Most headlines went to the suite of Resource Management Act reforms, of which more shortly, but there was plenty of other notable legislation wending its way through the process.
Possibly the most important, although you would hope it would never apply to you, was the Emergency Management Bill (No 2).
It may have a bland title, but the proposed law changes are anything but. The Bill is a replacement for the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002, and creates a whole new framework for how New Zealand deals with disaster.
The Canterbury earthquakes had shown that the current structure had issues, but what really highlighted its shortcomings were the cyclones and floods which afflicted the North Island in 2023.
The subsequent government inquiry found that our emergency management system was not fit-for-purpose and lacked the capacity or capability to deal with significant emergencies affecting several regions at once.
The Bill, which passed its first reading unanimously, is the government’s response to the inquiry recommendations. It proposes taking an "end to end" risk management approach to disaster: significantly, that includes both natural calamity and human activity — think climate change or pollution.
It begins with risk reduction measures, before moving on to disaster readiness, how to co-ordinate both regional and national responses, and then how to recover and rebuild.
Dunedin list MP Francisco Hernandez led off for the Greens, saying that all MPs had a passion for emergency management and a genuine desire to help in terrible times.
"It is a good and necessary Bill. We support, in particular, the increased co-ordination between local and central government that this Bill enables; the requirements for lifeline services to contribute to emergency management plans; the increased protection for animals . . . the increased oversight for emergency management powers; and increasing the role at the table for iwi Māori," he said.
That said, the Greens did want disabled people to be included in emergency management planning and greater integration with climate change adaptation frameworks.
Luckily for him, the Bill was not going through all stages urgency so the select committee process could result in those changes being made.
Also receiving a first reading this week was the Arms Bill, the government’s much anticipated rewriting of the clunky, cluttered and clumsy Arms Act 1983.
Taieri Green list MP Scott Willis — a hunter and firearms licence holder — had a surprisingly long list of good things to say about a Bill which he and his party intend not to vote for in its current form.
He liked that the Bill plans to simplify regulatory requirements, improve compliance, regulate blank-firing guns, restrict access to high-capacity pistol magazines, require firearm businesses to notify the police of all surrendered firearms and require regulatory approval for commercial and munitions sales. Willis particularly liked that there would not be greater access to military-style semi-automatic firearms.
But, and there’s always a but, "it makes one big change that we believe will create more risk and reduce oversight and transparency," he said.
"Removing the regulator role from the police seems more like a petty, vindictive act based on some vibes from some small group of firearms owners than any responsible act. The police have a unique and valuable perspective, because they’re on the front line of gun violence; they’re often exposed to gun violence and they’re at the greatest risk of gun violence.
"That free-flowing information flow is valuable in reducing risk, but their expertise is not included in the regulator and that is extremely problematic."
Again, there is a select committee to come, so there may still be changes made to make the Bill more palatable.
But the the Resource Management (Duration of Consents) Amendment Bill and the Fast-track Approvals Amendment Bill — both scheduled to become law as quickly as the government could make that happen — took up much of the House’s time.
Believe it or not, the process was not without humour at times.
"The minister has described this bill as ‘supermarkets’ and ‘rats and mice’," Labour’s Dunedin MP and RMA guru Rachel Brooking noted.
"There are some rats and mice in this Bill and, being from Dunedin, I’m careful when I talk about supermarkets and rats."
"Don’t go there," Act New Zealand’s Andrew Hoggard begged.
"I note that the minister for food safety is in the House," Brooking replied.
"That [supermarket] is just outside my electorate, on the other side of the road," she noted, declining Hoggard’s kind offer to give her a spare cat.
Mostly though, this was a grind through the dull minutiae of planning law — but given that planning law underpins most of what New Zealand does, that is no small thing.
The lengthy committee stages featured many an exchange between RMA Minister Chris Bishop and Brooking, earning the pair a rare accolade from deputy speaker Barbara Kuriger that the respectful Q+A dialogue that they got going was a good example of how the revamped committee process was intended to work.
Late on Wednesday, the Fast-track Approvals Amendment Bill finally passed, but not before many hours of debate. As noted in Southern Say a fortnight ago, given the potential denial of the right to speak of potentially interested parties in consent applications, this was indeed legislation worthy of lengthy thought.
Interestingly though, when Bishop unveiled his two RMA replacement Bills on Tuesday Labour leader Chris Hipkins did not automatically say his party would oppose them.
There’s plenty of water to go under the bridge before we get to that point, of course, but Brooking may not need to lead quite as many filibusters in 2026 as she did in 2025.
