Resource Management Reform Bill

I move, That the Resource Management Reform Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Local Government and Environment Committee to consider the bill. Resource management reform is a key part of the Government’s Business Growth Agenda. New Zealand needs a resource management system that enables growth, provides good environmental outcomes, and is capable of adapting to changing values, pressures, and technology. In 2008 the National-led Government initiated a two-phase programme of reform of the resource management system. Phase one of that programme resulted in the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Act 2009, which delivered a number of improvements to the operational efficiencies of Resource Management Act processes.

In phase two we are introducing the current bill and are also working on a cohesive package of reforms for our freshwater and resource management systems, with public consultation on wider reform expected in the first half of next year. The Government’s reform package is focused on delivering a system that answers communities’ planning needs, enables growth and job creation, and provides strong environmental outcomes in a timely and cost-effective manner. While we are considering that broader package of reforms, there are, however, some issues we can and must address more quickly.

The Resource Management Reform Bill 2012 provides 6-month limits on council processing of medium-sized consents, a one-off streamlined hearing process for the first Auckland Unitary Plan, a choice for major regional projects to be consented directly through the Environment Court, and enhanced requirements for councils to base their planning decisions on robust and thorough cost-benefit analysis. The costs, uncertainties, and delays of the current resource management system are affecting New Zealand jobs, infrastructure, and productivity, and they place an unfair burden on communities. They are causing frustrations for those wanting to progress important developments, including housing subdivisions, industrial developments, or infrastructure projects that collectively are worth hundreds of millions of dollars. It is also leaving communities with uncertainty and drawn-out battles for years on end, bringing with it significant cost. This bill delivers on National’s commitment to introduce a 6-month time limit on council processing of notified consents. It will help give certainty to communities and developers by reducing the time for consents by about one-third, from the current average of 9 months.

In terms of the economics of delays, a 2007 estimate put the cost per day of a hypothetical $10 million project being delayed at $2,200, which for a 3-month delay could mean an additional $140,000 of unnecessary cost. This is not about changing the basis on which the final decision is reached, but about getting to the decision more quickly, to give certainty and to lessen the cost and time impact on everyone involved.

The bill also proposes a simpler, direct referral path to the Environment Court for applicants of major regional projects, should they choose that route. The threshold for these projects would be smaller than nationally significant projects but still involve major investment. Councils would be required to permit the direct referral if the application meets certain criteria, unless there was a good reason not to. Exactly where the threshold should sit will be determined after a period of consultation and will be contained in regulation, to ensure that it can easily be updated to keep pace with cost pressures over time.

The bill also includes a one-off hearing process to streamline and improve the development of Auckland Council’s first Unitary Plan, while ensuring that Aucklanders will have comprehensive input and are assured of a high-quality independent review of the council plan. I am concerned that under existing law Auckland Council estimates that its first Unitary Plan could take up to 10 years to become operative. No one benefits from long, drawn-out, and expensive processes, during which time Auckland’s development stagnates in a cloud of uncertainty. Auckland’s economy is too important to New Zealand for us to wait up to a decade for the plan to be implemented. Auckland represents some of our most pressing housing affordability issues, and the council needs to be able to make changes to address this issue without long delays. The Unitary Plan developed by the council after enhanced consultation will be referred to a hearings panel appointed by me and the Minister of Conservation in consultation with the council and the independent Māori Statutory Board, to ensure that the consideration is properly independent. There will be the usual guidelines applied for making appointments, including a high degree of local knowledge, competency, and understanding of tikanga Māori. The process will involve all the dispute resolution options available in the Environment Court, and provide the board with wide discretion to control its processes to ensure that it is easily accessed and understood by all.

After considering the plan and hearing public submissions, the panel will deliver recommendations to the council. Those accepted will be immediately operative, subject to appeals only on points of law. Aucklanders will have full appeal rights to the Environment Court for any recommendations the council does not accept. The new process also requires a publicly available independent audit of the council’s evaluation of the costs and benefits of major policy changes. Under this new process it is estimated that most, if not all, of the plan provisions will be operative in 3 years, instead of the 10 it may otherwise have taken.

