece of legislation doesn't necessarily make that a better situation. The regional planning committees—I think that's one of the real bones of contention that we have on the National Party, and we do stand for one person, one vote. We believe that all those people that represent us have to answer to us—that is, the ratepayers and the voters in New Zealand. There is a move to lower the voting age to 16. Well, that's going to be of little used to the 16-year-olds when they don't have the vote for the people on those planning committees that will have an effect on their lives and the environment that they live in, and they're going to be living in that environment for much longer than any of us in this House. So what's the point of having regional planning committees with appointments that are not voted on? That does not stand up to the test of democracy We have to remember that going back for decades, over 100 years, people have fought and died for the right to protect our democracy, for freedom of speech, for freedom of expression, and for the right to vote—one person, one vote. These planning committees do not meet that test. Why should we accept that? There may be a good rationale in the mind of the person who put this forward, but it does not mean the one person, one vote principle, the level of democracy that we have all benefited from. And while people might argue, and they often do, about members of Parliament and their councillors as to how good they are or not, they have an opportunity to make a decision to get rid of us or support us, and that's coming up on 14 October. We know we're all looking forward to that in this House. Yes, Shanan, I'm looking forward to it too, and we just wonder how many people are going to be back here. I'm certainly looking forward to 14 October. But when are the planning committees going to stand up for their opportunity? That is the ultimate test. We get the ultimate in a performance review every three years. We're not getting that with these planning committees. We have to sit up for that test, and so we should. I think every one of us in this House accepts that test. That's what we come here for. So why should we put in place a piece of legislation taking away the right for New Zealanders to judge the people that make the decisions on their behalf? So I think that's a really poor part of this legislation and that is one of the reasons why we oppose this bill. As I said, it's not as bad as the Natural and Built Environment Bill, but it is bad. That said, I would like to acknowledge, as I did on the previous bill, the Hon Eugenie Sage, who chaired that select committee and has done a fantastic job. I thank the permanent members on the select committee for the work that they did. I came and went on that select committee. I had little to do with the Spatial Planning Bill, but I do accept and respect the work that the committee members did. I'd also like to thank all the submitters that gave up their time to come along and submit on this very important bill. So while this bill is a good attempt, I do not support it. LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. As the final speaker for the Government on this side of the House, I support the Spatial Planning Bill in the third reading. I want to thank the fabulous contributions, particularly on this side of the House. I want to thank all the select committee members, the officials, and especially acknowledge the chair Eugenie Sage. On that note, I commend this bill to the House. A party vote was called for on the question, That the Spatial Planning Bill be now read a third time. Ayes 72 New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere. Noes 44 New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10. Motion agreed to. Bill read a third time. INTEGRITY SPORT AND RECREATION BILL Second Reading Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister for Sport and Recreation): I present a legislative statement on the Integrity Sport and Recreation Bill. SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website. Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I move, That the Integrity Sport and Recreation Bill be now read a second time. I want to acknowledge the Social Services and Community Committee for its excellent consideration of this bill. I was very pleased to see the committee report the bill back early, and that it has unanimously recommended that the bill be passed with some amendments to clarify and strengthen the bill. I also want to thank members of the public, including those from the sport and recreation sector, that submitted on the bill. The committee did receive a large range of submissions, and has taken them all into account. I am acutely aware of timings this evening, so my contribution in this second reading will be relatively brief in order to cover off a few of the changes that have been made. We will then obviously discuss them further in the committee of the whole House and the third reading stages that follow on. It is just worth noting for colleagues in the House the functions of the Integrity Sport and Recreation Commission that this bill establishes. It is to promote, advise, and educate on integrity issues and threats to integrity within the sports and physical recreation sector; develop and issue integrity codes; prescribe policies and procedures for complaints management and dispute resolution; implement the World Anti-Doping Code and facilitate compliance with New Zealand's international obligations with respect to doping in sport; investigate suspected breaches of integrity codes and threats to integrity, and advise the Minister for Sport and Recreation on the state of integrity in sport and organised physical recreation. The purpose of putting this legislation before the House is to modernise the way that we deal with issues in our sport and recreation sector that are threats to integrity. That does include doping in sport, competition manipulation, bullying, sexual misconduct, racism, and other behaviours that undermine sport and