Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. The passing of this bill delivers on an important commitment made by John Key and National to the public of New Zealand. It reflects on the blue-green view that inefficient bureaucracy does nothing for the environment and in fact often harms it. This bill makes no changes to the purposes of the Resource Management Act but is instead very focused on far better processes to get good-quality decisions in a more timely way. I want to acknowledge all members of the House who contributed to the pretty robust debate during the Committee stage.

It is important at the third reading to know what the bill is attempting to achieve. I note, in the first instance, that there has been an ever-increasing trend of resource consents not being processed in a timely way. Every one of the Ministry for the Environment surveys over the last decade has shown an increase in the number of resource consents—up last year to 14,000—not being processed on time. This bill puts in place a number of measures to address that issue, and a key test that it is meeting its objectives is to see a significant improvement in those statistics.

The second area that this bill attempts to address is the frustration of so many New Zealanders who are attempting to do small projects and get caught up in the labyrinth of the Resource Management Act. That is why we are making changes around the issues of notification, that is why we are making changes in areas like security of costs, and that is why we making changes in process. We are trying to reduce the frustration that genuine New Zealanders have in applying for relatively small consents.

This bill also seeks to tackle abuse of the Resource Management Act by commercial competitors. We have all witnessed the supermarket circuses where the Resource Management Act has been used in some communities, like the North Shore, to delay a new supermarket for as long as 8 or 10 years, for which the community has paid a price by not actually getting a choice as to where they might purchase the most basic of items. This legislation is intended to constrain those abuses.

The bill is also about providing for a better process for processing major consents. It is a matter of national embarrassment that it takes longer to get a resource consent for significant pieces of infrastructure projects than it actually takes to build them. That is a nonsense, and a further motivation for the Government to advance these changes.

There has been significant debate around the issues of public participation. I want to make it plain that National remains of the view, as we did when we supported the initial Resource Management Act, that New Zealanders have a right to participate in the resource consent process and decision making around the environment. But that is not an unconstrained right, and we as a Parliament need to carefully balance that right of participation in the decision-making process with the need for us to get timely decisions and to do so in an efficient way.

There are a number of changes in the bill that address that very point. The changes in respect of giving the Environment Court the power to award security for costs are to address the very real problem when groups that organise themselves as an incorporated society and who become passionately opposed to a particular project or development, are able to behave irresponsibly in the resource consent process and impose very significant costs on ratepayers, but have no responsibility themselves. That is not a fair use of the law. I have every confidence that the Environment Court will use that security for costs provision appropriately and not as a mechanism for shutting down community input into the resource consent process.

It is true that this bill is aimed at facilitating the process for building major pieces of infrastructure. So often the practice has been that everybody knows that a consent dealt with by the local and regional authorities inevitably will be appealed to the Environment Court, and that long, drawn-out process is not doing favours for anybody, either those who are supportive or those who are opposed to those particular projects. New Zealand will benefit from the changes made in this bill that provide for a single-step process for those major consents with a board of inquiry chaired by an Environment Court judge making those key decisions. Most important, we have set out in the bill an ambitious programme of such consents being processed within a 9-month time frame. This is quite deliberate, in order to send a clear signal that it is important for both the environment and the economy that we are able to get decisions in a more timely way. In this regard, for those proposals not meeting the criteria of being nationally significant, the bill also provides for direct referral to the Environment Court to provide for a single-step process, rather than the dual process that frustrates so many applicants and communities.

One aspect the bill addresses is unnecessary resource consents. Today we have heard quite a lot of bellyaching about the changes around the protection of trees. National was elected on a platform of reducing unnecessary bureaucracy and, specifically, streamlining and simplifying the Resource Management Act. The changes to rules around urban trees are delivering on that promise. This issue is about whether homeowners should have to get a resource consent to trim or remove a tree on their property. The Government takes the view that as a general rule they should not. The specific law change that National is making is to prohibit blanket tree protection rules. These are generic rules in a few councils’ plans where every tree over a particular height, say 3 metres, requires consents to trim or remove them. National’s change means that if a council wants to put restrictions on landowners trimming or removing a tree on their property, the council needs to consult the property owners and specifically identify the tree or groups of trees in its district plan. The Government recognises that there are significant trees on private land that have wider community benefits. That is why we are providing for councils to specifically list those trees or groups of trees for protection, albeit councils will have to consult the property owner.

In essence, this law change is around changing the relationship between councils and landowners over trees. At the moment, councils are in the box seat and property owners must seek permission to trim or remove any tree on their property. The Government’s amendment bill will ensure that councils consult landowners before putting restrictions on their trees, and it reflects a greater respect by the new Government for property rights. The process for councils to list specific trees for protection, over the next 2 years, is not onerous and will require a fraction of the bureaucracy needed to process all those tree-trimming consents. I will be monitoring, though, the performance of councils as they go about the exercise of identifying those trees and if councils fail to progress this work, I will use my powers under the Resource Management Act to ensure that it will be done. It will be a relief for Auckland homeowners that from 1 October this year they will not need a resource consent to trim their own trees; this will save the whole resource management system 3,000 resource consents per year.

I acknowledge that this is a large bill that makes many significant changes—the most significant changes since the Resource Management Act came into effect in 1991. The Government has a second phase of reforms, but this bill is an important first step.

Tēnā tātou katoa. Before touching on the broader themes and broader principles underlying this endeavour to reform the Resource Management Act, I will reiterate three important things in those areas where our reservations remain and that we have endeavoured to amplify this evening. Firstly, notification is about participation, and participation is the cornerstone of social democracy. We in this country have a system of devolution whereby resource management decisions take place and are countenanced by democratically elected representatives at local and regional levels of government. That is why Labour was particularly insistent in endeavouring to secure support from the Minister and his team in order to change that particular provision.

Secondly, we feel very strongly that the Crown’s role in the coastal environment for stewardship purposes, Treaty of Waitangi purposes, and public weal purposes ought not to be undermined. We fear that that has been the case in that particular area. We think it is crucial because of the issues we are still dealing with in relation to takutai moana. We also think that it is important that New Zealanders know that the coastal environment is in the custody of the Crown so that a proxy is present for the owners—that is, the public—and that it is admitted that there is a process to establish what proportion of the original customary title pertaining to the seabed and foreshore might still exist. It is important that in the third reading we record our thoughts in that regard.

The next important area is the trees. Hone Harawira and I went to the same boarding school. I think it was when I was doing School C we were taught—or made to learn—a poem by Hone Tūwhare from Ngāpuhi, an acclaimed resident of the South Island. His poem was called “The Tree”. I remember a little bit of it:

Tree let your arms fall:

raise them not sharply in supplication

to the bright enhaloed cloud.

Let your arms lack toughness and

resilience for this is no mere axe

to blunt nor fire to smother.

What we have to say about the trees is contained in our matua Tūwhare’s poem. His ending line was: “… your end at last is written.” The effect of this action may represent a small saving, but it will empower in an unfettered way people who will do damage to the tree landscape of Tāmaki-makau-rau. But it is up to the Auckland MPs on both sides of the House to win that debate in relation to the feelings of the good citizens of Tāmaki-makau-rau.

We support the enactment of this bill. This bill endeavours to, although not as handsomely as the Minister would have us believe, reduce the number of resource management statutory consents that are needed by New Zealanders—either individuals, families, or firms—when they go about their lawful business. We should be identifying those areas of activity that ought not require bureaucracy or intervention by statutory decision makers. That is the sensible approach to take. The political debate has always been about the balance, and one of the other reasons why we support this bill is that we see that there is a strong place for an Environmental Protection Agency.

We remain, however, unconvinced as to how effective the Environmental Protection Agency will be in the absence of knowing what it is actually going to do in terms of its full functions. There are critical infrastructure projects in our country that cannot be left to languish at subnational levels of Government. We should harness the full power and authority of central government, well armed and informed by an Environmental Protection Agency, to make the hard, large decisions that will have significant impacts of a productivity nature on the pace at which we develop or maintain the country’s capital assets—its infrastructure. So there is a great deal of work to take place. From the Minister’s comments, I construed that he would give us further briefings in his phase two area.

