McAnulty KieranHon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much Mr Chair. I've been reflecting on the answers that the Minister responsible for RMA Reform has been giving to the varied and wide-ranging questions that my colleagues have been putting forward and I'm not sure it is satisfactory for the Minister to respond by simply saying the intent of the bill". We know the intent of the bill. It is quite clear; it is in the title. But there have been some considered contributions from my colleagues here wanting to know specific things that have not been answered. It certainly doesn't wash when parts are being kept and if some parts are being kept then surely the Government should be open to proposals to keep other parts especially if it is going to improve the Resource Management Act 1991 which we no doubt will eventually get to.I'll give the Chamber an example. This bill proposes under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Amendment Act 2023 in section 4 providing a new definition of "natural hazard" going from the definition that is provided in the Natural and Built Environment Act 2023 to the Resource Management Act 1991.Now we get what is intended to happen here. We understand that the Government wants to go back to the Resource Management Act 1991. I get it. Everyone gets that. There's no need to provide that rationale as an answer to a question. But when we consider that the definition of a "natural hazard" in the Resource Management Act 1991 is: "any atmospheric or earth or water related occurrence"—and then it gives examples—"the action of which adversely affects or may adversely affect human life" the definition of "natural hazard" in the Natural and Built Environment Act 2023 specifically includes the effects of climate change on any of those occurrences. That is crucially important to the understanding of a natural hazard.Now local government which is the perspective that I am speaking from now—one of the major issues that they are facing is how to deal with natural hazards. If we are moving back from this to the Resource Management Act 1991 with the clear definition of "natural hazard" that doesn't include climate change local government will be working within criteria that is no longer relevant.Presumably that is the definition that was provided in 1991. Things have changed. We only need to look back in the last 12 months to see the impact of natural hazards that has happened in the local government sphere. We think back to the Nelson and Marlborough floods and what those councils have had to deal with in terms of the re-build there. We think back to the Auckland floods and Cyclone Gabrielle. It is clear in anyone's mind that climate change was a massive driving factor for those unprecedented events. If we are then going to bring in a planning regime that doesn't take into account climate change in the definition of "natural hazards" I believe that could hamstring local governments and their ability to build back.This is a genuine point one that I make in good faith and I just simply do not understand why the Government wouldn't consider maintaining the exact same definition of a "natural hazard" as is outlined in the Natural and Build Environment Act 2023. They can still achieve what they want to achieve they can still get back to the Resource Management Act 1991 but we can have a definition of "natural hazard" that is actually up to date and relevant for 2023. The reason I propose this is further on down the Government is proposing to include a whole new section in section A.It is quite clear that they are open to leaving some things as they currently sit or improving them compared to what they were. I think the committee deserves an answer as to why the Government is proposing to go back to a decades-old definition of "natural hazard" instead of one that is fit for purpose in the context of today."