Parker David; Bishop ChrisSPATIAL PLANNING BILLThird ReadingHon 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 (NBEA). They are prepared by the same regional planning committees that are established under the NBEA 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 NBEA will put the detailed policies and rules in place to implement the regional spatial strategies. The NBEA 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 NBEA 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."