edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Mooney Joseph; Parker DavidJOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you very much Mr Chair. I've just got quite a short question Minister and it's just in regards to clause 5. I'm curious about why it says All persons exercising powers and performing functions and duties under this Act must give effect to the principles of te Tiriti o Waitangi." It does not say "the Treaty of Waitangi". Is there a particular reason why it only says "te Tiriti o Waitangi" and not "the Treaty of Waitangi" or is that a matter of no moment to the Minister?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): It's a matter of considerable import and it is dealt with in the Natural and Built Environment Act (NBEA) which refers to the definition as set out in the Treaty of Waitangi Act which makes reference to both te reo Māori and English versions and that is carried through into this bill by the definitions clause—section 7 of the NBEA—which says that if there is a definition which is also in the NBEA unless there's a different definition in there the NBEA definition applies. So in fact the definition refers to both "te Tiriti o Waitangi" and "the Treaty of Waitangi"—as the Treaty of Waitangi Act does."
Court Simon; Parker DavidSIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you Mr Chair. Minister I think it's really important that we tease out what are some of the practical implications of this clause clause 7. But before I get to my questions on clause 7 I just want to ask you to reflect on clause 5 because you've just stated that clause 7 is necessary to help decision makers—All persons exercising powers and performing functions and duties under this proposed Act" need clause 7 to help them interpret clause 5. But Minister isn't it true that in response to a question a written question I've asked you on another matter about transport when I've asked what are the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi to which you referred you said those principles and whether people agree with them or not this was your answer: "The principles include the principle of partnership active protection and mutual benefit" according to the answers you've given me. So wouldn't having those principles—which you clearly understand and which you referred to having been derived from other jurisprudence other legislation even—be sufficient to help decision makers understand what you mean by give effect to the principles of te Tiriti o Waitangi in clause 5?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Thank you Mr Chair. The phrase "the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi" is used in a lot of legislation. The alternative is to refer to the Treaty of Waitangi directly. The view of the courts has been that the reference to the principles is more practical and more able to move with the circumstances of the day. I don't think there is much—well if there is controversy with the use of the phrase "the principles of the te Titiri o Waitangi" then that criticism can be made to many many other statutes including those that were passed by the last National-ACT Government."
Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): In the view of the Government clause 7 assists with the interpretation of clause 5. Without clause 7 clause 5 would be without guidance.In addition to that further guidance is provided in clause 24 of the bill which says that The regional planning committee must have … regard to the following to the extent relevant to the regional spatial strategy" and that includes at clause 24(2)(c) "any planning document that is—(i) recognised by an iwi authority or a group that represents hapū; and (ii) [is] provided or available to the committee before the strategy is adopted". So there is some further form given to that further down in the more specific provisions in the bill.In addition one of the ways in which certainty is removed as to whether you listen to the right people is that there are specific clauses in both the Natural and Built Environment Bill and the Spatial Planning Bill that say that the councils involved can rely upon the list of entities who have got a relevant interest which is maintained by Te Puni Kōkiri which at the moment is an incomplete list that cannot be relied upon. That becomes a code so that if the local authorities rely upon that list at the time that they're putting together the spatial plan and someone else comes along later and says "You should have listened to me as well" it's too late if they weren't on the list—although the list can be updated for the future."
Court Simon; Parker DavidSIMON COURT (ACT): Minister in looking at the purpose clause at clause 3(b) the purpose of the bill is to promote integration in the performance of functions under the Natural and Built Environment Act 2022"—they're rather presumptuous considering it hasn't been passed yet but we'll assume that that's the convention of the House in the way the bill is written—"the Land Transport Management Act 2003 the Local Government Act 2002 and"—another recently passed Act—"the Water Services Entities Act 2022." which established four water services entities—four entities. Now Minister the current Government has a bill before this House the Water Services Entities Amendment Bill which changes the number of entities from four to 10. So Minister given that the purpose of this bill is to promote integration between land transport local government and water service entities how does the Minister see the integration working when he's told the House that instead of 67 districts and territorial authority plans and I think it's maybe 14 or 15 regional council plans there will be just 15 plans and yet there will be 10 water service entities whose geographical regions do not coincide with the 15 regions envisaged by the Natural and Built Environment Bill or Act—as it's referred to in the Spatial Planning Bill or Act as it may become? So how does the Minister see the integration working when there's not four but now 10 water service entities and when at least one of those entities—entity D which includes a large part of the South Island—coincides with the rohe or takiwā of Ngāi Tahu which also includes Seddon and Murchison Minister whereas the regional council boundaries and the regional planning boundaries envisaged by this bill actually include Seddon and Murchison in the Tasman-Marlborough District? It doesn't appear that it's going to be easy to integrate all of these different regions and these different infrastructure functions and planning functions so Minister would you please explain how you see this working in practice? Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Well if there is a smaller number of water services entities to integrate with compared with a larger one it will still work. It will work either way. I'd also make the point that in respect of some local government boundaries they reach over more than one regional council with a case in point being the Waitaki District which rests in part south of the Waitaki in the Otago Regional Council area and in part north of the Waitaki which is in the Environment Canterbury regional council area. Both Acts enable that to be properly catered for."