The other area that gave us confidence to support the passage of the bill was that the Local Government and Environment Committee gave effect to a number of important changes, and I have to give credit to Dr Nick Smith. Obviously, those changes would not have taken place had he been stubborn or indifferent to the wisdom behind them. However, he ought to talk to Rodney Hide about the usefulness of being flexible.

An area where we were pleased to see the change lay in appeal rights. Environmental policy, environmental law, and environmental disputes cause divisiveness: passions rise and run. People must have the ability to have their day in court, and their day on an environmental matter is not just what they think; it is what they feel. So much about the environment cannot be captured, monetised, or quantified. That is why the change that the committee recommended, which has been included in the bill, enables the Environment Court to receive applications to debate the utility of resource allocation decisions not just on black-letter law but on the actual merit of the decision. I would not underestimate the importance of that change of thinking. I doubt whether my colleagues would have agreed to my supporting this bill in the select committee if that change had not been made.

The other thing that needs to be pointed out is that this bill does not substantially unravel the principal purpose of the Resource Management Act. It actually is an attempt to reduce administrative dead weight. It is an attempt to cause decisions to be carried out more efficiently, and that is part of the balance that we felt on this side of the House. It is cumbersome legislation, if the decisions that are made cause people to become so disenfranchised or alienated that they use every technique in the book to circumvent the provisions in the legislation.

Our friends in the Green Party made some important points, and they are entitled to make them; I am sure there is a constituency for their perspective—that is, that this legislation does weaken the Resource Management Act’s central tenets. That is not our view. What we think it does is improve the pace and the quality of decision making and make bureaucrats responsible for the performance of their organisations when they are taking the public’s money and using the public’s time to allocate resources or to make those statutory resource management decisions. That level of accountability is absolutely essential. In fact, I think it is one of the more sensible innovations, and, hopefully, it will see a reversal in those rather woeful statistics that Dr Nick Smith referred to earlier this evening.

One final reason why I think this bill is deserving of our support overall lies in the fact that people will be able to take their issues directly to the Environment Court. They can make an application, acknowledging that the Environment Court is where things will end up anyway. That is a sensible contribution on how we can get 4.5 million people to use limited resources efficiently, and get decisions that people will be proud to have participated in and that will not represent a squandering of precious resources at a time when we want to both protect the environment and grow the economy. For those reasons, we support the passage of the bill. Kia ora.

I am thrilled to speak in support of the Resource Management Act (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill in its third reading debate. This has been my first experience of taking a bill from its introduction through to the third reading, and it has reinforced my faith in democracy and the working of Parliament.

We have had a large number of submissions—close to 900—the involvement of a technical advisory group, an expert panel, and a robust select committee process, all of which has ended up with all parties except the Green Party supporting this bill. In saying that, I know that the Green Party has agreed with some of the parts and with some of the changes that this bill makes. The National Government is delivering on its promises. This Government introduced this bill into the House in its first 100 days, and 6 months later is taking it for its final reading.

I will focus on the intent of the bill, which is to streamline and simplify. The Minister for the Environment, the Hon Dr Nick Smith, has said that reform of the Resource Management Act is an important part of the Government’s work programme, and is critical to our country’s future prosperity. It is about the costs, the uncertainty, and the delays that the current Resource Management Act creates. The Act has an adverse impact on New Zealanders, on New Zealand jobs, on what we can do in terms of infrastructure, and on productivity. It also causes economic frustrations for ordinary homeowners, small businesses, and farmers. I have faced many constituents in the Taupō electorate who have come to my office with frustrations about these sorts of delays and costs in the treatment of what appear to be quite simple resource consent applications.

The purpose of the bill is to redress the balance of the ever-important environmental protection versus economic growth. We all recognise the importance of both, and that the balance between them is paramount. At the moment, approval for projects of national or local significance have a timeline of years, as opposed to months, and many projects of significant benefit are held up through the process of getting that ever-important resource consent. The new Government is committed to creating a robust and sustainable framework for development and growth for New Zealand, but it is not just about the big projects. I want to reinforce that. It is not just the large projects that are delayed. It is often the small and simple projects as well, such as the garage, the home renovation, or, dare I say it, as has been the case, the trimming or removal of a tree.

I spoke earlier about the example of my own brother in Auckland, who had a simple renovation that required a resource consent. He expected that he would be waiting 20 days until he got his resource consent from the Auckland City Council, but how many months did it take? It took 7 months to get a resource consent for an extension on a home. So it is not just the large projects we are talking about. It is the simple ones as well.

💬 Hon John Carter: He was lucky it only took 7 months.

That is right. There are many cases we have all heard of that are far in excess of 7 months. He was indeed a lucky man to get it through in only 7 months. But when it is meant to take 20 days, we say that is not good enough. That is what this bill changes.

The important thing is that the bill is the first phase of a two-stage process. We are not solving all of the problems with the Resource Management Act in this first bill. We have focused on simplifying and streamlining. There is a large amount of work yet to come in the second stage of the reforms. But I reiterate that this is not just tinkering at the edges. It will address some of the problems that have been there for years. It was unfortunate that the previous Labour Government did not take the time to address those problems, but I am thrilled that the Opposition is now on board with us in making these changes. The provisions will provide stronger tools for managing anti-competitive behaviour, new consent pathways, and a rationalisation of decision making in existing consent categories. These amendments will have a significant impact on the processes under the Act that have led to delay, uncertainty, frustration, and, of course, additional and unnecessary costs. There are a few changes to the level of public involvement, but the balance has been worked through carefully. I believe this bill strikes a better balance between the public’s right to be involved and the need for both sensible and timely decisions.

I make the point again, though, that these changes and this rebalancing does not mean a reduction in environmental quality. In the Taupō electorate it is critical in terms of our local economy that the environmental quality is not reduced. I believe that we have got this balance right. We have had repetitive and costly consultation processes, broad appeal rights, and time-consuming reporting requirements, which are adding tens of thousands of dollars, and years, to plan preparation and change processes. I re-emphasise that slow and overly bureaucratic processes do not do anything to protect the environment.

As I said at the start of my speech, I have had my faith in the parliamentary process very much reinforced. The select committee worked well. There have been some significant changes as a result of the submissions from the public. We heard many of those submitters in person, and it was great that the Minister was very committed to making sure that we had a law that worked. We listened to the submitters, and the Local Government and Environment Committee worked tirelessly for hours on end to nut through the issues and make some of the changes.

I will focus on a couple of those changes. One of the issues is, of course, the delays in processing of resource consents, and this was reinforced by the biennial survey of councils, which demonstrated that only 69 percent of applications are processed within the statutory time frames. I am sure no one here would dispute the fact that that is simply not good enough. Other changes as a result of the submissions have meant that we have limited, rather than removed, further rounds of submissions on plan changes. We have strengthened the process for national consenting and national environmental standards, we will not proceed with the removal of the non-complying activity class, and we have made changes in terms of limiting the rights of appeal on plans, because that was an item we had a lot of feedback on. Another change made as a result of the select committee process is the deferral of changes around requiring authorities, and that will be looked at in the second phase of reforms.

Overall, a sensible balance has been struck between reducing the bureaucracy and ensuring good processes, as well as the ever-important environmental protection. The National-led Government—and I am a proud member of the Bluegreens in the National Party—is committed to looking after our environment. It is so critical that we balance that accurately with encouraging economic growth, particularly in the times we are in now. We are putting in place policies to help our local economies, and to ensure that we and generations to come can enjoy our unique environment in the future.