recreation in Aotearoa New Zealand. It is worth noting that the bill does disestablish Drug Free Sport New Zealand, and shift all of its functions, powers, responsibilities, and staff to the commission. I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge the excellent work that Drug Free Sport New Zealand does. The fact that it is being absorbed into this commission is no statement on that work. It remains important, and the people who do it do a great job—on behalf of us and on behalf of sportspeople—to keep our sport clean. The committee did make a number of changes, and I just want to briefly highlight those. First, they have recommended that the definition of "threat to integrity" in clause 5 is amended to include attempted competition manipulation. This better aligns with what is done internationally, including by the Olympic movement. There were several submitters who noted that illegal sports betting was not referred to in the threats to integrity. In light of this, clause 5 is being amended to refer to sports betting activity associated with competition manipulation. This recognises that while the commission is not a betting regulator, certain prohibited betting activity can be captured by the bill. Clause 5 is also amended to refer to unlawful discrimination as defined by Part 2 of the Human Rights Act (HRA). This clarifies, for the avoidance of doubt, that the commission will need to interpret discrimination consistently with the HRA, which sets out those prohibited grounds on discrimination. The committee did receive a lot of feedback from sporting organisations around how codes should work. As a result, the committee has recommended changes to clause 19 of the bill, to articulate a clear purpose for the codes, which is "to provide for minimum standards of integrity that would be consistent across the parts of the sport and physical recreation sector" that they apply to. Clause 19 is also amended to clarify that codes cannot apply to a single sport or recreation activity. These changes make clear that the intention is for codes to promote consistency across the sector, and address concerns about multiple codes leading to greater complexity. There was a strong theme in the submissions that we should make sure of a focus on safeguarding children, given the particular harms that children can experience in sport and recreation environments. As a result, the committee has recommended changes for the commission to be set up to appropriately handle integrity matters involving children and young people. There is a new clause 54B requiring the commission to have a child protection policy. Finally, the committee has proposed to clarify a range of consultation requirements for the commission in clauses 16 and 20. This is a good bill. This is an important piece of legislation to ensure that all sport and recreation in New Zealand is clean and free from cheating, from drug manipulation, from competition manipulation, but it is also an important place for people to take their concerns and complaints. There have been many brave people—particularly women—who have taken complaints about how they have been treated in the sporting arena. They do not always feel that they have been heard properly. There will now be a place and a commission that does that. I strongly recommend this bill to the House. SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to. It is probably unfair to start a 10-minute speech at this stage and then interrupt it in less than two minutes. Debate interrupted. VALEDICTORY STATEMENTS SPEAKER: Members, following the valedictory statement of Dr Elizabeth Kerekere, the House will suspend for the dinner break. I call on Dr Elizabeth Kerekere to make her valedictory statement. Dr ELIZABETH KEREKERE: [Authorised te reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] Thank you so much for support and advice, especially over the past few months. I also acknowledge the former Speaker the Rt Hon Trevor Mallard, who once sent me a note in the House to say that my purple sequin jacket was "stretching the definition of business attire". Shout-out to Parliamentary Service, who indeed are the best people supporting the best Parliament in the world, and especially my relationship manager Jane McKenzie and those who have supported my office as we've transitioned. [Authorised te reo text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] Greetings to my colleagues, my whānau, all of our friends and community people who are here in person and watching online as we #PaintParliamentPurple one more time. I have gathered you here to tell you a story. It is a story of hope, of expectation, of hard work and very late nights, of laughter, and of tears—not mine though; apparently, I'm not allowed to cry. There is scandal, because no one is surprised that I would challenge the powers that be, but there is also betrayal, because the powers that be don't like to be challenged. And as No. 4 on the Green Party initial list this year, I thought I was on a heart-warming two-part series, and it turns out I was on Survivor and I did not see The Blind Side coming. However, it is ultimately a story of triumph, because very few people ever get to be an MP. And I sit proudly on my seat up in the naughty corner, because it is an incredible honour to serve those who put me here, and I will work hard for them every day. Mihi atu ki Te Paati ACT for granting me this space to speak to you all here tonight. As I said in my maiden speech, change happens at many levels, and for some change, for takatāpui, Māori, and rainbow whānau, it can only happen here. And I'm really proud of the things that I've helped usher through, because real power and real change lies in community and with whānau, where I come from and where I gladly return. In 2020, I came in as part of the most-diverse Green caucus ever, and, with four rainbow MPs, we proudly claimed to be the proudest party in the proudest Parliament in the world. I continue to hold out hope for our next trans, non-binary, or intersex representative