Parker DavidHon SCOTT SIMPSON: Thank you. That's good to know Mr Chair. So we're in Part 1 of the bill and I wanted initially to start speaking about clause 3. At the Environment Committee there were a number of submissions about why some parts of this bill explicitly referred to portions out of the Natural and Built Environment Bill and other provisions weren't explicitly referred to and I'm particularly talking about the concept of te Oranga o te Taiao where it was explicitly referred to in this piece of legislation while other elements of the Natural and Built Environment Bill have not been. If the Minister could advise the committee of the whole House why that was the case I'd appreciate it.Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): It was thought desirable to align the purposes of the two Acts to avoid confusion.
Kuriger Barbara; Parker David; Simpson ScottBARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki-King Country): Thank you Mr Chair. I just wanted to ask the Minister the Hon David Parker: one of the confusions that came around with this bill the Spatial Planning Bill was around integration and how local government local communities local hapū and whānau would have their say. I noticed that in Part 1 clause 4 it talks about the regional spatial strategies promoting integration but then it goes on in (a) and (b) and further down to (i) to talk about integration with the Land Transport Management Act 2003 the Local Government Act 2002 the Water Services Entities Act 2022 and then in clause 7 it talks about iwi and hapū responsibilities in relation to te taiao and that this Act must recognise and provide for the responsibility and mana of each iwi and hapū to protect and sustain the health and well-being of te taiao in accordance with the kawa tikanga (including kaitiakitanga) and mātauranga in their rohe or takiwā."So I'm actually seeing how this bill is talking about integration but I'm just wondering for the purposes of explaining to New Zealand listeners out there tonight how this actually integrates on a democratic level with the Natural and Built Environment Bill so that they can see how when they have a view in their local community it has its way into the spatial planning and then has a way back down into the spatial planning. Thank you.Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Thank you to the member Barbara Kuriger for that question. The regional planning committee that puts together the regional spatial strategy is the same committee that is appointed for the Natural and Built Environment Bill—soon to be Act—plans with one difference and that is that at the request of local government central government have agreed there should be a central government representative on it in part to make sure that central government can be brought to the party; to make sure that the likes of land transport plans can be better integrated with regional planning.Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Point of order Mr Chair. I'm just seeking clarification really that this bill the Spatial Planning Bill will be taken part by part and not as a whole. I don't know that we made a decision on that.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Well I haven't had a motion or a request to the contrary. So at the moment it is part by part.Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: Would it be helpful to move—CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The member is welcome to—Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: The Minister is not objecting.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): So you are seeking to have it heard as one—Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: Well I just want confirmation that it is. But I think the Minister is indicating that it will be.Hon David Parker: If the member wants to seek leave for the debate to be heard as one part we'd be happy with that.Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: Yes. I seek leave Mr Chair that the bill be taken part by part.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Well that is the status quo until there is a move to the contrary. We remain with the status quo."
Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): It might assist the debate if I briefly explain that the purpose of the Spatial Planning Bill is to provide for regional spatial strategies that assist in achieving the purposes and system outcomes of the Natural and Built Environment Bill that we've just referred to and promote the integration and the performance of functions under that bill the Land Transport Management Act the Local Government Act and the Water Services Act. The regional spatial strategies sit between the national planning framework and Natural and Built Environment Act plans and they will assist with amongst other things the timely and cost-effective provision of infrastructure.
O'Connor GregSPATIAL PLANNING BILLIn CommitteePart 1 CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Members we come now to the Spatial Planning Bill. We begin the debate on Part 1.