I will take a moment to look at some of the comments that others have made about what we are proposing. Federated Farmers have welcomed the Government’s announcements, and support many of the changes to speed up the Resource Management Act process. That comment came from the president of Federated Farmers. Looking at it from the perspective of a regional chamber of commerce, Charles Finney has said that streamlining the processes around obtaining resource consents will prove to be a real tonic for economic growth. The New Zealand Business Council for Sustainable Development has said it is good to have central government taking regulatory leadership, that the proposed Resource Management Act process changes will be widely welcomed, and that they deserve business and community support. Gary Taylor of the Environmental Defence Society has said that the proposed amendments can be seen as a win for the environment and a win for major infrastructure providers.

So we can see that this bill is about simplifying and streamlining. I am proud to support this bill. It gets the balance right, and the support across the House shows that. It is about protecting the environment while enabling economic growth. I am pleased that this bill delivers both of those aims.

There is much in the Resource Management Act (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill that members on this side of the House agree with, and we know that from the debates in the last few hours, but in this final debate I will to focus my comments on clauses 52 and 151, which were points of contentious disagreement between us and members on the other side of the House.

After listening to the last few hours of debate, I am left with a couple of questions. Could the rules have been improved; if so, why did the Government not want to improve the rules and why does it insist on doing away with them altogether and leaving our trees in Auckland without any protection? The day before yesterday there was an article in the New Zealand Herald about a phoenix palm on a reserve on the North Shore. To be sure, this was an example of planning and consent regulations gone mad. It required a half-day sitting by a panel of three commissioners and a written report by council officials. I think there were 15 submissions from neighbours who live near the park about the fate of this phoenix palm. I ask whether that is a strong case for the rules being done away with. When I made some inquiries, I found out that the North Shore City Council has antiquated and inappropriate delegations that require that any tree, even one listed on the noxious plants list of the Auckland Regional Council, has to be dealt with by a commission and the question of whether it is notified has to go to that panel. Then, amazingly, the panel decided that actually it should be notified, which seems utterly bizarre to me.

Throughout the afternoon the Minister for the Environment, Nick Smith, has kept on insisting that there is no alternative and that the rules have to be prohibited and done away with. That seems to be a wilful denial of the fact that sensible compromise proposals were put up during the Local Government and Environment Committee process that would have allowed homeowners to trim their trees without needing a consent, and would have allowed certified arborists or council staff to visit a property and issue a consent for tree removal. I would have thought that that would pretty much solve the problem, but, no, the compromise mechanism put up by the Greens was rejected out of hand by the Hon Dr Nick Smith, and he went on his merry way with clauses 52 and 151.

Much of the argument the Minister put forward rested on the idea that this was about property rights, and that getting local councils off the back of property owners was about protecting the private property rights of tree owners and homeowners. I think that idea is easily dispelled, and we have dispelled it a number of times in the course of the afternoon, but it needs to be said again what a trivial and absurd argument this is. Our system of Government and of politics long ago did away with the idea that private property rights exist in isolation in this way. We do not allow swimming pool owners to not fence their swimming pool because the pool is on their private property. We do not allow people to concrete their entire section because it is their private property, because that would have a very damaging effect on their neighbours. We do not allow people to build up to the boundary, because that would be damaging for the community. In that way, trees are in many ways a public good. They are a community asset. They provide beauty and character for our streets, they guard against erosion, they provide shade, and they are often just as valuable, or more valuable, to neighbours and people living in the community as they are to the people who own them.

The Minister talked a lot about trusting homeowners and how Labour did not trust Auckland homeowners to look after their trees. It is patently ridiculous to suggest that we do not trust homeowners. We have so many laws on our books that are about guarding the interests of the majority against the small minority of people who are irresponsible, and that is what this is about—general tree protection rules. So it is nonsense to suggest that we do not trust homeowners. In fact, most Aucklanders no doubt believe that our trees should be protected and want an urban environment that is rich in trees. It is the small minority of rogue developers and homeowners who would bowl all the trees off their section for short-term gain. That is what we are trying to guard against.

Will trees be protected once this law goes through? Are alternatives in place that will mean that the trees will be protected? We believe that the answer is no, and councils have made that very clear. It was reported in yesterday’s New Zealand Herald that the staff of Auckland City Council said that they will not be seeking to list and schedule all the trees that are currently protected around the city because it is not practical or feasible. The irony is that these clauses are purportedly about cutting red tape. Yet, in order to protect the same volume of trees currently protected under these rules, it would require an army of tree inspectors to travel around the suburbs of Auckland individually assessing, documenting, and listing the trees to be scheduled. It will not happen, it is not practical, it is too expensive, and it is not feasible. That is why we put up amendments and Supplementary Order Papers to change those provisions.

The question I am left with is why the National Government wants to ride roughshod over local government in Auckland. It is a Government that professes that decisions on local matters should be made by local people. It has professed this principle throughout the entire debate over the Auckland super-city. We have spent many, many hours discussing the powers of local boards and the importance of allowing local people to make local decisions, so why does the Government want to put at risk the trees that Aucklanders treasure so much? The point has been made that Auckland councils have said that they simply will not attempt to individually list those trees, so the trees will be at risk. I will tell the House why I think they are prepared to do that. It is because the provisions in this bill are a little trophy. They are something to show for the Government’s crusade against red tape, but at what cost? Nick Smith is certain that no trees will be knocked over. I have lost count of the number of times he said this afternoon that no trees will be knocked over, but Aucklanders have seen it happen on numerous occasions. If we look around the cliff-tops of the coastal suburbs of Auckland, we see examples of sections where developers have knocked over pōhutukawa and cleared sections in order to put in a tennis court or some new building.

If these provisions are passed then that will undoubtedly happen again, and when it does the National MPs of Auckland will have to answer to their constituents. The slightly green-tinged environmentalist of Auckland Central, Ms Nikki Kaye—sometimes she is slightly pink-tinged—will have to answer to the people of Grey Lynn, Herne Bay, Freeman’s Bay, and Ponsonby, and she will have to explain why she did no more than hand-wringing and expressing her concern and feelings for the trees of Auckland Central. A lot of allegedly good Nelson wine was offered on wager this afternoon by the Minister, and I feel that I have missed my chance by not placing a bet to get that wine. But never mind, I say to the National MPs in Auckland, particularly to these ones with small majorities: Nikki Kaye, Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga, and Paula Bennett. They are the ones who will have to answer on this issue to the voters of Auckland in 2 years’ time. That will be on their conscience, and they will have to explain to the voters of Auckland when the trees start to fall. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill is National’s down payment on its opening attack on the environment movement. There were 850 submissions made by the environment movement all around our country against this bill. Hundreds and hundreds of the small community groups that do the real work to protect our environment submitted against this bill and came out against it. It is one of the great aspects of my job that I get to go around New Zealand and meet the real guardians, the kaitiaki of our country—iwi, hapū, and environment non-governmental organisations. They are the people who end up in the courts and in front of consent panels all the time, actually protecting our environment. They have come out against this bill because they know what it is trying to do. What National is doing with this bill, with the support of Labour, is voting for a bill that tilts the balance against the environment movement. For example, by supporting this bill, National intends to restrict notification. Environment groups and locals will not know what is going on in their neighbourhood—it is very hard for them to know. That is combined with the changes to section 274 that restrict the ability of groups to join other people’s cases.

In the first instance, National, with Labour’s and ACT’s support, is voting for a bill that says that people will not be told what is going on in their neighbourhood, so they will not have the opportunity to object. Then, when they find out later what has happened and it ends up in the Environment Court, this bill will make it harder for groups to join Environment Court cases. On the one hand, people will not be told about it. There will be special laws—the changes to the notification provisions—that prevent people knowing what is going on. Later, when people do find out about it and want to get involved in the Environment Court case, people will not be able to, because of the restrictions involvement in Environment Court cases. So National and Labour are voting for a bill that completely restricts community participation in decision making under the Resource Management Act.

Community and public participation is one of the founding principles of the Resource Management Act. The Act exists to protect the environment, and facilitate community participation in the decisions that are made in communities. National is completely overt about the bill restricting community participation. Those Labour members say they support community participation, but even after an enormously long time complaining about the bill, they are voting for a bill that restricts community participation. National and Labour say they want to restrict community participation in the decisions around environmental management.

