Bishop ChrisCHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you very much and I thank the Minister for that useful contribution which was slightly less vituperative than his contribution on the Natural and Built Environment Bill. Look the National Party opposes this legislation but we do so with less hostility towards it than the Natural and Built Environment Bill.For some of the reasons that the Minister has outlined everyone's in favour of fewer plans—there's no doubt about that. We have too many they're too long the process around changing them is too difficult and they increase complexity. I think the Minister has talked publicly about—well it might not have been the Minister but it was certainly someone from the Government side—various different housing rules being different in Lower Hutt compared to Upper Hutt. They are only 15 kilometres down the road as the crow flies—builders in both patches have to have different specifications. That sort of stuff's nuts and we all want to reduce that and there's not really a debate about that and nor is there a debate about doing spatial planning better. And actually as the Minister himself said in his contribution it happens now and essentially what's happened is councils and communities have just got around the Resource Management Act and actually come up with some quite sophisticated structures with central government already. So I think of—Hon David Parker: But they don't stick; they're forever re-litigated.CHRIS BISHOP: Yeah sure sure. Yeah I accept that. But the structures are there and so I think about the Waikato for example which I spent a bit of time in recently a forward-leaning pro-growth region and frankly some of the Wellington city councils—Hon Louise Upston: The best in New ZealandCHRIS BISHOP: Well Louise Upston says the best in New Zealand. Certainly in some respects they are and frankly the Wellington Regional Council which seems to be going out of its way to stop housing being built anywhere in the Wellington region and involve itself in an endless debate about the fantasy of light rail could adopt some of Waikato's and Hamilton's pro-growth mind-set. But Waikato is getting on with it and actually to acknowledge the Government some of that work was started by the Hon Phil Twyford when he was the Minister of Housing.I think about some of what's going on in Tauranga now for example where the commissioners are have upended a sort of anti-growth mind-set which has resulted in some of the most unaffordable housing prices in the developed world in Tauranga as Tauranga transitions from a small retirement community into what is a city a big city and a growing city in the heart of productive New Zealand situated very very close to Hamilton and Waikato and the so-called Golden Triangle.So some of that stuff is happening already and so the question is how you give effect to that. And the question that this bill poses is: is the superstructure created by the new spatial planning regime that the right way to do that? We're as yet unconvinced that that is. We worry about the over bureaucratisation of the process. There were legitimate concerns expressed by local government around the anti-democratic nature of some of this. Now I am not someone for whom local democracy is the be all and end all of existence. There is clearly a balance and a tension between central government's legitimate policy goals and local decision-making.To take the most obvious example central government spends $4 billion a year on housing subsidies $4 billion: $2 billion in the accommodation supplement $1.5 million and change on the income-related rent subsidy and the rest of it on emergency housing—$4 billion a year is an astonishing sum of money. The reason central government has to spend all that money is in large part because of council planning rules that have stopped cities from growing. And we bear all the consequence of that in central government and local government just you know says no to housing and so there's clearly a legitimate role for central government to compel regions to grow.Hon Phil Twyford: MDRS?CHRIS BISHOP: Well you know the medium density residential standard is still there under National's policy; it's just more discretion and flexibility. But the point is they've got to go for growth—they have to go for growth and our policy is the same as yours was Mr Twyford back in 2017 when the Government gave a Speech from the Throne saying the metropolitan urban limit would be smashed. And six years later the metropolitan urban limit is still in place in Auckland. In fact the future development zone in Auckland doubles down on the restrictive planning rules stopping Auckland from growing. And the future development zone—there's an article just by Todd Niall in Stuff this morning in which a succession of councillors and planners in Auckland are boasting about the fact that Auckland will not grow as much. It's just demented actually because Auckland house prices are some of the most unaffordable in the developed world and the idea that Auckland can just put a ring around itself and basically just hope for the best is frankly delusional. So thank you for that interjection Mr Twyford. It allowed me to have a bit of a vent.The Minister mentioned natural hazard planning and he said we need to get on with it. Well we agree. With respect where's the bill? Because we were told there'd be a trifecta of bills; we're on to the second one now. Where's the third bill? I mean we're up for that on this side of the House and we do want to have a genuine bipartisan conversation about it because it's really important as the Minister says and the Minister seemed to be implying the National Party was opposed to it. We're not. We want to talk about natural hazards and proper planning around that. We're just waiting for the bill which as yet is yet to materialise and we want to see that. Maybe if we have the privilege of forming a Government we'll get to have a look at where the work's got to. So we wait and see for that.Can I also just in this quite potpourri contribution speech acknowledge Eugenie Sage who's a departing MP for her chairpersonship of the committee. She did do a good job as the Minister says. We have our political differences but she's a very fair minded and genial person who's made a big contribution to Parliament and I for one will miss her.On the Māori rights and interest thing I think the point is not so much that the bill gives effect to the Treaty. The point I think is the change from take account" to "give effect to" and I do worry about that because it sounds like a subtle change but I worry about what effect that will have on our planning regime.I also worry about clause 7 "Iwi and hapū responsibilities in relation to te taiao" because as I got into the Minister in the committee stage the subheading is "Iwi and hapū responsibilities" but the actual clause says "All persons exercising powers and performing duties and functions … must recognise and provide for the responsibility and mana of each iwi and hapū". So the clause is actually wider than that and I worry about that from a planning point of view and a certainty point of view.Just finally as we close off these two bills with respect to the Minister it's not jealousy that the Government is reforming the Resource Management Act (RMA) that National opposes it. National has always been up for RMA reform. In fact we tried and the Minister knows it. We tried in Government. We never had the numbers thanks to the Hon Peter Dunne who should hang his head in shame over his behaviour on the RMA. But we never had the numbers and the Government now does have the numbers. We wrote to the Government—this is all on the record—saying that we were up for bipartisan RMA reform; this stuff is really important. And we never really had a response. So we are where we are and the Government has charged off in their own direction and I feel confident in saying that there are Government members who are worried about aspects of this legislation and concerned about it.I do think clause 3 of the Natural and Built Environment Bill which is linked to the Spatial Planning Bill will prove disastrous. We will have to change it and much of where the Government has landed is wrong-headed. So it's not that we oppose it for its own sake. It's not just party politics for the sake of it. I am really—and we are really—concerned about where this is going. The Government has decided to pass it through before the election while they have the numbers—we know that—and maybe things will be different after 14 October; maybe they won't. But all we can do before the bills before the Parliament right now is just put on the record our opposition and our intentions and we're being completely up front and transparent around that.We oppose the bills. We do think they should be off the statute book. We are up for RMA reform and as I think have indicated we are up for regional spatial planning. There are some really good things in this bill. There are some sensible things in this bill. Maybe some of them will carry over to the new regime when the time comes but for now we oppose."