Bennett Glen; O'Connor GregGLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): I move That the question be now put.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): No one is seeking the call so I'll go to the question.
Potaka Tama; Parker DavidTAMA POTAKA (National—Hamilton West): Thank you Mr Chair. Just to the Minister on clause 2(7)(b) which is quite a touching part to my heart being involved in Mana Whakahono ā Rohe and joint management agreements up and down Waikato and Tāmaki-makau-rau: what are the expectations of iwi to change the Mana Whakahono ā Rohe and/or joint management agreements and has there been any consideration given to resourcing iwi in order to do this?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): The intention is that those agreements be transitioned from the old Act to the new.
Simpson Scott; Parker DavidHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you Mr Chair. Throughout the debate on this mammoth bill we've been conscious that it is but one part of a three-legged trifecta in terms of legislation. We are soon to start—probably tomorrow morning—the debate on committee of the whole House for the Spatial Planning Bill: that's sort of the sister piece of legislation that goes with this Natural and Built Environment Bill.But in the commencement clause—clause 2—of this bill there is no mention of the third leg of the legislative framework that the Minister has in place which relates to adaptation. Now throughout the entire process of select committee on both this bill and the Spatial Planning Bill we've been kind of blindfolded—trying to find our way through this—because we haven't had access to the third leg of the trifecta which is the adaptation piece.So I'm keen to know from the Minister why there is no reference in the commencement clause of this bill relating to the potential impacts and presumably the intended benefits that are supposed to come from that adaptation climate piece; why there's no mention in this commencement clause of that; and is it still his intention—as I understand he has publicly stated on a number of occasions and I think the climate Minister has made the same promise—that that adaptation piece of legislation will be introduced to the House before the House rises for the election on 31 August?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Of course the commencement clause relates to the commencement of this bill not other bills. The commencement date for the Spatial Planning Bill is in the Spatial Planning Bill and there's no reference to any other bills in the commencement of this bill because this is just the commencement clause for this bill.
Smith Stuart; Parker DavidSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you Mr Chair. Just a quick one. In clause 2(7)(c) as the Minister said if two years have elapsed since the date on which the Act received the Royal assent it would come into force anyway. Why not just have that part of the clause? Why have all these complicated other variances where it could come in at different dates along the way in different regions? Why not just have it all in two years after the date of Royal assent? It would be a lot simpler those people in the region would have certainty they're not left hanging waiting for whether the Minister for the Environment the Minister for Māori Crown Relations or in the case of the Gisborne region also the recommendation of the Ministry of the Treaty of Waitangi negotiations. Wouldn't it be better just to have a date cast in stone at the beginning? I think that would be a far simpler thing so why is that Minister?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): No we didn't think that and neither did the select committee. The reason for that is there are actually very—there are a lot of Treaty settlements that are actually very very simple and they have statutory acknowledgements which are very easy to transition into the new system and that won't take anything like two years.
Smith Stuart; Parker DavidSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you Mr Chair. It is after 9 o'clock and we're just getting into our work—just getting into our work. I would like to begin though by acknowledging the work that the officials put into this. I mean it must be a substantial part of their lives tied up in this bill. It's only a pity that should we get the opportunity to after the election it'll be gone by lunchtime but yeah.Hon Eugenie Sage: And replaced with what?STUART SMITH: And repealed yeah. I'm sure that all members will be looking forward to that debate when it comes around should we have the privilege of doing that.But I would like to focus on the commencement clause 2(6) An Order in Council may be made under this subsection on the recommendation of the Minister for the Environment and the Minister for Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti and in the case of the Gisborne region also on the recommendation of the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations that brings into force on 1 or more dates provisions to enable the regional planning committee composition process set out in Part 1 of Schedule 8 to be initiated for any region or regions." Quite a complicated little piece there and I'd really like the Minister in the chair David Parker to explain why we have to have all of those people lining up to get this enacted. It goes over the page into (7) but I think the Minister—well I'd like to hear it from him how this is going to work because it sounds quite complicated to me sounds like it's going to cause a lot of angst and I suspect delay. How are we going to get all those people lined up to actually agree to bring this into force and then what happens practically on the ground to get these things up and running? So looking forward to hearing the Minister's answer to that.Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): There are various bespoke Treaty settlement arrangements that apply to how resource management plans are put together around the country. Those were adopted by Governments led by National-ACT or by Labour over the years and some of them are different. The legislation allows those arrangements to be transitioned into the new system and subclauses (6) and (7) allow that to happen. Members will note that subclause 7(c) which applies to both of those subclauses that I've referred to says that in any event even if those processes haven't been completed after two years have elapsed those provisions come into force two years after the Act has received Royal assent."