National is doing that because this is part of its anti-environmental agenda. National knows that the people who actually protect our environment are those terrible and troublesome groups, those iwi, hapū, and environmental non-governmental organisations, that end up in the Environment Court all the time, clogging up the system and causing terrible problems to National Party’s mates, the developers. Those groups end up in the Environment Court because they are trying to protect the New Zealand environment. It is those groups that do the hard work; little Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society branches, small environmental groups up and down our country, do the hard work to protect our environment. This bill is designed to get them out of the process. That is why this bill exists, and that is why National is restricting notification. It is why the bill includes security for costs.

Let us remember that the Environment Court already has the ability to strike out frivolous and vexatious cases. But, no, that is not enough! We will have security for costs put in, as well, just to make sure that people are discouraged from getting into the Environment Court. Combine this with the dramatic increase in filing fees that the National Government has introduced. That is another barrier to people using the Resource Management Act process to protect the environment, and that is exactly why this bill exists. When we put it all together, we see that it now costs $500 to get through the front door of the Environment Court. People may be faced with security for costs, so that will put them off. People may not even have known about the proposal to start with, because National and Labour are restricting notification. If people have missed out on filing a case in the beginning, it is much harder to join the case later, because the changes to section 274 make it much harder for groups to join cases later. All the way through, step after step, National, Labour, and ACT are joining together to make it harder for ordinary community groups to protect the environment that underpins our entire economy.

Another way they are doing this, and it has not been talked about much, is when plans have legal effect. One of the things that councils do is change plans in order to protect the environment. Under this bill, the time at which the plan has legal effect is delayed to further back in the process. It is not when the plan is notified; it is after submissions have been resolved. That means that it creates a loophole between when the plan is notified and when it has legal effect, during which one can drive a bulldozer through the hole so that one can see what it is they are trying to protect and so one can destroy it. This is the classic case of what will happen with the trees. Councils will notify that they plan to schedule individual trees, but that notification of scheduling individual trees will have no legal effect under this new bill. So the landowners will know that their trees are being scheduled and those trees will have no legal protection until after submissions are resolved, so during that window they will be able to chop down all those trees that are scheduled. That is why they have set this thing up.

The other part of this bill is the direct referral. The direct referral has some benefits, but the system that has been set up is so incredibly complicated that it is hard to see that it will reduce red tape. Numerous routes have been set up to get direct referral. Whether this reduces red tape is very, very unclear. I think that is one of the most amazing things about the so-called tree protection rules: it is very unclear whether they will reduce red tape, at all. In fact, they might multiply red tape. If councils do, as the Minister says they should, go around and try to schedule thousands and thousands of trees, then it will add red tape, it will add cost, and it will be a bureaucratic nightmare. If councils do not do that, then the trees can be chopped down, and, of course, that is what will happen.

The other part of this bill that I think is incredibly significant is the role of the Minister of Conservation. Normally, when there is a resource consent process, in order for a development to happen people need two types of consent: the consent of the landowner—the person who owns the land—and the consent of the consenting authority, whether it is the local council or whatever. These two types of consent are needed. So if I want to do a development on my property, I need the consent of the landowner and I also need the consent of the council. What about when that land is the coast of New Zealand, which is supposedly controlled by the public of New Zealand? It supposedly belongs to the people of New Zealand. We had a very long debate in our country about this. Should the people of New Zealand have the right to say no? If a developer wants to come along and do a development on coastal land, should the public of New Zealand have the right to say no? Under this bill that the Government is pushing through under urgency, the right of the public to say no has been taken away. The public no longer have the right to veto it and to say no.

We still have the resource consent process, and so we should. But the other consent that is normally necessary, which is the consent of the landowner, has been taken away. In the coastal environment, the landowner is the public of New Zealand. The people of New Zealand have had their right to say no to development in the coastal environment removed. They have effectively had their right to say whether something should go ahead on their land—it is their land, it is owned by the public of New Zealand—taken away. They no longer have the right say no. I think that that is ridiculous.

People often forget why the Resource Management Act is there. An enormous amount of rubbish is spoken about the Resource Management Act, but it is there to protect the environment and to enable community participation. This bill will reduce protection of the environment. This bill will reduce community participation in decision making. I am not surprised that National is pushing this view, because it is so anti-environment. I am surprised that Labour is voting for this bill, because Labour members reckon they are pro-environment. Labour says a lot about sustainability, but, here it is, voting for this bill. Once again, it is left to the Greens and, as I understand it, the Māori Party to stand up for community participation and democracy, and protecting the environment.

It has been a most interesting debate today. It has been particularly interesting, considering the breadth and complexity of the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill, that only a very small number of issues have been contentious. The debating points have focused mostly on trees. The vast majority of the issues in the bill have been non-contentious and are supported by the majority of the House.

All parties, even the Green Party, have indicated that they support the streamlining and simplification of the Resource Management Act. Everyone is aware of the dangers to the environment of lengthy and expensive planning and consenting processes. If we are to protect our environment and manage our natural resources well, we need processes that are flexible and responsive in order to manage environmental issues as they arise.

I reiterate that although the bill is phase one of a wider Resource Management Act reform, the Resource Management Act will still be the principal statute for protecting and managing natural resources in New Zealand. There are no changes to the purposes or principles of the Act and there are no reductions in environmental protection in the bill. But it does provide for significant improvements in the implementation of the principles behind the legislation. The bill provides a suite of amendments that will make planning more effective, more efficient, quicker, and less costly.

The bill has been through a very robust select committee process. Significant amendments have been made to the original bill, and it is better for those changes. We have listened to submitters and we have dropped several of the original provisions. We will not be removing non-complying activities, we will not be limiting appeals to plans to points of law, and we have deferred changes to decision making for designations.

We have also amended several of the provisions of the original bill in order to improve outcomes. We have amended and improved the discount policy for late processing of resource consents, and we have modified the “stop the clock” provision for requests for further information in the consenting process. The bill has also made changes to further submissions on council planning documents that will speed up the process and reduce the workload of councils, but still ensure that those who may be affected by matters raised in a submission will retain their right to a fair hearing. The original bill proposed to scrap the review of district plans every 10 years, but after debate this bill now proposes rolling reviews. A significant number of technical amendments and improvements have also been made to the bill during the select committee process. I thank the expert advisory group for its help and advice in this area.

The major debating point today has been about trees. I will add just one final comment from the perspective of a resident of Christchurch, which is a very pleasant and leafy city without blanket tree protection regulations. I, like other MPs, have received numerous emails about trees. There seems to be real confusion in Auckland. Many people there seem to be confused about which trees will be affected by clause 52 of the bill. Clause 52 affects only trees on private property. The trees on public roads, reserves, and parks are all controlled by councils, not by private individuals. Therefore, those trees are unaffected by clause 52. I also note that in terms of scheduling trees for protection, there is an ability to schedule groups of trees, as well as individual trees.

I received a particularly interesting email from an Aucklander who acknowledged that Christchurch had plenty of trees but believed that Christchurch was not protecting them properly because there were not enough native trees in the city. I had to gently remind her that the city of Christchurch was established on a grassy, swampy plain with only the odd clump of cabbage trees. Almost every tree in Christchurch has been planted by its citizens, which illustrates that most New Zealanders plant many more trees than they ever cut down, and that Parliament should trust New Zealanders to protect and manage the trees on their properties.

I am delighted to support the bill. I am delighted to see it pass into law. It will streamline and simplify the Resource Management Act, and that will benefit both the environment and all New Zealanders. Thank you.