who will one day follow in the footsteps of the late and great Georgina Beyer. I came into the Green Party and eventually into Parliament after over 40 years of working for our people on Te Tiriti o Waitangi and kaupapa Māori things and over 35 years on youth development and rainbow issues. My focus has always been on our health and our wellbeing and for suicide and violence prevention. I led the Māori strategy as chair of Te Mātāwaka, the Māori-Pasifika caucus of the Greens, and shout-out to the incredible Te Mātāwaka staff, who supported that mahi. Tēnā rā tātou kato. A highlight was our meetings with the authors of Matike Mai and He Puapua to focus our efforts for the rights of tangata whenua, radically shift the way we make decisions together in this country, and to work towards a future our ancestors dreamt of when they signed Te Tiriti o Waitangi. We supported occupations around the motu including at Ihumātao, Pūtiki, Aotea, and Mau Whenua. We encouraged whānau, hapū, and iwi to reach out so we could work alongside them, using our platform and resources to amplify and progress their kaupapa. Operation Pātiki ki Kohupātiki Marae reached out to us through the Greens' Hawke's Bay Te Matau-a-Māui branch, and welcome to both rōpū who are represented here today. In February 2022, Aki Paipper, known as "Te Kuini o Te Awa", shared a vision to restore the mauri of the awa, and enhance the wellbeing of the people through the return of its original name: Ngaruroro ki Moko-tūā-raro ki Rangatira. We supported their petition, two full applications to the Geographic Board, visiting Hastings every month, and talking almost every day on the phone. In June, we celebrated that success. It was an exciting, exciting day, with the official renaming of Te Awa o Mokotūāraro. We were devastated when, only a month later, Aki passed away in her sleep. Her legacy lives on, and my office will stay committed to Operation Pātiki in her memory. Another favourite was when the whānau of Te Waimana Kaaku, who are also represented here tonight, reached out to us a year ago. I was proud to host them here in Parliament. They shared their vision of their people with jobs and houses on their whenua and the devastating impact of the sudden halt of a joint hapū-Government project that had promised—or they thought had promised—to bring their vision to reality. After I raised questions in the House, and arranged meetings for them with Ministers and their officials, they had their deposits returned, and the project looked set to resume. Now, those houses aren't built yet, but, again, we remain committed to supporting them until one day we're seeing those being built and the whānau back home. It is in the rainbow space that we have been the most transformative Government. Shout-out to Rainbow Greens, who were with me every step of the way and several of whom are here in the House. In 2021, the Greens led the news at Waitangi for the first time, talking about takatāpui rights and banning conversion therapy. My record-breaking petition was launched at Auckland Pride—and garnered over 157,000 signatures in one week—pressuring the Government to pass legislation sooner rather than later. I joined the Justice Committee for the also record-breaking numbers of submissions and hearings. I also joined the Governance and Administration Committee for the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Act 2021 to ensure that our trans, non-binary, and intersex whānau could more easily change their birth certificates. We've made progress for those people who are born here, but there's work to do on those who are born overseas. We will keep going. One of my single proudest things is putting the term "takatāpui" into legislation for the first time—in the Pae Ora legislation—after so very long of researching, promoting, and advocating. To be able to do that was an incredible, incredible thing for me. My member's bill—I put that in the biscuit tin, like, just around my maiden speech, and it got drawn just in time to exist. We'll see what happens in the next Government, but it was the Human Rights (Prohibition of Discrimination on Grounds of Gender Identity or Expression, and Variations of Sex Characteristics) Amendment Bill—again, putting a stake in the ground in law for our trans, non-binary, and intersex whānau. In a quick shout-out to the Human Rights Commission and the cross-party parliamentary rainbow group, we have supported the International Day Against Homophobia, Biphobia and Transphobia and, loosely, through our respective parties, contributed to all the legislation that has happened in this area. So that was some of the great stuff. There are other things, not so great. A few months ago, I had a falling out with the co-leaders of the Green Party which led to my resignation from the party and my retirement from Parliament. I don't know if anyone here noticed it, it was handled quite discreetly, and, actually, it was not fun. Day after day, week after week, month after month, I watched while increasingly unfounded and increasingly elaborate allegations were made about me. They also claimed that these issues were being resolved by some sort of process that they had under way. I categorically dispute all such allegations. So this email was sent to my lawyer from the so-called process team dated 7.14 p.m., Wednesday 3 May—a full four weeks after the original incident. And I quote: "As previously discussed, please find attached draft terms of reference for the next steps in our process. You will note that the list of complainants are just Marama and James, this is because we have not received formal complaints from anyone else at this time." So to recap, no formal complaints, no natural justice, and never a process, let alone a tikanga-based one. I consider this to be an epic failure of leadership. I've been a leader for most of my life and mentored many other leaders, especially amongst our young rainbow people. So here's some tips on how to be a good leader: if the staff, person, or MP expresses concerns with how they're