Court Simon; Parker DavidSIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you Mr Chair. Minister just further to the Hon Scott Simpson's question about the progressive time frames for implementation. Now we have heard from local government representatives that they're very very concerned about how they should prepare for the commencement of this legislation. Should they in fact prepare to lose staff who might be co-opted onto a planning entity? Because what the legislation provides for is for those planning entities to hoover up staff from local government from regional councils and district councils—and that might include planners; it could include legal advisors geographic information system and other technicians. People who work for councils now and those councils are entirely dependent on them for their business as usual activities such as processing resource consents comparing applications with existing plans or gathering information and uploading it onto planning documents. Minister local government entities and their representatives—Taituarā and Local Government New Zealand—they raised this point that on the day of commencement they are not sure what resources they will need to provide what costs they'll need to allow for whether those costs will be recoverable Minister or whether this creates yet another central government - imposed unfunded obligation on local government.So Minister could you please give the House some assurance that those local government organisations—which still need to process resource consents against existing planning documents potentially for years—that their human resources that the people who work in those local government organisations will have some certainty about their futures and that those organisations will have some certainty about whether their resources will be poached whether they'll face excessive costs?But just to your point Minister if you're concerned about the fate of this bill and what might come next I can assure you that ACT's solutions for building New Zealand and conserving nature provide some comfort to many many people in New Zealand including businesses who are worried about their private property rights being eroded by this legislation that is tabled here tonight Minister.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Mr Court are you inviting me to rule on relevance?SIMON COURT: Oh Mr Chair absolutely not. CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): It sounded like it.SIMON COURT: So Minister my question is what are local government supposed to do? What are they supposed to know on a given day about their resources; their costs? How are they supposed to plan for this? Could you give me some assurance please Minister.Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Those matters were debated as matters of substance arising from other parts of the bill but as the member well knows the bringing together of plans within a region through a regional plan is actually modelled on the legislative model that was applied to bringing the Auckland councils together in Manukau Auckland centre city Waitakere and North Shore. That was of course overseen by the Hon Rodney Hide as the then ACT member and Minister.
Court Simon; Parker DavidSIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you Mr Chair. Minister in one of your comments this evening you've referred to the issues with implementing the Resource Management Act. So when it comes to the commencement date of this bill which you've pointed to mostly be on the day that the bill achieves Royal assent you also mentioned that one of the purposes of the commencement date and the provisions applying from that date are to avoid the transitional confusions that occurred with the Resource Management Act operating at the same time as the Town and Country Planning Act.But Minister isn't it correct that once this bill becomes law and the national planning framework is then developed essentially under the direction of a future Minister that decision makers still operating under the Resource Management Act or looking at consents that were applied for before this bill becomes law will have to have at least one eye on the horizon about how our national planning framework and instruments such as the national policy statement for freshwater indigenous biodiversity—goodness me—the national policy statement for urban development all these other instruments that might be carried over. But also what else might be in a national planning framework Minister?So won't it actually continue to cause confusion for decision makers about resource consents about plan changes and so on if this bill is passed and all of the conflicts that this bill is designed apparently to resolve between the things we build between the effects on the environment of building and operating infrastructure between the need to potentially disturb wetlands to do earthworks housing and so on—aren't all those conflicts unresolved until the national planning framework is developed and implemented? And doesn't that create a phenomenal amount of uncertainty for decision makers until it is resolved?So while the commencement date of the bill might be the date after it receives Royal assent all of the problems that the Randerson panel which identified the problems and this bill intended to solve—those conflicts between the natural environment the built environment how you allocate natural resources how you address and minimise effects on the environment through development—remain unresolved Minister and just create more confusion.Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): The national planning framework how it's put together how it relates to the Resource Management Act and those transitional provisions were debated as part of Part 3.