It will surprise no one in the House who heard my earlier speech during the second reading debate on the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill when I say ACT is pleased to support the bill. It will also not surprise those who hear me speak regularly when I say I am always delighted to find something to agree on with members on the other sides of the House. On this occasion I am very pleased to be able to agree wholeheartedly with Dr Russel Norman, who said quite correctly that the Resource Management Act is the Act that protects the environment. That is absolutely what the Act is intended to do, but that is all it is intended to do. What has happened is that the legislation has evolved into a circus in which frivolous delays tie up too much development in red tape. Those delays ultimately cost us all money and do nothing to improve productivity and living standards. Reducing those silly obstacles is something I am pleased to support, as everyone in this House should do.

I had hoped that my story about listening to the extensive submissions on this bill would be amusing and instructive, but I am afraid that the story from the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee far outstrips mine for ridiculousness.

💬 Hone Harawira: Yours is the most ridiculous! You win!

Ha, ha! Those members who were at the select committee that day will recall that all of us, I believe on both sides of the table, shook our heads in disbelief when Brother Pat Lynch, chief executive of the Catholic Education Office, came along and told us in a very serious way that a school in Manukau had decided to build a bike rack. One would not think that building a concrete pad with some holders on it would require any kind of resource consent at all. But apparently, it was decided that it did. The school applied for a resource consent for the bike rack, and it was rejected on the grounds that it did not have a roof, and therefore the bikes would rust. It escaped the comprehension of everybody on the committee as to how on earth it was the business of the Manukau City Council to dictate that a bike rack should have a roof, because otherwise bikes would rust.

One of the most positive things about the bill—and the Minister spoke on this briefly—is the crackdown on businesses that use, or rather misuse, the Resource Management Act to eliminate potential competition. Everyone in the House, and indeed most people in the country, are well aware of the Foodstuffs circus on the North Shore of Auckland. With respect to the Minister, I think he understated the debacle. In fact, it took 20 years, not 10 years, for Foodstuffs to finally open its Wairau Park Pak ’N Save, thanks to continuous spurious objections by Progressive Enterprises. In other words, for the entire life of the Resource Management Act, that company has used spurious objections, which allowed it to stifle its rivals and therefore prevent the people of the North Shore from getting their groceries at a cheaper price.

Undeterred by its eventual defeat on the North Shore, Progressive Enterprises continued its attempts to block a mall that would include a rival Pak ’N Save from being built in Te Awamutu—many miles away, for cripes’ sake! That development was approved in 2006. Since then Progressive Enterprises has tried to delay the progress of the Te Awamutu development on four separate occasions. Ultimately, sanity prevailed, but no doubt not before millions of dollars were spent on lawyers’ fees by both sides. That business should never have been allowed the chance to succeed in the first place. This type of behaviour will be severely curtailed under the changes made by this bill. The threat of damages will make people think twice before so abusing the legal process.

I began my speech by saying how happy I was to find something that I could agree with in Dr Norman’s speech, but, sadly, I must take issue with him on his paranoia about the security for costs issue. Dr Norman said the provision in existing legislation that allows the striking out of frivolous claims was a sufficient protection, and that security for costs is a Draconian, democracy-smothering device. Well, I say to Dr Norman that the strike-out provision is almost never applied by the courts on the basis of something being frivolous. There is a very, very high test to meet, and the courts are very, very loath to strike out cases on that ground. Conversely, although requiring security for costs is allowed by the bill, it does not mean that the courts will give that remedy lightly, either. It could be said, in summary, that courts rarely require security for costs, and if they do, then they make it as manageable a figure as possible. But they strike out frivolous claims even more rarely. So this bogey about security for costs is nothing of the kind; it is merely a mild disincentive for silly behaviour.

The bill makes it illegal for businesses to object to trade competitors moving in on their turf, as it should do. It also limits their ability to slow down the process through appeals, but it preserves the right to object if businesses genuinely believe that there will be an adverse impact on the environment. That is exactly as it should be. Businesses have as much right to put forward environmental protection arguments as anybody else. At the risk of tedium, I say the Resource Management Act is meant to protect the environment, as Dr Norman said. It is not meant to protect trade monopolies. There are some members who will vote against this bill. I think that its opposition is limited to the Green Party and perhaps Mr Twyford, who will claim that communities will suffer when the legislation is passed. I look forward to hearing him explain why having 300 more jobs and lower grocery prices will hurt the people of Te Awamutu so badly.

I will finish with a few words on the bill as a whole. Reforming the Resource Management Act is a process that is long overdue. Such a complex law—especially one drafted by Sir Geoffrey Palmer—for all its good intentions, was never going to get everything right the first, second, or even third time. That is why the ACT Party, in its confidence and supply agreement with National, insisted on the establishment of an advisory committee to review the Act. Specifically, in the agreement both parties agreed to “promote investment, jobs, wages, employment and prosperity, as well as environmental improvement, through amendments to the RMA.” Environmental improvement was not added as an afterthought in that agreement, but ACT recognises what many in this House, sadly, do not recognise, which is that environmental progress and economic growth can and must coexist. This bill acknowledges that important reality. Therefore, I am pleased to indicate on behalf of the ACT Party that we will be supporting the bill.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Tēnā tātou katoa. I rise to speak to the third reading of the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill tonight with an air of disappointment. The Māori Party stands for a deep commitment to keeping our natural resources and environment healthy, safe, and intact for future generations, and our environment spokesperson and member of the Local Government and Environment Committee, Rahui Katene, put that simply in a press release she issued a fortnight ago. This is all it was: “We are committed to protecting the rights of Papatūānuku and Ranginui. We are obligated to keep them from being polluted.”

That commitment to keep Papatūānuku at the core motivates us to do all that we can to protect waterways and land from ecological misuse and destruction. It instructs us to place our focus on the need to stimulate the regeneration and revitalisation of indigenous flora and fauna. It prompts us to support sustainable development rather than growth, and to reduce our dependence on oil. It encourages us to promote whānau, hapū, and iwi as kaitiaki, and to support moves to restore this role to them. This bill does little to move us along on any of these areas.

This bill continues to provide for security for costs, despite our Supplementary Order Paper to overturn this and despite the call from Māori submitters to do so. The bill continues to put up an appeals process that is too restrictive. How can we be convinced that there is a commitment to simplify and streamline when there are still fixed thresholds to meet and when appeals based on merit remain disallowed for large projects?

The bill continues to be too restrictive on terms of who can be involved in the decision making around the development of district plans. It limits the ability of tangata whenua and communities to be involved in decision making and to challenge and appeal consents once they are approved. The bill does not sufficiently protect urban trees from development plans, the process of public notification of consents by councils is still too restrictive, and the bill continues to disallow the Minister of Conservation to determine coastal permits, despite our amendment to the contrary.

The Māori Party had every intention of trying to enhance the provisions of the bill during the Committee stage, to bring about the sense of balance we so vitally need between matters of environmental integrity and the rush for development. We put forward amendments to introduce a Treaty of Waitangi clause, to remove security for costs, to reinstate the ministerial veto for coastal permits, to initiate the transfer of powers from councils to hapū and iwi authorities, and to amend the process around which projects of national significance are considered, including the membership and functioning of boards of inquiry and the ability to raise appeals against decisions with the High Court. Never let it be said that the Māori Party has not tried to make the best of a difficult situation.

One by one the amendments were voted down, and, as that happened, we lost our sense of optimism about the potential of this bill to make a difference. Without those changes incorporated in it, the bill veers dangerously towards gaining the edge of economic progress at all costs. In the quest to streamline and simplify decision making, are we taking proper cognisance of the investment we must make in the world our grandchildren’s grandchildren will inherit? In the quest for development, will we end up with a poorer natural world, a more depleted environment, and a less secure world?

The Māori Party has talked often in this House about the concept of a genuine progress index, which is a way to understand the arithmetic and the consequences of growth, especially regarding Earth’s finite resources. We believe that we must learn the first law of sustainability: that growth in the rate of resource consumption cannot be sustained. It is to do with the fundamental questions of globalisation without regard for the health of humans or the prosperity of the planet. We ask again whether, in the race to streamline and simplify, we have actually created additional pathways that have the effect of being able to avoid community participation.

