Clark DavidHon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): I'm delighted to call on this bill and I do have some questions immediately for the Minister in the chair Phil Twyford around the nature of the Government policy statement (GPS) and its concreteness or otherwise in terms of the ability to be nimble to seize on opportunities and to respond to local changes in the environment. The Government's overall directions and priorities for housing and urban development presumably are at a relatively high level but I guess just how specific are these GPSs expected to be?I'll pick an example which is South Dunedin. It's known to be an area where climate change represents a very real threat. It is an area that has been marked by some political parties in this House as a focus for an urban development agency a focus for attention as an area that needs to see a response that is beyond what the local government situation could deliver. It's very clear that the threat is real and I've seen some of the data at the regional council level where the tides dictate—I think it's within a kilometre of the shore front at St Clair—the groundwater levels. They go up and down and if memory serves me right it's by metres a day the groundwater levels because the soil is permeable there's a lot of sand in there. The threat of climate change is real and indeed the salinity of the water there has an effect as well.And yet we know that no Government historically has really grappled with the challenge that that represents to the people that have invested there that have bought houses that have developed family connections to the area over generations now that have invested in the family home that are now facing those difficult decisions about where to go from here. I agree that it's important to have a statement about what's expected so that they can begin to shape expectations over a long period of time.But my question really is around the degree of flexibility because if the local council takes decisions on zoning of land or on the way in which it sees urban development changing over time and that presents opportunities for Governments to move sooner or to make decisions later what degree of flexibility is anticipated to be in the Government policy statement to respond to the local situations or indeed if the situation fundamentally changes? So in that example we've had great big sandbanks and things rocks have been placed at the shorefront and so on when there have been threats to break through the banks there. There is an old rubbish dump that sits under land close to the ocean. Again in overseas jurisdictions there have been whole cities really that have been threatened by rising tides—low-lying cities. If the situation were to fundamentally change—and that's not anticipated and I certainly hope that it doesn't because I think any change there will need to be carefully managed in line with the community's needs and there are vulnerable people in that community—I'm interested to understand how the Government policy statement would be positioned to give the necessary flexibility to respond to immediate threats how it would position a transition over time what steps a Government could signal in the Government policy statement and what would be more tactical decisions—if you like—what would be the kinds of decisions that we work through in the community as it prioritised how it responded understanding local needs.So in particular I guess the challenge there as to how that sits alongside clause 24(1)(a): the idea that the Government's overall direction must include a multi-decade outlook. So it's impossible in my view to know quite how quickly some of these changes will happen or indeed if something catastrophic was to happen like a sandbank was to move or break or we had significant flooding as has happened in the past in South Dunedin what the impact would look like and what the tension would be with that multi-decade outlook. Now I say that thinking also of the engagement that will have been had with developers and the necessity—and I guess this is coming to my second question which is: what level of engagement has happened with developers in developing this policy? What signals has the Minister had in terms of the optimal time frame under clause 24(1)(a)? Clearly it's signalled that it's going to be a multi-decade outlook; to what extent is that because industry wants the certainty of direction of travel for investment purposes for hiring workforces and so on? And how much certainty does the Minister think that he can give—or any future Minister can give—to that pipeline of work and the direction of travel particularly around climate change issues? We've got to accept that situations will change; threats can be more imminent. Certainly in Dunedin the event of two floods that were each deemed to be—and I'm not now certain—I think one in 100-year events but they have twice happened in a short period of time indicates that situations can change. Now it may prove that they were not events that are going to happen as rapidly again but certainly that is sharpening the mind.I have another question—which is not related to the first two but which I would also appreciate a response from the Minister on—which is in respect of Part 2 clause 29(2)(b). There's the little rider here which talks about the provisions of this subpart relating to the preparation and availability of a Government policy statement (a) apply with the necessary modifications to an amendment to the Government policy statement; but (b) do not apply if the amendment to the Government policy statement is not significant." I guess the link I'm making here is: what counts as significant? Again all of these situations that arise could be deemed to be significant or not significant. How is that judgment to be made as to what is significant and will that dictate the preparation availability of the Government policy statement and the changes? Is there a test going to be applied in the guidance around preparing Government policy statements that will dictate what significance looks like? Is that simply at the judgment of those preparing the Government policy statement as to what is significant and what is not significant or is there an existing test at law as to what constitutes significance in this circumstance?And I guess finally: how has that been applied overseas in similar vehicles; how have they deemed what is a significant change to a Government policy statement? Do we have overseas examples of Government policy statements done well that we could be learning from that the Minister has looked at or examined or his officials have looked at? And do we have examples of Government policy statement - type documents that have proven not to be as flexible as is needed and that we would very much like to avoid as a country? I think part of the debate we're having here is putting on record probably some of the guidance too to those who will be developing these documents; guidance as to how they will be interpreted in future years.And this I think is a really significant change that we are making as a country. I ask these difficult questions not to be difficult to the Minister but because I believe this is really important legislation we're passing here which will shape the responses that have lacked. So I do want to end with a positive note. This kind of guidance this kind of certainty—and I do appreciate that a lot of this will be about giving industry certainty about giving those who are involved in our urban planning certainty—has lacked in our country. And that's how we've ended up in situations where we do have huge challenges around the country in respect of climate change and in respect of all kinds of infrastructure shortages and so on.So I'm very interested to hear what we can learn from those overseas jurisdictions as well. And I want to congratulate the Minister for the work that he has done on this bill because this is a really important piece of legislation that will change the shape of New Zealand—I absolutely accept that. So those questions are meant as questions for refinement and to illuminate for those who will interpret this legislation in time to come. I congratulate the Minister on his good work and the groundbreaking changes that are going to be passing through this House. I'm very pleased to support the bill but I do wish to have those questions answered. Thank you."