Simpson Scott; Parker DavidHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Well thank you for the concession that the Minister the Hon David Parker has predicted the outcome of the election already! That's reassuring for those of us on this side of the House.I want to pick up on the points that my colleague Stuart Smith was making about the progress of this legislation the timing of it and the timing for implementation. I want to spend just a minute or so going back in history. The Minister will well recall the process by which the existing Resource Management Act (RMA) came into effect. Those of us of a certain age remember the 1990 general election—Labour lost that election. Sir Geoffrey Palmer had done quite a lot of work on a resource management planning statute: it had got to a first reading it had been to select committee it had had a second reading but the election of 1990 intervened. At that point a new Government—Jim Bolger's Government—came into office and one Simon Upton was appointed as the new National Party environment Minister. Now my understanding and recollection of the history is that what happened then was that that bill—that had not actually passed before the election and this is the point that Stuart Smith was making I think—had effectively become a referendum. It was part of the election campaign. It was debated hotly throughout that election period. And although I was far too young to be actively involved in that campaign there were many many other people—probably who still sit in this Chamber—who were.So my question to the Minister about commencement is: why has he not thought it a wise and useful process to actually leave the final passing of this legislation which he seems so determined to pass before Parliament rises on 31 August and adopt a process that wasn't dissimilar to that that occurred with the passing of the original principal Act that this bill seeks to replace? Was that something that he considered in terms of timing? Was that process of trying to achieve what was ultimately a cross-party bipartisan approach—because that legislation was ultimately passed and the Minister probably remembers the detail better than I do. But my recollection was that the RMA actually passed with the support of both National and Labour after the 1990 election and the change of Government. So I'm interested to know whether the Minister considered that kind of option in terms of his commencement options. And if he did why did he reject that option as a potential pathway for trying to achieve a more bipartisan consensus approach?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): There have been many years of complaint about the Resource Management Act. The last Government said that they wanted to get rid of it. We've got on and replaced it. Those who call for delay I might describe as very negative wet and whiny.
Smith Stuart; Parker DavidSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you Madam Chair. I want to talk about the commencement dates as well. I just wonder Minister given that the National Party and our ACT colleagues don't support the bill why wasn't it considered to have the commencement instead of the first provisions come into force on the day after Royal assent? To have that date be a week or two weeks or a month after the election when effectively you have a referendum on it. Given it's so close to the election and the National Party has quite clearly said that we will repeal and replace this immediately before Christmas why won't the Minister do that? Because quite frankly has there been any assessment of how much work is likely to be done prior to the election and all of that work being for nought effectively before Christmas? Actually I would have thought perhaps 1 January might have been a good commencement date—something like that which would have been a practical approach to this legislation. Putting aside all partisan views what is the best for New Zealand? And given that we have a referendum on the bill and ultimately we all in this House have to accept what the results of the election are whether we like it or not why wouldn't the Minister not put that into this bill? I know he's put a lot of work into it and I know that officials have done a lot of work.Hon Scott Simpson: He sees it as his legacy that's why.STUART SMITH: Well yes but it might be like the Titanic was a legacy as well. So I'd like to hear the Minister's response to that.Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Born to rule members of the National Party think they should be able to change what Parliament decides even before they win an election and they're not going to win it.
Court Simon; Parker DavidSIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you Madam Chair. Minister thank you for your always fulsome explanations of the policy and legislation that you're proposing.I just firstly want to come back to the definition of environment" in the title. If we look at the definitions "environment" actually is quite complicated it's quite convoluted. It includes "the natural environment" "people and communities and the built environment that they create"; "the social economic and cultural conditions that affect the matters stated in paragraphs (a) and (b)"—that's "natural environment"; "people and communities" the stuff they build—"or that are affected by those matters".Minister I put it to you that it is the most all-encompassing yet incredibly confusing definition of "environment" that will potentially—in fact quite likely—lead to a whole lot of confusion in the way that plans are made in the way that resource consent decisions are made and in the way the judiciary interprets plans made under this bill—or Act when it's passed.So Minister would you care to explain in terms of the title the "Natural and Built Environment Bill" how some of the conflicts between the natural environment—I assume that means flowing water and growing trees and the blowing wind and the hot sun that we might feel although it's been a rare thing in Auckland in July I can confirm that. How are decision makers meant to reconcile "the natural environment" and their understanding of that in terms of the title of the bill with the things we want to build in the environment that might break the natural environment or somehow damage it in some way?And how if the word "environment" in the title encompasses so many aspects—in fact all the aspects of life on earth: social economic and cultural conditions that affect the natural environment people and communities and the built environment that they create. How is a decision maker looking at the title of the bill trying to understand how to make decisions about the environment meant to interpret what the title means Minister?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Those matters were discussed in the debate on Part 1 of the debate. The title doesn't affect the definitions that are in Part 1. That debate has already been held."