Let me remind the House of some of the statements of our people, as part of the 840 submissions that were received on this bill. The Ngāti Kuta resource management unit, from Te Rāwhiti in the Bay of Islands, challenged Parliament to ensure section 8 of the Act, which contains the Treaty provision, must be strengthened. Indeed, they suggested that some form of compulsion is required. Their reason for such a strong point of view is simply that the Treaty is always relevant and significant.

Ngāti Pāhauwera, both Raupunga and Mōhaka, pointed out that clause 68 limits the ability of iwi and hapū to participate in the decision making. This will mean a reduction in public scrutiny and negative environmental outcomes. Te Whakaminenga o Kapiti, Ati Awa, Ngāti Raukawa, and Ngāti Toa recommended that the Government should commit greater resourcing of iwi to help effective engagement in resource consent and plan change processes.

I need only think of the impact of the Foreshore and Seabed Act to consider how iwi and hapū rights are able to be utilised to protect the seabed and foreshore. Many of the submitters to the select committee spoke of their experience that regional councils fail to protect their interests and that councils do not share the Crown’s obligation to acknowledge or accommodate present and future Treaty claims.

Our capacity to exercise kaitiakitanga will be greatly impeded if we are not able to participate in decisions around resource management at all levels of development: local and national, small and large. The resource management unit of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Awa recommended including provisions in the Act to enable councils to commission cultural impact assessments from tangata whenua where an applicant fails to provide evidence of those assessments with the application for resource consent.

I could go on, but I think the point is clear. Aldous Huxley once said: “Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.” We believe that the legitimate arguments put forward by tangata whenua have been ignored. We are concerned that the Treaty provisions in the Resource Management Act are not being sufficiently regarded to the extent to make a difference. We were keen to give the Treaty greater status in the Act, so that decision makers would be compelled to recognise and provide for hapū as the Treaty envisaged. We are moved by the view of Ngāti Pahauwera that reintroduction of security of costs places iwi and hapū who have a genuine issue of appeal but who do not have a secure financial base in a position of ngoikore, or disempowerment.

We could have been world leaders; we could have taken up the opportunity to protect our environment, to care for our future, and to invite and sustain community participation. The health of our environment must remain at the very top of our priorities in moving our nation forward. This bill does not give us the confidence that the difference will be made. Our final vote is to be a vote against this bill; we are voting for the aspirations of our people.

I will take a call on the third reading of the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill. Labour supported the bill going to the Local Government and Environment Committee at the first reading, on the basis that the public submission process would provide ample, practical, and considered feedback from people who use the Resource Management Act. The aim of the Resource Management Act has always been to ensure the protection of the natural and physical environment, to encourage sustainable development, and to enable local participation in decision making to be achieved. The challenge has always been to ensure that the balance of interests is given weight in the practical application of what the law intended. On that challenge alone, diverse views have been reflected in this House about where the tipping point has occurred.

I, for one, recognise that in many communities, amongst tangata whenua, far too much weight has indeed been weighted in favour of those who can afford to protect their interests by using the process. National has touted its objectives as a means to streamline and simplify legislation. Interestingly, the bill as introduced received significant criticism at the select committee for poor drafting and introducing unnecessary confusion and complexity. I recognise that several changes to the original bill have been made by the select committee, and I commend its efforts.

Labour will support clauses that improve the performance and operation of the Resource Management Act, and that reduce costs and unnecessary delay, without significantly undermining environmental protection and public participation. But we do not support those changes that will rebalance the Act in favour of development per se. On that front, there were several aspects in the Committee stage, which Labour brought to the attention of the Committee, that do not meet those tests—firstly, the way in which resource consents are notified, as well as the removal of the Minister of Conservation’s decision-making power in relation to restricted coastal activities, and, secondly, the prohibition of district rules that allow authorities to have general tree protection rules in their district plans.

I spoke to the first two points in the Committee stage, and for the purposes of this contribution I will further highlight the fact that submitters recognised that removing the presumption in favour of notification, and truncating the time limit for public or limited notification, will mean that public participation will be undermined. This in turn will limit local community, hapū, and iwi involvement in decision making. Several councils noted that the current practice was that roughly 5 percent of consents were currently notified. This in part was due to either a heavy emphasis on involvement in the pre-consent process, working with tangata whenua at the front-end of processing consent applications as an early-alerts mechanism, or better processes for collating and aligning information to the consent process.

The bill proposes to raise the threshold of affected parties, to narrow the scope of parties that need to be notified. This may invariably impact on the broader interests of tangata whenua, who are often reliant on their marae, hapū, or iwi organisations to protect their interests. By the time their interests are recognised, they may have a very short time in which to state the nature of their interests, and more than likely will not have time to go back to the marae, hapū, or iwi collective to confirm a position. A consequence, sadly, is that an individual will take action on behalf of the broader collective in the meantime. I am still unsure whether clause 131 will enable marae, hapū, or iwi to act in the broader interests of the collective, and support an individual who has expressed concerns with regard to a particular consent.

On the matter of the removal of the Minister of Conservation’s powers, I was particularly cognisant of submission 729 from Te Kupenga o Ngāti Hako, who were concerned that this provision was being promoted due to issues arising from the Whangamata marina. By way of explanation of the work they do, I tell the House that this organisation deals with approximately 10 to 15 applications a month, and it has been a section 274 party to about eight applications affecting their rohe. As the Whangamata marina issues commenced in 1996, it is somewhat ironic for them that this issue commenced under a National Government. To date, the costs for this hapū in promoting and protecting the interests they believe they have, have been in excess of $300,000. To this day Ngāti Hako’s existing resource consent that was granted for the Whangamata marina is inadequately monitored—by their standards—by the regional council, and remains a source of great frustration for Ngāti Hako, who merely wanted to protect and preserve access to their customary fishing grounds and their pipi beds.

At some point, the Minister of Conservation should have a role to protect the public interest in coastal space that may end up compromised by the Minister for the Environment in applying the Resource Management Act without any regard whatsoever to some broader issues. I made the point earlier in the day that there are far-reaching implications of removing the Minister of Conservation’s role in the coastal space, where the Foreshore and Seabed Act could apply. In short, one cannot assume that the Minister for the Environment should fill that space, and I maintain that if it is not the Minister of Conservation, then it should be the Attorney-General in consultation with the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations and the Minister of Māori Affairs.

Ngāti Hako made the point in their oral submission that the Minister of Local Government cannot deal with Treaty issues. Certainly, issues around the foreshore and seabed will be partly considered in that context, as well. On the basis of decisions affecting tangata whenua in Auckland in the recent governance restructuring, I strongly agree with Ngāti Hako, and I urge the Government to reconsider this issue or we will be back to revisit this role at some point in the future. The select committee has been able to defer several issues to the phase two tranche of amendments: matters relating to the requirements of authorities, the role and function of the Environmental Protection Authority, and water reform, which will be eagerly monitored on this side of the House.

Finally, in relation to the Supplementary Order Paper amendments tabled by the Māori Party, which Labour endorsed, we certainly support the intention of these proposals. Given the nature of the coalition arrangement between the Māori Party and National there would have been clear direction in leadership from the outset if those Government parties showed that they were of one mind on these types of issues—and clearly they are not—rather than the Māori Party relying on Opposition parties and cobbling together support to be able to endorse what they see as fundamental points of policy that need to be agreed on.

The Government has continued to demonstrate its lack of support for the views espoused by the Māori Party. That is a very sad situation, especially given the immense anticipation of iwi and Māori throughout the country on the second tranche of Resource Management Act amendments. Labour generally agrees that where good practice exists, then it should inform policy to provide durable and workable solutions. For example, the Government, through its Treaty settlement process, tends to favour large natural groupings, and the way in which hapū interests are taken into account exists within this general approach. Regional councils already have a recognised process of working with hapū and iwi through the establishment of, for example, Te Manawhenua Forum under the Auckland Regional Council structure, and Ngā Iwi Toopu o Waipa under the Waipa District Council structure. There are many more, and I am sure Māori members could point to them.

