Parker DavidSecond ReadingHon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Thank you Mr Speaker. I present a legislative statement on the Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Bill.DEPUTY SPEAKER: That statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.Hon DAVID PARKER: I move That the Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.Just before I go into the merits of this bill I really can't ignore the attempt by the ACT Party to once again turn their back on their traditional viewpoint that the Resource Management Act (RMA) is part of the problem for the housing crisis. I find it incredible that they've turned their back upon that long history of their party and instead backed the interests of the Epsom electorate of their leader and I think the National Party has actually wedged the ACT Party on this particular issue because actually the ACT Party have got absolutely no credibility when it comes to the Resource Management Act and housing.This Government is committed to ensuring that we offer more choice to Kiwis so that they can have a warm dry safe place to call home. This is especially important for our younger generation our low-income and most vulnerable populations—disproportionately Māori—and our elderly who increasingly are struggling to find affordable places to live in our largest cities. The Government has worked across the Chamber with the National Party to develop this bill and I believe it signals a stable and enduring policy for this very important aspect of housing policy. Now there'll be a lot of disagreement over other areas of housing policy and there's no grand accord being reached in respect of these issues. But in respect of this issue across the two main parties of this Parliament representing the vast majority of the votes in this country we now have agreement. This bill allows for a greater supply of more affordable homes predominantly three-storey townhouses and units. It will allow existing homeowners to renovate their properties more easily it will better enable papa kāinga and provide more options for renters and yet the ACT Party opposes it. This will better meet the diverse physical and social needs of our communities and yet the ACT Party opposes it. As countless overseas examples show us denser rather than sprawling urban areas are essential to well-functioning livable cities—up not out—and yet the ACT Party opposes it. People living closer to their workplaces and the services they need will be served by this bill. It enables land infrastructure and associated investment to be used more productively and efficiently and yet the ACT Party opposes it. We know from the cost-benefit analysis attached to the report—Simon Court: Six-year-old data—six-year-old data.Hon DAVID PARKER: Well you don't need to be a brain surgeon to know that infrastructure is more efficiently provided in a dense city than it is in a sprawling city and the Infrastructure Commission nailed it when they came to the select committee and said that it is people being housed that cause infrastructure cost; not the shape of the city predominantly.We know that this will not only reduce the encroachment of the city ever further outwards protecting the natural environment and the productive horticultural land that we rely upon for food production. We also know that within city it will free up land for shared spaces because we'll be using the other land more efficiently—things like parks. It'll also enable lower-carbon lifestyles as it's easier for people to get to their jobs to their businesses and to essential community services and yet the ACT Party opposes it—and they're still carping on the other side as if their position is in one iota justifiable which it is not. This is going to bring new housing in existing neighbourhoods. It'll help link people into their existing services and networks and help them stay connected with their friends and family. It'll bring vibrancy and new economic opportunities as we regenerate our urban areas for more inclusive cities as we grow.At its core the bill does two things. It accelerates the existing National Policy Statement (NPS) on Urban Development and secondly and perhaps more importantly it enhances the level of intensification that the NPS on Urban Development enjoins and it also means that those opportunities will be spread across the city including to Epsom which is probably why the ACT Party opposes it.Can I thank the chair of the committee the Hon Eugenie Sage and all the members of the Environment Committee for their consideration of the bill. They did a lot of work. Can I acknowledge those that took the time to make a submission: 966 in writing; 183 by video conference. The committee has proposed several constructive amendments to the bill which I welcome and this will help ensure that it meets the needs of people who live in these cities. The recommendations will be reflected in a Supplementary Order Paper that's already been provided to the select committee and it's already been published on the Ministry for the Environment website. It's going through a final scrub at the Parliamentary Counsel Office before the formal version is tabled in the House.I want to briefly outline the bill's key provisions and the changes that are proposed. An intensification streamlined planning process modelled on the streamlined planning process introduced by the previous National Government is being used to make it faster and easier for councils to implement the national policy statement on urban development and these new medium-density residential standards (MDRS). It sets a series of steps out and this process will require the 14 councils who collectively are the tier 1 urban areas—these are Auckland Greater Hamilton Tauranga Wellington and Christchurch—and it'll bring forward the existing NPS on Urban Development by a year. It'll also apply to tier 2 councils experiencing housing supply issues and we're expecting some of them because there's a lot of councils that really like this—they're going to be lining up saying Pick us as well." because they want to do the right thing by their people even though the ACT Party opposes it. They acknowledge the acute housing need in their areas.In addition the committee has recommended that tier 3 councils can also request the Minister for the Environment to involve themselves. Also the committee recommends that before the Minister for the Environment makes that decision he—Simon Court: It's you—it's you. Hon DAVID PARKER: That's right—it's me at the moment. It won't always be me you'll be pleased to know. The committee has recommended consultation with the Minister for Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti. Tier 1 councils and any others that are included will have up until August 2022 to notify their intensification planning instruments. There are then processes set out in the bill that say that after notification the proposed plan changes go to an independent hearing panel which is appointed to hear public submissions on the council's planning instrument and then make recommendations back to the councils. Where there are disputes—[Member's cellphone makes "boing boing" sound]—they're settled by the Minister for the Environment. Simon Court: That's right—that's what it sounds like when it hits the wall. Hon DAVID PARKER: I think that was another commentary on the ACT Party actually.Having considered the submissions the committee made some other recommendations. They've recommended that we broaden the scope of the streamlined planning process that's being used so that they can make consequential changes that are complementary to the MDRS and the NPS urban de-intensification policies. They want us to clarify that existing plan provisions which are not inconsistent with the bill will continue to have effect. They make it clear that only specified standards in the new medium-density residential standard will have immediate effect and other rules like updating financial contributions will be subject to some further consultation requirements.In respect of the main other changes: as to the standards populations of less than 5000 people are being excluded so the likes of Akaroa and other small townships and offshore islands aren't included because they're not as appropriate for this intensification. Also there were submissions on some more standards with one for glazing: a minimum of 20 percent will be required for street frontage of the dwellings. It has to be glazed to improve street safety and appearance. A minimum of 20 percent of the site will be needed to be planted or grassed—this will also encourage existing trees to be protected—and the outdoor spaces can be grouped so that units can group their outdoor spaces to create a shared larger outdoor space. There's a slight change to front setbacks: they're reduced so as to leave more land at the back where most of the shared space or individual space will be and the height to boundary is recommended to be changed. At four metres at the boundary with a 60-degree recession plane it effectively means that for every metre in you go 2 metres up. That results in a net loss of intensification of only 4 percent but it has a better outcome in respect of shading or sun. The building height and coverage standards remain unchanged. There's a recommendation from the committee that we include schools so that they can take advantage of these provisions without occupying all of their fields.I recommend this bill to the House and I look forward to hearing other contributions.DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to."