Kuriger Barbara; Parker DavidBARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki-King Country): Thank you Madam Chair. I actually wanted to ask the Minister a question around the commencement. So the commencement clause compared to the title clause is rather long because it's a bit like an initiation process around how the bill gets introduced. But I just think for the purposes of the public it's worth knowing that you know the bill—a lot of it will come into force once the Government puts it through. But then it says One or more Orders in Council may be made under this section"—this is clause 2(4)—"appointing different dates for the commencement of different provisions and for different purposes" and (5) "An Order in Council may bring different provisions of the Act into force on different dates for different districts or regions of local authorities; or any area of New Zealand specified in the order." So I just thought it was worth actually having a conversation tonight in the House for those that are actually watching out there that the Minister—because it is a rather long and protracted commencement once it actually begins it takes a while before it comes to fruition. Thank you.Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): The member is correct that some parts of the new Act come into force in parts of the country—in fact Parts 1 to 9 in large part come into effect on the date after the Royal assent is given. So Parliament gives it its third reading and then it goes to the Governor-General who gives the bill the Royal assent on behalf of the King. At that point most of the legislation comes into effect but there are some parts that are turned on region-by-region and some parts that are turned off under the Resource Management Act (RMA) region-by-region. The reason for that is to avoid some of the transitional problems that we had with the bringing to effect of the RMA after the Town and Country Planning Act where we had two systems operating side by side throughout the whole of the country for a long period of time. Here the new system doesn't turn on in full and the old system turn off in full in any region until after they've got their first plan in place. That's been done on a region-by-region basis probably three regions for a start and the rest to follow. That's the effect of the different timing of the eventual repeal of the RMA."
Dean JacquiNATURAL AND BUILT ENVIRONMENT BILL In CommitteeDebate resumed from 27 July.Clauses 1 and 2CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members we come now to the Natural and Built Environment Bill. When we were last considering the bill we had finished debating Part 12. We come now to the debate on clauses 1 and 2 Title" and "Commencement". The question is that clauses 1 and 2 stand part."
Dean Jacqui; Parker DavidCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Would some member like to move that the committee report progress?Hon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General): I move That the committee report progress.Progress to be reported.
Bishop Chris; Woods Megan; Salesa JennyCHRIS BISHOP (National): Well I've got one more question. A very quick question: has the Minister sought some advice on the Auckland Future Development Strategy which—I know it sounds like quite a random question. But I think there's quite a degree of concern from many in the community that the strategy—which is basically going to constrain Auckland's growth—is going to have quite negative effects on house prices and therefore rents and affordability. It's been slipped through a little bit surreptitiously. There's not a lot of consultation going on and there's quite a degree of concern about it so I just want to put that on the Minister's radar and ask if she is she aware of it. Has she sought some advice on it and what are they going to do about it if anything?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): We have what in another country would be called a city deal with Auckland. We have these in six places around New Zealand where we have set them up where we have set up these growth partnerships that bring together multiple arms of Government as well as iwi and councils in local areas. We often look to make those sub-regional. So in the case of my own home town it is greater Christchurch. We're bringing Waimakariri and Selwyn into that conversation as well. So it's not a matter of seeking advice and hearing about plans. This is an ongoing relationship that we have with Auckland City through our Urban Growth Partnership in terms of working through those issues. I think that our Government has managed to move the model beyond hearing about things from councils seeking advice and then going back to them because we have looked to establish partnerships and to work in concert. A big part of a partnership is actually that you don't have to agree on everything but then you can work through to find solutions and that is exactly what we're doing. We're doing it in Tauranga through the Smart Growth partnership we're doing it along the Auckland-Hamilton corridor we're doing it in Auckland we're doing it in Hamilton we're doing it in Christchurch and we're doing it in Queenstown. I think that in six years the fact that we've set up essentially what other countries would call these city deals and that they're well under way and that we have actually managed to group together funding so that we can start to have conversations across the various arms of local government central government and iwi about how that works is of benefit. CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Kia orana members. That concludes our debate on housing. The time has come for me to leave the Chair. I will resume the Chair at 7.30 p.m. after the dinner break. Ka kite anō.Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.
