Woods Megan; Williams Arena; Bishop ChrisHon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Thank you Mr Chairman. That gives me great heart and thank you to the Minister responsible for RMA Reform for answering that question. I have two specific questions both relating to section 58 of the Natural and Built Environment Act. One is: will the Minister countenance an amendment to this bill to enable a more enabling and permissive regime around papakāinga housing than the old Resource Management Act that we're bringing back would allow? And I'm sure I'll have colleagues that would like to speak if there are any proposed amendments. I know that Arena Williams will certainly be keen to speak to a specific amendment in that so I'd be keen to hear from the Minister if that is an amendment that he would countenance.My second question is also in relation to section 58 and that is around the removing of the enabling renewable electricity generation and transmission provisions in the Natural and Built Environment Bill—it pertains particularly to water usage—and whether the Minister has given any thought to what it will be replaced with or whether he has received any specific advice on whether it will be around both consumptive and non-consumptive uses of water in relation to electricity.ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you Mr Chair. I said earlier in the House that I had 11 amendments in my name to this part. I have spoken to six of them so I will take you through quickly those other amendments. There's also an opportunity here I think for some bipartisan work on the amendment—which I have written now and will table shortly—which amends Part 1 of Schedule 2 and that is specifically around papakāinga housing. For the benefit of the Chamber I will read it out: it would amend Part 1 of Schedule 2 to delete all amendments to Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 the Urban Development Act 2020 and any other Acts which would reverse those changes made to the enablement of papakāinga housing.There's particular reference in those two Acts that would be amended by the Minister's amendment that would set back the development of papakāinga housing. Given that the Minister responsible for RMA Reform has an interest in the enablement of papakāinga housing that is not only on community-held Māori land but also on other forms of freehold land which are owned by other organisations—like marae like urban authorities—this would allow those practical changes which the Government of the last term introduced to enable papakāinga housing to continue. I do want the Minister to tell the Chamber whether he will consider my amendment which I will table shortly. Given that he hasn't had time to consider it now I will run off some copies in a minute so he can consider it.Speaking to the other amendments in my name I am proposing a number of deletions from Part 1 to Schedule 2 and they are amendments 5 through 11. They are deleting the amendments to the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Act 2020 the Environmental Protection Authority Act 2011 the Crown Minerals Act 1991 the Conservation Act 1987 the Climate Change Response Act 2002 and the Water Services Act 2021. I have spoken already to the deletions of the Urban Development Act so I won't use the Chamber's time to discuss those but these are all Acts that make amendments that I have already explained to the Chamber are not consequential and do not belong in Part 2 that amends this Schedule.These are not consequential because the amendments to these Acts all include things that are moving to a system where there is some change for the way that decision makers within Government departments or decision makers within our court system would have to make a decision based on a new—well an old—hierarchy of values. If the Minister's answer that he gave me in relation to the Urban Development Act stands in this Chamber—that Oh well the difference is only three months."—then it would make sense that it would be fine to pass through committee stages and through urgency in Parliament any kind of amendment that went back to a system which was time-limited. That cannot be the answer. We need answers about how the decision-making framework that is now in our law will be different in the future and that is why I have proposed to amend just six of the Acts that are amended by this amendment here.I haven't chosen everything I've just chosen those things which make amendments which are more than consequential and I'd like the Minister to tell me how he proposes to deal with that and my new amendment which I will run off now.Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): It's hard for me to comment on an amendment I haven't seen so—Arena Williams: Oh I'll go and do it.Hon CHRIS BISHOP: OK well that's good—very good. So I'm happy to have a look at it. In relation to papakāinga housing just further to the Hon Megan Woods' point—she was talking about clause 58; I think that's the wrong section.Hon Dr Megan Woods: The enabling provisions.Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yeah well I'm advised that section 129 is the relevant one in relation to the national planning framework which would have enabled papakāinga housing—Hon Dr Megan Woods: No no. It's one but so is 58.Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well I'm advised that there is no 58B in the Natural and Built Environment Act 2023 (NBEA). The correct section is 129. Anyway regardless I think we're both talking about the same thing. The national planning framework (NPF) would have sent the filter through the system to make papakāinga more enabling. I'm also advised that the initial national planning framework which was being advanced under the previous Government didn't actually include the papakāinga housing changes to it. That was going to be in phase 2 so I think it's fair to say we were a wee way off under the NBEA track from enabling more papakāinga anyway. That was going to be part of the phase 2 NPF reforms; it wasn't actually in the initial draft that's been publicly released or at least available. I'd just repeat what I said before which is that I'm very supportive of papakāinga. I think there's more we need to do there so I'm interested as to ways we can advance that—just to repeat that.In relation to Arena Williams' amendment as I think I've said now for the 12th or 13th time we are just going back to what the law was. Ms Williams says "Well it's very important when Parliament does that we need to know what the law will be." Well we do: the law will be what it was. It's as simple as that. Parliament recently passed this. There was a long and convoluted debate about it. I spent a lot of time in this House and a lot of time in the select committee—we made it really clear relatively early on from the get-go that National in Opposition did not support the NBEA. ACT said the same thing New Zealand First—coalition partner—said the same thing from outside the Parliament and we are now proceeding to implement our policies and our promises. It's really as simple as that."