There may be broader and wider implications on a range of policy fronts that would need to support the intent of what is being proposed by the Māori Party, and I would certainly encourage them to resume discussions quickly with their coalition Government partner National on the second tranche of the amendments. To simply stand in this House and say that this is what they think should be done, when they have the influence on this Government to be able to lead change at a policy level, is fundamental to achieving durable change for the interests of Māori.

I commend the select committee members. Certainly the chairperson, Chris Auchinvole, has stewarded this bill through in a responsible way. His leadership has been cordial and should be recognised in this House. The clerks and all the officials should be commended for the hard work that they have put into the number of submissions that have been heard. We certainly support the sensible amendments that have been contained in the bill as reported back from the select committee, even though we highlighted at the outset that the initial drafting was pretty scanty. We hope that the Māori Party will be able to significantly influence the second tranche of amendments that will have a huge impact on tangata whenua. Nō reira, kia ora tātou katoa.

Tonight we are debating legislation that is focused on protecting the beautiful country that is New Zealand. It is good that there is cross-party support for the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill. The Local Government and Environment Committee heard from 339 oral submitters, which took up 69 hours of our time in these hearings. The select committee process was very robust. During those hearings we heard the sometimes horrific stories of average Kiwis just trying to get basic consents. This legislation is dedicated to those Kiwis.

Officials have spent hours of hard work assisting our committee to improve this legislation. I want to thank the efforts of public servants and all of the submitters for their efforts to do that. I acknowledge my National colleagues on the Local Government and Environment Committee—the effervescent chair, Chris Auchinvole, Louise Upston, Cam Calder, Nicky Wagner—and, of course, I acknowledge the Minister for the Environment for bringing this legislation to the House. I acknowledge the individuals, businesses, and community groups that are listening tonight. There are community groups that have spent time and money on resource consents that could have spent that money on educating kids or spent their time on community projects like the farmers market in Grey Lynn.

The purpose of this bill is to begin to redress the balance of environmental protection and economic growth. It is a delicate balance, and at times it can be tough, but for too long this legislation has imposed unnecessary costs on businesses and communities. I am confident that these Resource Management Act reforms will reduce the time for processing consents and will reduce paperwork. The costs, uncertainties, and delays of the current Resource Management Act are costing New Zealanders jobs at a time when people most need them.

The current Resource Management Act has been holding up valuable infrastructure in areas like Auckland. This bill will go some way to fix that. It will ensure that projects of national significance will be processed in a timely manner so that New Zealanders and the country can benefit from them. Other than in relation to processing applications proposals of national significance, the role and functions of the Environmental Protection Authority are not defined in this bill but they will be expanded upon in the next phase of the Resource Management Act reforms.

There have been some very important changes to this bill as part of the select committee process, and I think it is time that we acknowledge them. There has been a strengthening of the provisions to ensure the timing and efficient processing of resource consents. The bill now limits rather than removes further rounds of submissions on plan changes to ensure property rights are recognised, and it strengthens the process for national consenting and national environmental standards. The select committee also chose not to proceed with the removal of the non-complying activity class as we believe that the transitional costs exceeded the benefits.

I think it is important to take a moment to acknowledge the Environmental Protection Authority. The establishment of this entity will be very important for New Zealand. I look forward to phase two of the reform, when the full powers and functions of the Environmental Protection Authority will be considered. Many speakers this evening have acknowledged the delicate balance between public involvement and ensuring that progress can be made in terms of consents. I think this bill strikes a good balance in that respect.

There has been robust debate this evening about trees. I believe it is reasonable for individuals to prune and trim their trees without a resource consent. As of 1 October Aucklanders and New Zealanders will be able to do that. It is good that that provision is supported by most of this Parliament. I am pleased that the Minister for the Environment is writing to all local councils and asking them to report back to him to ensure they protect high-value trees for our scheduling. The Minister has also confirmed that he will assess whether they are undertaking adequate scheduling. He has said that he will make a direction under section 25A of the Resource Management Act if they are not doing that. This is a positive step to give Aucklanders confidence in scheduling. I believe that this will help ensure historic trees and others with special value are protected.

Some of my constituents have raised concerns, and I have had the opportunity to raise them through this legislation, but I am very glad that the Minister has shown an ability and a desire to want to protect trees in Auckland, as well. There has been a lot of scaremongering this evening regarding trees, but these provisions regarding the removal of trees do not come into force until January 2012. That gives Auckland local authorities adequate time to ensure that they have good scheduling in place. The changes in Auckland local governance also have the potential in the long term to make scheduling easier as there could be one system of scheduling across Auckland. I have worked constructively on this issue with the Minister and the local community to allay those concerns, and I thank the Minister for taking that step. I look forward to working with him on this issue and on other issues in the future.

Phase one was about simplifying and streamlining the Resource Management Act. However, as the Minister has outlined, further reforms are needed to improve the economic and environmental outcomes of the Resource Management Act. The Minister has identified 10 related work streams. The first four work streams involve greater central government direction to improve the management of aquaculture, infrastructure, urban design, and water. I look forward to being involved with the Minister in those reforms. Our natural environment is a core part of who we are as Kiwis. It is a privilege to be in this House to support this legislation this evening. We are gifted as a country, but we must continue to be active to protect our natural heritage—our parks, our beaches, our rivers, our lakes, our mountains, and even our trees. Thank you.

From the outset of this debate Labour supported having this bill referred to the select committee. It was important from our point of view that the general public be given the opportunity to participate and give their evidence in such an important change to the Resource Management Act. We raised our concerns about the rushed and hasty manner in which the Government wanted to proceed with this bill. As a responsible Opposition party, Labour also expressed its willingness to work constructively with the Government to improve the operation and performance of the Resource Management Act, provided that the proposed changes did not undermine environmental protection, and that they did not undermine public participation. We believed from the beginning that if the Government were not so intent on showing off and flexing its ministerial muscles and its new powers as Government, and that if the Government were genuine in actually listening, we would have arrived at a bill that allowed for more efficient processes but still maintained environmental protection and meaningful public participation.

Earlier in the debate a National MP from Auckland commented that she was concerned about her Government’s amendments. But when asked whether she would do something about her concern, there was silence. Her behaviour, however, highlights a pattern that this Government seems to have well rehearsed in its 9 months in power. The pattern is one whereby it attempts to show empathy. Government members say they are concerned and attempt to portray that they are listening. They use the word “listening” repeatedly. This gives the impression that they are consulting people, but the reality is that they will go ahead and do what they want to do anyway, irrespective of whether the weight of evidence is against them, as is the case in three specific areas of this bill.

Protecting the environment and public participation in the decision making in managing and developing our natural resources are the two pillars that underpin the Resource Management Act. Although Labour supports the bill generally, there are three specific areas where we are still in disagreement with the Government. We disagree with the changes to the notification of resource consents. We do not support the removal of the Minister of Conservation’s decision-making ability in respect of restricted coastal activities. We oppose the removal of local authorities’ ability to have general tree protection rules in their district plans.

I want to focus on two of these areas and, firstly, say that Labour opposes the changes to the notification of resource consents. The current Act contains the presumption that consent authorities will notify a resource consent application, unless they are satisfied that the effects will be no more than minor and that the approval of the affected parties is obtained. Unless the application pertains to a controlled activity, public notification is not required unless a rule in the plan or proposed plan requires it, and notice must be served on any affected persons unless the relevant plans specifically state that notification is not required. The Government is now intent on changing all this by introducing clause 68, which will alter the process for the notification of resource consents. The Government’s amendments were bulldozed through in the Committee stage earlier tonight, even though 75 percent of submitters on this particular area opposed that clause.