Warren-Clark Angie; Woods MeganANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): A question to the Minister in the chair. During our report back and during the hearing we heard in relation to an imminent announcement in Auckland that was coming. I would be interested for you to talk to us about that Minister but I would also be really interested to know about the difference in this model that is being delivered. So I'm interested about the development in terms of its size in terms of its services and I'm also interested in the community engagement and the process around that and perhaps around how the community is looking towards this launch. Thank you. Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): Well I think there's two developments in Auckland that are quite different and worth just giving a little bit of information about. One that I think is a particularly exciting development is at Highbury Triangle. This is a very large development of several hundred apartments but it is dedicated housing for our older New Zealanders—for people that are in the position of needing to rent in their retirement—and how is it that we can provide warm safe shelter for these people. It's four stories I believe—just off the top of my head—but it has lift access so all of the units within this are universal design so that it is suitable for our elderly population. I think it is incredibly important that when we think about our public housing as our population ages we think about how we make it fit for purpose for those older New Zealanders. I'd just like to put a plug in for a similar development in my own electorate in the Wigram electorate. This was opened a couple of weeks ago. It's a 20-unit development. It has solar panels on the roof. It is 20 units. It's three stories but again has lift access so that all of them can be of a fully universal design. But five of those units also have an extra bed—they're one-bedroom units but five of them have an extra bedroom for any carers that need sleepover capacity for the over-50s for whom the complex is reserved. Angie Warren-Clark: Over 50s?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Yeah I know—frightening as that is to the chair of the select committee. So we can see that there are new ways of thinking about public housing and how we can make this really fit for purpose for our communities. I think that once you start building at scale like this Government is—when you are building the most public houses and adding the most public houses of any Government since the 1950s—you can start thinking about exactly the kind of housing that your community needs.The other one of course is Greys Avenue which is a housing development that has been going on in that part of Auckland for some time now and that is going to have intensive wraparound support for those tenants that will be there. It very much echoes a complex that Ministers Edmonds and Davidson and I were at this morning in terms of the opening here in Wellington of a development in Rolleston Street. It's an 80-unit development and 20 of them are intensively supported housing with live-in support for care workers. So we can start to think about how it is that we do those things differently.
Potaka Tama; Woods MeganTAMA POTAKA (National—Hamilton West): In that Whai Kāinga Whai Oranga kaupapa there's a repairs programme which actually I absolutely applaud. That's a great programme fixing up houses that are falling over all the way in far-flung places like Te Tairāwhiti and the Whanganui River. But the Whai Kāinga Whai Oranga prototypes are with four different iwi-led organisations which are effectively start-ups in the housing space. I wanted to inquire with the Minister and Associate Minister whether or not there was an attempt to activate Whai Kāinga Whai Oranga and also with those existing iwi—particularly urban iwi in Auckland—and Māori groups that are already involved in building housing en masse where I think that there'd be more opportunity to accelerate the numbers of houses that are built for iwi and other communities by iwi and Māori builders. Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): I'm pleased to say that through the sterling leadership of Minister Jackson we no longer need to do prototypes. Actually we have moved beyond prototypes and we can just get on with the mahi of for the first time there being a Government commitment—and a billion-dollar commitment—to sit behind that around how it is that we address issues around Māori housing. In terms of where that will spread to throughout the country there's a lot of work under way in various locations and there are different capacities in different places ranging right from being incredibly good commercial property developers in some iwi organisations through to what can be done in papakāinga housing and on whenua Māori. One of the things that I think the member asked in his previous question—just to add to the very full answer that Minister Jackson gave—is that at the moment there actually isn't the provision of income-related rent subsidy public housing within the Whai Kāinga Whai Oranga developments as far as I'm aware because the aspirations of those iwi and those groups that have come to us are actually to do things differently than that. That is not what they have sought to do. We are looking at how it is that we can service Māori communities right through from the work that Minister Davidson is leading in homelessness. But the clear aspiration of so many groups we talked to is What can we do to enable homeownership?" and that is also a very important string to the bow. What we have in here is the progressive homeownership scheme that is ring-fenced for Māori because if we're going to shift rates of homeownership for Māori and for Pasifika we do need to have dedicated funding pathways and that is exactly what this Government has done. So affordable rentals are very much what is being seen within a number of the prototypes but homeownership sits at the heart of the aspiration of many of these communities and that's why I'm proud to be a member of a Government that for the first time in New Zealand's history is backing just that aspiration."