The bill also recognises that decisions made at local and regional level can have far-reaching effects on local jobs and growth. We need to make sure that elected councillors and hearing commissioners have all the information they need to inform their decisions, and that that information is public. Under this bill, councils will be required to undertake more robust cost-benefit analysis under section 32 of the Act, including considering how the local economy and jobs will be affected, before making major decisions on policy and planning. The bill requires the analysis to be proportionate to the size of the proposal, so that plans with major implications will need considerable and careful work, without burdening smaller plans with undue cost and effort.

There are a number of other issues that the bill will address. These include extending access to the emergency provisions under the Resource Management Act to all lifeline utilities, and clarifying the intent of the 2009 Resource Management Act amendment that councils are not able to introduce blanket tree protection rules in their plans. The bill also makes some minor changes to how boards of inquiry make their decisions when considering nationally significant proposals, and amends Environment Court procedures so that all proceedings must explicitly promote timeliness and cost-effectiveness.

Good resource management should contribute to our future environmental and economic prosperity. This bill addresses some significant issues now, while further work on water and wider resource management reforms continues. I commend the bill to the House.

Earlier, in question time today, the Prime Minister was reflecting on some of his upbringing. One of the things he did not discuss during that speech was the person whom he named as a child and then later in life as his political hero. That person was Sir Robert Muldoon. This legislation that is in front of us today owes an awful lot to Sir Robert Muldoon. It actually says in the regulatory impact statement for the Resource Management Reform Bill that the goal of this legislation is to provide “greater central government direction on resource management …”—greater central government direction on resource management. This is a continuation of this Government’s centralisation of power and taking away of decision-making rights from local communities. It fits right alongside the Local Government Act changes that were before this House that centralised power. It says—and Sir Robert Muldoon would be proud—that this National Government knows best. It knows better than local communities about how they should look after their resources.

We saw it with the Local Government Act, we have seen it with Environment Canterbury, we have seen it with decisions about transport, and here in the Resource Management Reform Bill we once again see a Government determined to take power away from local communities—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: How does it do that?

—and bring it back to itself. Dr Smith asks me how it does that. Well, let us just have a look at that, shall we?

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why is 6 months too long?

Let us just have a look at that, shall we? Let us have a look at clause 13 of the bill, which introduces an investment threshold. If a project or a consent is above a certain investment threshold, that will be directly referred to the Environment Court. Who is going to set that? Who is going to set the regulations for that? It is Ministers. Ministers will set the regulations. They will say what the level of an investment threshold is. It is not going to have anything to do with the local community and what it may want. That will come directly from Ministers. This investment threshold is an interesting one, because not only will it be set by regulation by Ministers but there is no attempt here to set any other kind of threshold. I do not know; in a Resource Management Act perhaps we might see a threshold of environmental impact that could be used. But, no, we do not have that; we simply have an investment threshold.

It is very interesting to look at the regulatory impact statement’s comments around this proposal, when it discussed the consultation on that. This is what the regulatory impact statement says: “There has been no departmental stakeholder or public consultation on the proposals outlined in this RIS. Most critically, there has been no consultation with the Courts to ensure that there is adequate capacity to deal with an increase in direct referrals. Inadequate Court capacity is a risk that would potentially mean that the proposal would not achieve its objective. … Without consultation,”—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Potentially. Maybe.

—without consultation, Dr Smith—“it is difficult to provide robust advice on the costs, benefits and risks of the two options.” So Government members come to this House with a proposal that they have not even consulted on as to whether it is a good idea. They do not know whether the courts have got the capacity to do it, and they think it is fine just to take that power away from communities.

I want to mention the changes that Amy Adams glossed over, and these are the changes in clause 12, which amends section 76(4A)(a), which will prevent councils from protecting groups of trees. I find myself asking what the National Party has against trees. What brings those members to this House to separate trees out from any other kind of natural resource and say that local communities do not get to control what happens there?

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Yes, they do.

No, they do not, Dr Smith. What this does is it says to local communities that if they want to protect trees, it will be an individual tree notified in a plan—an individual tree notified in a plan. That is as good as it gets—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Or group.