being treated, address it immediately. Follow a good faith and restorative process. If a staff member or MP is bringing concerns about racism or other behaviour from other MPs and senior staff, perhaps address those issues. If allegations have been made about someone, perhaps talk to that person to clarify the facts before you start vilifying them in public. And lastly, if your organisation has a clear principle of non-violence, perhaps do not engage in ongoing abusive behaviour. Many people have asked, even after all this, why I still support the Green Party. I support the vote in the House, except of course for the therapeutic bill. But I'm as committed to our charter principles of ecological wisdom, social responsibility, appropriate decision making, and non-violence, as I ever was. I support the Green kaupapa and policies—several of which I helped write—and use of Māori frameworks I created. As, in fact, the entire restructure of the party was based on a Māori framework I created. Some of the people I love and trust the most in this world are Green Party members, including my wife—under duress—and my staff, Kerry Peipi, and the former party co-convener Wiremu Winitana. I mihi to all the Green members from the across the country who are in the House here tonight, particularly to the other former party co-convener, Penny Leach, and her girls who are here all the way from Munich. Because I still think of this as my party, and one day I plan to be back. I've got work to do, but I will never apologise for calling out racism, homophobia, and transphobia wherever it occurs. Speaking of calling out, like many people I thought the theatre of the debating chamber was indicative of relationships in this House. But, of course, it is not. The thing that most surprised me when I became an MP was how collegial it was, and we know we get most of the real work done in our select committees and cross-party parliamentary groups. I am such a big fan of the Health Committee. I am so proud to do that work, and it is the time when I most feel like a lawmaker, is in that space working with my colleagues. I have such huge respect for the chairs and the members of that committee. And just a shout-out to the staff who do incredible work—we've gone through 67 petitions in our job, and I have appointed myself as the editor-in-chief of all reports and papers that come through that committee. I also became co-chair of the Parliamentary Friendship Group for North America with my colleague Nicola Grigg, and I'm a member of the Europe Friendship Group that involves hosting a meeting online with dignitaries across those regions. Last year, my highlight was visiting colleagues in six European countries in just two weeks, including seeing the European Parliament in action and listening to Paul Goldsmith play music of a Lithuania composer on a grand piano in Lithuania. Less fun was when our entire delegation's luggage went missing and it chased us across Europe for the last week. I was also part of the Parliamentarians' Group on Population and Development, and supported events by the Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians. A highlight for me was the combined celebration we held last year for being the first Parliament in the world to get 50 percent women representation. But I am most proud of being chair of the Artworks Committee. Shout-out to Tasha Fernandez and the crew for their stellar work. We opened Te Papakura gallery and increased the representation of women and Māori artists in the collection with the purchase of six new major works. This is a workplace unlike any other. Being in Parliament leaves its mark on all of us—like I never used to work with the TV on, but now Parliament TV has been the soundtrack of the last three years. Now not only can I recognise every single voice in this House without looking, I don't know how I will function without hearing the dulcet tones of Andrew Bayly or Grant Robertson, or hearing the Hon Ginny Andersen tell the Hon Mark Mitchell one more time, including today, how "the 1,800 extra police will help New Zealanders feel safe." I have never taken this job for granted, because the goal was never to be an MP, the goal was to do what only an MP could do. Now I know how everything works I can operate better as an advocate in the future. I said in my maiden speech that I would work respectfully across the House and I hope that my colleagues have found this to be so, and that regardless of who is in Government after the dust settles, those MPs who remain will take my call if I ring. And to be clear, I'm not starting my own lobby company—only because none of the communities I represent can afford to pay me. After Parliament, I will put my energy back into my research and ensuring Pae Ora actually delivers everything it claims it will for Māori, Pasifika, women, rainbow people, people with disabilities, in rural areas, and with rare disorders. Now, I promised a triumphant end to this story. When I became an independent MP, we heard the horror stories of previous independents who struggled without the machinery of their party. I aimed to, number one, be the best independent MP ever in this Parliament and, number two, to go out in style. History will decide the first and I would like to thank all of you here today for helping create the second. My colleagues, you are all welcome to join our party tonight. There will be food, drink, a cashless cash bar and dancing. Shout-out to my favourite band, White Chapel Jak, who have come down from Auckland to perform for us, because if you want to catch up with me, you will need to go on to the dance floor. Finally, as I like to say, why do we get up in the morning if not to change the world? I've done that in every other part of my life, and with all of you I've done that here, and I'll strive to keep doing it after I leave, because this is not the end of my story. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora huihui mai tatou kātoa. [Applause, hongi, and harirū] Waiata Sitting suspended from 6.04 p.m. to 7 p.m.