Potaka Tama; Jackson WillieTAMA POTAKA (National—Hamilton West): Now this Whai Kāinga Whai Oranga kaupapa it's a beautiful kaupapa. He ataahua te kaupapa ataahua rawa. [This initiative is beautiful; just amazing.]We've heard of about 1018 homes being contracted through $213 million of funding and that's come through the written questions and some of the oral parliamentary questions that I've asked and had answered by the Associate Minister. I'm just trying to understand what are the ownership arrangements for each of those homes how many will be sold to individual whānau and if they are sold are the moneys received recycled through Whai Kāinga Whai Oranga? Of those that aren't owned what are the arrangements that attach to those? Is that income-related rent subsidy - funded and entity-owned like one of the four iwi prototypes? Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Associate Minister of Housing (Māori Housing)): I thank the member Tama Potaka for the question and I understand that he has made a commitment to Māori housing particularly before he came to Parliament. So I certainly understand his support and his commitment. A lot of what the member talks about though is still being worked through by the various entities. We've got as he well knows four very very strong entities in the North and on the East Coast. We've got Ka Uruora in Taranaki led by Jamie Tuuta; Toitū Tairāwhiti with Willie Te Aho and our lady down there Annette; Ngāti Kahungunu led by Bayden Barber; and Te Pouahi o Te Taitokerau. Some of the questions that the member asked are on some of the strategies that these trusts are traversing and working through. There's a lot to take into account. As he knows there are a lot of obstacles in front of Māori housing providers so the absolute intricacies on how they roll things out are not finalised. The reality also as he knows is that 63 house are built but the target is 1000 as he also knows but within that there are multiple strategies that are being worked out in terms of whānau in terms of ownership and in terms of iwi and who moves in and the different protocols around that. So much of what's been put forward is fear from that member but there's still a lot to be worked out.
Bishop Chris; Davidson MaramaCHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you to the Minister. This is a slightly more local matter which I raised in the Parliament last week to the Associate Minister Priyanca Radhakrishnan. It goes to Ministry of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) funding for homelessness support services and it may be that the question is better directed at the Hon Marama Davidson. It goes to the Wellington homeless women's shelter which I think Ministers and members will be well familiar with. They have told me that they applied for funding for four more beds through HUD and that their funding request was declined on the basis that HUD doesn't fund homeless facilities or homeless shelters that have communal facilities and it just struck me as very odd. I mean the Minister has made reference to the dire need for emergency housing in Wellington. We're all familiar with that and the stats speak for themselves. So I was very surprised to hear that from the Wellington Homeless Women's Trust. Is that actually HUD policy and if so why is that HUD policy? If it is HUD policy will the Minister seek to change it because the reality is that communal facilities are common in many shelters around the country and if that's the new policy then I think frankly we're going to have some difficulty. Given that $100 million or so was appropriated in last year's Budget for the Homelessness Action Plan and given they've only asked for four more beds can we get that money out the door and provide those services? Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Associate Minister of Housing (Homelessness)): Madam Chair thank you very much and thank you for the question. It was alerted to me as well as to the member and it's something I'm seeking advice on. What I do know is that all current transitional housing situations that do still have the communal shared spaces of course will be honoured. So I'm just making that clear that we are not going to wind down or remove current communal transitional housing places and that yes I am seeking further guidance and clarity from the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) around this proposed new way of working. About the funding that's available for transitional housing I was proud that in both Budget 2022 and Budget 2023 we were able to for example extend more supported housing and rangatahi transitional housing. But I'm seeking further advice from HUD officials around the proposal. It's an operational matter—yes—but I am seeking advice. What I do want to speak to genuinely—and Minister Woods has already touched on this—is that we absolutely need to see more community-led and community-supported housing initiatives and leadership. I am proud that the Government—even just today—has been continuing to announce and lead more places available. But I really want to acknowledge the work of the Wellington Homeless Women's Trust. I acknowledge the unique support that they offer to women in the community particularly and it's fantastic. I want to understand more broadly—not just within transitional housing funding and criteria—how we can support and see more of this community leadership to help us all resolve the homelessness problem.