—or group, says Dr Smith, interjecting standing up when he should not be. A group of trees, actually, in this definition, is a line or a grove of trees in an adjacent area. Well, Dr Smith may or may not know it, but when councils and communities are looking at the protection of trees, they are actually looking beyond a line of trees adjacent to each other or an individual tree. What they are looking at is an overall plan for the kinds of trees and bush life that they want in their communities. Why should councils and local communities not be able to decide that a particular species of tree, or a particular type of tree, or trees of a certain height should be able to be protected? It is ridiculous. It will create a bureaucratic nightmare for councils, and that is deliberate. It is deliberately designed to make it more difficult to protect trees and easier to fell trees. That is the purpose of this. It goes directly against the Environment Court’s ruling on this matter, and it, once again, is this National Government saying to local communities that “We know better than you do about the protection of trees. We know better than you do in your local community about how to manage your resources.” It is, once again, Muldoonism on its way through.

I also want to mention a couple of other matters where the Government has done this, and one of these is the changes around section 32 of the Act. Under section 32, as it currently is in the Act, an evaluation of a council’s plan has to be undertaken. Well, the Government has now decided that that evaluation should focus on economic growth. That is what the Government has decided. That unbalances the inherent balance within the Act for sustainable development. It takes it away from sustainable development and says “We will prioritise economic development within sustainable development.” That is the purpose of the Act—sustainable development—and this fundamentally unbalances that. But, once again, look at what the Government has brought to the House. The regulatory impact statement tells us that under the section 32 changes, costs will be high because a lack of experience with cost-benefit methodology exists in councils. It then goes on to benefits, where it says the benefits would be medium and that they are not quantifiable benefits anyway. Then it goes on to say that there are high risks associated with these changes. Once again, the Government comes to this House with a proposal where the costs are going to be higher, where it cannot quantify the benefits, and where the risks are high, and it expects this House to vote for that kind of change when we do not even know whether it will benefit the kinds of things the Minster for the Environment said she was interested in.

There is a range of other clauses that the Labour Party has concerns about. Clause 11 amends section 53 of the Act to allow the Minister to make changes to national policy statements without following the consultation process. Once again, there is one set of rules for the Government and one set of rules for everybody else. The Government is making changes because it thinks it knows what is right, rather than in a manner that is consistent with this particular piece of legislation. The other aspects of this bill my colleagues will cover in some more detail, but one in particular is the question around the fast-tracking process for the Auckland Unitary Plan. In principle, the Labour Party is happy to see a process where we get through the Auckland Unitary Plan in a quicker and more efficient way—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Oh, that’s not Muldoonist?

—but what is Muldoonist, Dr Smith, is that this Government, the National Government, is going to decide who is on the panel that hears this. Well, I have some suggestions. We have had leaked from the National Party the memo with the four people who are likely to be on that panel. It is going to be chaired by Paula Rebstock, obviously—I mean, there is nobody else, is there? I think Tony O’Brien is there, Peter Kiely is there, and Stephen McElrea is there. That is what we have come to expect from this National Government. It puts the cronies in place to oversee something like this. So it is all very well to say that, yes, the Government will fast-track this Auckland Unitary Plan, but it is going to be controlled, once again, by Ministers.

The Labour Party understands that there is room for more efficient and effective processes within resource management, but this bill is not that. This bill is once again a power grab by this Government. It is taking away the rights from local communities to make decisions that affect them. It is putting in place unbelievably silly rules around things like trees and separating them out, and once again trying to avoid the public having a fair say in all the consents that affect them. We would like to support a bill that reforms the Resource Management Act to make it more effective and more efficient. Unfortunately, we cannot support this bill, because it does not do that in a way that retains community representation or in a way that gives local communities the ability to make decisions about their own resources.

In contrast to the previous speaker, Grant Robertson, I am very pleased to be supporting this bill, the Resource Management Reform Bill. We do need to see reform of the Resource Management Act, and we believe that these will be good reforms. National is absolutely committed to looking after our environment while encouraging economic growth. As Bluegreens we believe that good environmental practices underpin the prosperity of our nation, and that prudent and careful managing of our natural resources can and should go hand in hand with developing our economy. Improving the way that the Resource Management Act works is key to our Government’s programme, and this bill is the second tranche in Resource Management Act reform.

