Kuriger Barbara; Williams Arena; Bishop ChrisTUESDAY 19 DECEMBER 2023(continued on Wednesday 20 December 2023)RESOURCE MANAGEMENT (NATURAL AND BUILT ENVIRONMENT AND SPATIAL PLANNING REPEAL AND INTERIM FAST-TRACK CONSENTING) BILLIn CommitteeDebate resumed.Part 2 Repeals and related provisions (continued)CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members when the committee suspended last night we were debating Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 5 and 6 Repeals and related provisions" and Schedule 2. The question is that Part 2 stand part.ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you Madam Chair for the opportunity to contribute to this debate. It's my first opportunity to contribute to this part and I have 11 tabled amendments in my name that I hope the Minister in the chair will consider because there are a few that do some things that this House has been discussing last night.So the first ones that I'll speak to are the first three on this part—they are new clauses 5A. The effect of the clauses that I'm seeking some support around the House for would bring in a new section after section 5 which essentially referred to one of the committees of this House the pieces of legislation which are being repealed for a cross-partisan discussion about those clauses which have been removed from the new Act but still have cross-partisan support. So it would effectively be a six-week urgent inquiry by whichever committee it was referred to. I've left it open for discussion to consider those parts which are important.Now this is in the context of my colleague the Hon Rachel Brooking sending a letter to the Minister about seeking a bipartisan solution here because we all know around this House—and especially after the committee stage debates last night—that there are some things in the legislation which is being repealed which will inevitably need to be brought back in. We've already seen that there are provisions which have been saved by this repeal bill including the fast-track provisions; those are a useful improvement to the 1991 regime. This tabled amendment to clause 5 is about identifying those other parts of the reforms which were recommended by the Randerson review panel that needed to be improved and that have cross-partisan support.The Minister responsible for RMA Reform also said last night that he may well be back in the chair introducing more legislation which deals with bringing in some of those provisions which are being repealed today. So I think it's important that we all acknowledge in the primary legislation that there is a place for those select committees to do that work and to find common ground here because that is the work of our Parliament. It is about finding the common ground and a way through in an area of law that has long been overcomplicated. Both major parties agree that there are too many opportunities under the 1991 Act for long plans that do not get used and do not inform our planning process in a way which is constructive and is quick and is nimble. So we all agree that we need to find a faster way through that also protects our natural resources and our natural environment. Things like trees were something that the Environment Committee spent a long time on and there was an eventual coalescence around the views of the committee members who dealt with that issue. Urban trees are something that has long vexed urban planners and the protection of which in Auckland at the moment is a vexed issue. It's been put entirely on to local councils to determine notified trees. There were something like 600 applications outstanding when I last spoke with the local authority about a tree in my electorate of Manurewa which had not been dealt with simply because of the capacity issues. That is something that there is a reasonable level of bipartisan support around and is something that the committee should consider if this legislation is referred back to those committees.I'm not suggesting that this legislation would be referred to a new kind of committee a bipartisan committee. It is still appropriate for the Government to have a majority on the committee that it would be sent to. It's useful though for experts in the room like my colleague the Hon Rachel Brooking to be able to have the discussion in a forum which is a formal forum that we all know how it works to hash through some of these ideas.The three different tabled amendments also include the regulations. Though that is not one of the most substantive pieces of legislation that is being repealed now it's also useful for a committee to consider the effect of the secondary legislation being repealed. The Regulations Review Committee will not have the opportunity to consider those regulations because they are being taken off the statute book but usually there would be a power in this parliamentary cycle for the Regulations Review Committee to consider how those are operating. So this would give a committee the opportunity to do the work that would have usually been expected by that Regulations Review Committee.These three tabled amendments are separate amendments. I have suggested them because I think there is a different case for sending the Spatial Planning Act back to a committee. Whatever we say about the bipartisanship around the Natural and Built Environment Act (NBA) there is certainly coalescence of views around the need for spatial planning in the long term. That Act is a smaller Act but it does a very different thing; it allows New Zealand to have a long-term framework around spatial—CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The member's time has expired.Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): Thank you Madam Chair. It's good to be back. I thank the member Arena Williams for her constructive amendments. In relation to new clause 5A around the fees and regulations the Government's not of a mind to support that. The fees and regulations that have been passed pursuant to the Natural and Built Environment Act are administrative to do with forms fees—Arena Williams: I'd like to look at them.Hon CHRIS BISHOPH: I'm sure you would like to look at them but I'm not sure there'd be much point. In relation to the other new clause 5A which asks a committee of the House of Representatives to conduct an inquiry in 28 days and report back within six weeks I'm open to a conversation around that. I think the member is being ambitious with the dates so depending on progress of the committee this morning the Act is scheduled to come into force the day after it receives Royal assent which will be soon—again depending on progress. So a committee conducting an inquiry within 28 days—let's do the math. What are we today? The 19th?Hon Members: The 20th.Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The 20th. Well it's the 19th in parliamentary time. So the 20th—so 28 days is 16 or 18 January. Anyway the point is I'm not sure a parliamentary select committee is going to sit between—Arena Williams: I'll chair it. It'll be all good.Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Oh really? The member is offering?Arena Williams: Yep.Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I'm not sure how your whānau feels about that. You might want to text your whānau before you commit to that over the Christmas break. Anyway the point is I'm not sure there's going to be an inquiry within a month and then report back within six weeks. That would take us through until March. I think the member's time frames are unrealistic. However if the member wants to make a case or other members—I see the Hon Rachel Brooking is smiling—we'd be prepared to consider something with a longer time frame because I think the substantive point the member makes is that there are some things from the Natural and Built Environment Act which the Government is wishing to proceed. As I said yesterday during the debate on Part 1 we're taking advice on some useful and substantive amendments that we wish to advance and I'm not opposed to the idea of a committee doing a bit of work on that. The Environment Committee is a very hard-working committee with an excellent chair.Darleen Tana: Fantastic chair.Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Oh a very good chair. That's great—a bit of bipartisan love breaking out in the Parliament. But if the member would like to withdraw the amendment and have perhaps some more realistic time frames—Arena Williams: I'll amend my amendment.Hon CHRIS BISHOP: —you're amending it already; that's good—the Government is open to considering that amendment."