What does this amendment mean? It means the National Government’s amendment is designed to neutralise the Act and remove the presumption towards notification of resource consents. It means the threshold for the required public notification is raised, and the threshold for affected parties is also raised. With this amendment, the Government lays out a foundation where the potential for reckless and irresponsible development could take place by some unscrupulous corporation, without that corporation then taking responsibility for any damage to our natural environment, and with little concern for the impact on the lives of local residents and their communities. It would seem from this specific amendment that the Government is giving big corporations the key to unfettered and uncontrolled development, driven by profit and taking no responsibility for any damage and destruction such corporations may cause to the environment and local communities.

The public shares Labour’s concern in this area. Let me give the House an example of how this Government’s amendment is going against the grain of public opinion. The public is asking for more input and more notification of corporate activities, but this Government is instead removing these protections. This week Sue Kedgley of the Green Party tabled the petition of Sharon Stewart, David Collings, and 1,451 others. By the way, Sharon Stewart is a National Party supporter from Howick. They requested that the House take urgent steps to prevent the construction of cellphone sites, cabinets, and electromagnetic radiation equipment immediately adjacent to residential homes, preschools, and retirement villages; to prohibit cellphone towers and similar transmission devices from being erected near educational facilities; and to legislate to require community consultation and notified consent prior to the erection of cellphone towers and similar transmission devices in residential areas, so that telecommunications companies are required to consult local communities on the location of cell towers, cellphone sites, cabinets, and other electromagnetic radiation equipment in the area, and to seek to come up with sites that have the least impact on nearby residential dwellings and schools. The community is concerned about phone towers because of the potential health risks they pose.

If Sharon Stewart, David Collings, and the 1,451 others who signed that petition are listening to this debate, they will hear clearly that the Government’s clause 68 goes against the thrust of what they are seeking in their petition. The people of Howick who voted National will be very worried by this clause and what it may mean for development in the Howick village. Without the general presumption either for or against notifications, I believe that the public can expect more and more activities to be advanced by big corporations through this amendment, without public input and without corporations taking any responsibility for their activities on the lives of people and their communities. Notification is important, and, as my colleague the Hon Shane Jones said tonight, notification is about participation, and participation is the cornerstone of our democracy in New Zealand.

I have also said that Labour opposes the removal of local authorities’ ability to have general tree protection rules in their district plans. Clause 52 prohibits councils from using blanket tree protection rules in an urban environment. Clause 52 says that a rule must not prohibit or restrict the felling, trimming, damaging, or removal of any tree or group of trees unless the trees are specifically identified in the plan, located in a reserve, or subject to a conservation management plan. Clause 151 requires councils using blanket tree protection rules to get rid of them by 1 January 2012. Labour believes that prohibiting the use of general tree protection rules undermines the ability of local authorities to decide how their local communities develop. The community’s response to the Government’s clause 52 is simple, loud, and clear: “Stop the chop, Dr Smith—stop the chop!”.

I will share with the House some recent emails sent from concerned citizens, which highlight why this message is important for the Government to hear. I quote Thea Govorko of Westmere, Auckland, who wrote and shared a very simple but very powerful message: “Trees are living creatures, and we need them. Kids play in trees, birds live in trees, trees protect us from the sun and they give us clean air to breathe. Trees block noise and shelter us from the winds.” Finally, I quote Tamsin McDonald: “I find it particularly abhorrent that clause 52 is supported by our leader, John Key, our Minister of Tourism. What a farce to even consider trying to promote a clean, green image of New Zealand, all the while sanctioning the wanton destruction of our urban forest. It is not only ludicrous but insulting to take the decision-making authority away from local government, as clause 52 does. To say that clause 52 is a cost-saving measure is ridiculous. The cost and time involved in listing on council district plans the individual trees to be protected will cost so much more, be so much more time consuming, and is an insane alternative to our current tree protection laws. Hundreds and thousands of trees will be lost needlessly and with no requirement for replanting.”

I am pleased and honoured to be the final speaker on the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill. As the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee, which was responsible for the bill’s processing, I found to my surprise that I developed an interesting relationship with the bill—not necessarily proprietorial, but certainly one of wanting to nurture it, care for it, and be concerned about it.

💬 Hon Member: Is it growing?

Well, it has grown. Indeed, it has grown in some ways and reduced in others. It is a bill that I have been very pleased and honoured to be associated with. It was a policy plank for National in 2005 and I campaigned on it. It was a policy plank for National in 2008 and I campaigned on it. The Government is delivering on its promises, and in the process I am able to keep faith with my undertakings to those who voted me in to the West Coast - Tasman electorate seat.

The Resource Management Act has been around for a while—for 18 years. We learnt lots from the select committee process. We learnt that in the last decade the costs of consenting have increased considerably and that the times for gaining consent have increased appallingly. Naturally, there was a reaction to that situation. Increasingly, councils have become defensive, and their processing has become increasingly litigious, as have the activities of those who were objecting. The net and gross results of the situation are that times for consents have increased, councils have become liability shy, and the system is not working as it was intended to work—hence the streamlining and simplification aspects of the bill. What will the bill achieve? Heaps!

The debate from the other side of the House has concentrated on very few points of difference—

💬 Shane Ardern: Heaps!

Would the member like me to say it again? Heaps! There are very few points of difference between the major parties or indeed between many of the parties. When one considers that there are 167 proposed changes in the bill, to have so few points of difference, albeit they are firmly held, to my mind is an indicator of a very sound law. I guess having been so close to the workings of the bill’s progress I would have enjoyed a wider-ranging debate perhaps on the way the bill deals with the way the Act has been used for commercial competition purposes. That merited more attention than it got in the debate.

National is determined to get the country working effectively and productively. Spending endless time in needless litigation is not productive and is extraordinarily expensive. The bill will address those needs. Looking after the environment does not, of itself, mean lots of red tape. The amount of red tape is not a good measure of how much protection is being offered. The bill is phase one of the Resource Management Act reforms that will reduce the time for processing consents and reduce the paperwork required. Phase two will address specific areas of concern covering aquaculture and the structure of the Environmental Protection Authority. It has been very pleasing to hear its structure being applauded from all sides of the House. Phase two will cover freshwater management, urban design, and infrastructure issues.

Let us scan for the listening public a few of the other points that have been covered. The bill removes frivolous, vexatious, and anti-competitive objections. It also restores security for costs. We all know of cases where costs have been lost through people operating as an incorporated society and folding their organisation in order to avoid meeting their cost obligations. The costs do not disappear. We had submitters who told us with some glee that they had avoided meeting costs, and they were quite proud of that fact. Costs do not disappear; they are simply passed on to other parts of the community that actually pay their bills.

Streamlining projects of national significance was also applauded by both sides of the House and will be something of really great importance for improving plan development and processes; limiting the appeals on councils’ planning role to points of law, except when leave is sought through the Environment Court; constraining cross-submission processes on plans; simplifying decisions by not requiring reference to or a decision on every submission, based on the issues raised; and clarifying the provision for councils and territorial authorities to prepare a single plan, not one each.

During the select committee process I was invited to address a group of about a hundred planners down on the West Coast. They came from all over. What interested me was the thirst they had for the changes that are being brought in. I would not be at all surprised if I heard that people involved at the coalface—at the front of the industry—feel we have not gone quite far enough. But the committee listened carefully to the submitters, and, in conjunction with advice from the officials, we have not sought to move too far too fast in phase one.

We hope the bill will break the impasse that has occurred in processing times, and from a legislation point of view I think it has done what was needed to be done. National gave an undertaking to introduce the bill within 100 days of becoming the Government and then to process it within 6 months. As the chair of the select committee that processed the bill I have a debt of appreciation to the Minister for the Environment and to the original technical advisory board. I have a debt of gratitude to all members of the committee for the manner in which they chose to conduct themselves in working through the whole process. It has been an invigorating, stimulating, and enjoyable process to work with each other. To the group of specialists who assisted us in the latter stages of the bill we are also grateful. The work of the officials, Parliamentary Counsel Office, and committee clerk and staff has been most appreciated. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.