This bill has four distinct areas. The first is a focus on Auckland. It is a focus to streamline the planning process and to support the production of Auckland’s first combined plan in a good length of time. The second is to improve the time efficiency and effectiveness of the consenting process for medium-sized projects and to provide for easier direct referral to the Environment Court for major regional projects. The third, and this is what Mr Robertson has been discussing, is to require a more robust process with stronger information requirements for council decision-making, particularly around the analysis in section 32 reports. Finally, the fourth is a series of minor and technical amendments. This work follows up on the significant Resource Management Act reform that was done in 2009, which actually took a lot of the time of the Local Government and Environment Committee, and we were very pleased to do that work. Despite the dire predictions from Labour, following on from the conspiracy theories of Mr Robertson, we have had very good responses from those 2009 amendments. We have been very pleased to see how those reforms have been received. There has been hardly any criticism at all, and there have been significant improvements in the quality and the timeliness of the consenting process.

Also, we have seen the effectiveness of the national consenting provisions, or the Environmental Protection Authority consenting provisions, which have predicated some of this new work, and particularly in terms of the Waterview Connection decision-making. Everybody who was involved in that, regardless of whether or not they liked the decision, was pleased with the way the process worked out.

Finally, it was very good to see the creation of the Environmental Protection Authority, which came out of that legislation. Just last week the Local Government and Environment Committee reviewed the Environmental Protection Authority and discussed the establishment process and its first year of work, and was very pleased to see how well it was functioning. I believe that the establishment of the Environmental Protection Authority will be an important contributor to the effective management of our natural resources as we go forward.

Following this bill there will be further amendments to the Resource Management Act to deal with planning, weak planning, unnecessary costs and delays, and to introduce freshwater reforms based on the recommendations of the Land and Water Forum. This, of course, is particularly important legislation, and New Zealanders are keen to see new ways of managing our water resources. Everyone in this House understands the importance of getting this Resource Management Act legislation right, and the Local Government and Environment Committee looks forward to working on this bill, and looks forward to the submissions process. Thank you.

The Labour Opposition will be opposing this bill, the Resource Management Reform Bill. This bill amends the Resource Management Act, makes a number of changes to the Resource Management Act process, and imposes a 6-month consent time frame for medium-sized projects. It is phase two of a series of Government reforms to the Resource Management Act, with more coming next year, so let us start there. We have already had the experience of this Government doing things in a piecemeal way, in an ad hoc way, and with a half-baked approach, and that is what we are facing yet again with this bill. Why does the Government not complete its work and bring to this House a comprehensive piece of legislation for us to consider? Bringing in piecemeal pieces of legislation is a waste of the House’s time, and a waste of the time of the Local Government and Environment Committee, and means that those who want to submit to any bill that comes to this House have to do it two or three times, depending on how many times this Government decides it is going to bring in a bill that relates to the same topic.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Well, how come Labour had three RMA bills?

So I ask Nick Smith, who has probably been the author of this—I doubt whether Amy Adams is the author of it; right behind this are the hands and the fingerprints of Nick Smith—could he not have learnt from the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Act 2012 that you do things based on evidence, that you do the job first, and then you bring the bill to this House? But, oh no, here we go again with a half-baked idea that has had very little consultation.

I found the regulatory impact statement also very, very interesting. Remember the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill? It had a very interesting regulatory impact statement. In fact, it ripped the Government apart in terms of saying how poor its consultation had been, how rushed it had been, how it had not considered all the options because there was not time, and that there was no quantitative evidence to back up some of the claims that Nick Smith had made. So what does the regulatory impact statement say on this bill? It says this: “Given the nature of the issues covered in this policy process, accurate quantification of the size of problems, and the size of impacts has not been feasible across all options analysis. It is difficult to quantify the scale of costs reduction resulting from the proposals in this paper as they impact on a broad spectrum of business community and a mix of direct and associated holding costs.” In other words, the work has not been done, and the regulatory impact statement is pointing this out. It has not been feasible to look across all the options, so why not wait, get the evidence, and do the work before introducing a bill? But, no, once again, this Government rushes headlong into legislation before it has thought it through.

