Rewrite of large parts of the Bill as Public Domain goes Missing in Private Property Frenzy

DONE! After five weeks and 171 pages later, I have completed my submission to the Planning Bill, which was sent to the Select Committee on Monday.

In this submission, I have rewritten:

• Part 1 Clause 4 (Purpose)
• Part 2 (National/Key Instruments)
• Part 3 (Combined Plans)
• The Standardised Zones (as a separate 31 page document and not posted to the blog as of yet), which Ministry for the Environment | Manatū mō te Taiao has not yet started and is due to complete by mid-December 2026.
• I chose not to address Part 4 – Consenting. Including this section would have added approximately another 170 pages, as the Natural Environment Act would need extensive referencing.

From the abstract: The premise of my submission is doing what Minister Bishop has stated more than once, to emulate the Japanese planning system particularly for the Standardised Zones (the NZ version yet to be drafted by the Ministry for the Environment). But yet the Planning Bill seems to miss this, so let’s fix this!

The Opening Remarks outline the format of my submission as I have not chosen the straight technical approach. Not when the Bill is devoid of meaning and actual purpose due to a lack of a comprehensive vision, set of goals, and actual outcomes. This will occur when private property is the sole focus (which it is of the Bill) and someone forgot the Public Doman which you need if you want private property to actually function. Simply put without overarching collective and common goal, vision and purpose, all you are left with is a thousand different individual bits scattered across a table without collective picture to guide it all together.

With that I leave with part of the opening remarks and a video summary of the submission

The submission fuses a mix of storytelling, comparisons, and desired outcomes to form the who, what, where, when, why, and how around the technical aspects document and the Bill. Thus, it can appear aspects of the submission are repeating itself when they are actually covering another but complementary section of the Planning Bill.