My colleague Grant Robertson pointed out the Government’s consultation processes. Well, it did a little bit of consultation in 2009; then it looks like it put it on the shelf and went away and forgot about it. There has been very little consultation since 2009. In fact, the regulatory impact statement says: “No subsequent consultation has been undertaken, including with the Environment Court in relation to capacity to implement proposed changes.” Well, would you not think you would go and talk to the Environment Court and ask them: “Will you be able to handle the cases we think will be coming through?” Would that not be a logical question? Would it not be your first question, because is this Resource Management Reform Bill not all about unblocking roadblocks—unblocking roadblocks? So what do Government members do? They put in place a bill and they do not consult the Environment Court and say: “Hey, can you manage this?”. So where is the next roadblock? It is likely to be at the Environment Court. So what a fundamental error this is by this Government on this bill to not do a simple bit of consultation before it rushed this bill. Two days before the House rises, one more day of Parliament, and it had to rush it in. It could not wait until next year to ask the Environment Court what it thought about it. That is what the regulatory impact statement says.

This bill is a power grab by this Government, and it is also, once again, taking away decisions from local communities. I believe it is an attack on local democracy, because we now see an emerging pattern in the 4 years of this Government. We have seen it with the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill where the Government took away the right of local people to have a vote on their regional councils, with spurious evidence and spurious argument. Everybody who submitted to that select committee knew it was spurious argument that was being used, including the commissioners themselves. Then we had the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill, which, once again, reduced the ability for local communities to have a local say. So this is just yet another example of this Government’s disregard for local communities and for democracy at a local level. We need a Government that works from the grassroots up, not the Beehive down, but that is all that we have had to date from this Government.

I have a series of questions to put to the Government. I would like some answers, and I hope we get them at the select committee.

💬 Chris Hipkins: Don’t hold your breath.

I will not hold my breath. But what is the estimated cost to local government of the Resource Management Reform Bill 2012? I want to see the estimated costs. Has the work been done, Dr Smith, on what the cost will be to local government? Having slagged off local government up and down New Zealand—having slagged them off because they are putting up their rates and increasing their debt—once again here is the Government imposing on local government. So what is the cost?

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: We’ll save them money.

That is not what local government believes.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: We’ll save the Auckland Council money.

That is not what Auckland Council believes. So if it is saving the Government money, put the costings on the table. Let us see the costings. I will be asking for them at the select committee. Have the costings been done by the Department of Internal Affairs and the Ministry for the Environment? Have they even been done? Where are they?

💬 Phil Twyford: Would you trust them?

No, you would not trust Government members with the costings because, obviously, this is an agenda they want to push forward and to hell with the consequences. I want to know what consultation has been undertaken with the Auckland Council on the impact of the Resource Management Reform Bill on its Unitary Plan, and in what way will it assist it. Is the council happy with what is being proposed in this bill? Have the Auckland Council Mayor and councillors said that they are happy with the proposals in this bill? After all, we are told by Amy Adams that this is to help Auckland. Well, are they happy? Give us some feedback on that.

We also want to know why the hearing panels under the Resource Management Reform Bill are going to be chosen by the Government. How can that be open and transparent? Why are Government members not allowing local people to make that decision? Are they going to allow a local representative on the hearing panel? I think the answer is no. I think Grant Robertson got it right when he said there has already been a list put out as to who is likely to be on any hearing panel: chaired by Paula Rebstock—the person who gets every chair available—with Stephen McElrea, Tony O’Brien, and Peter Kiely. So where is the local community representative on that hearing panel?

I also want to know what consultation has taken place with the Minister of Māori Affairs, Pita Sharples, on tikanga knowledge and Māori representation on the Resource Management Reform Bill 2012. Was he happy with the decisions that have been made as they affect Māori in terms of this bill? I would like to see the information provided by Dr Sharples on what he thinks about this bill. I suspect he is not very happy about it at all. What delays, if any, are estimated for local government by this bill? What delays will they face, and what will be the costs to them?

I also want to know what will be the impact—finally, the impact—of this bill on the recently passed Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill, because the four well-beings have been removed from the Local Government Act, and one of them was economic well-being, the others being environmental, cultural, and social. Those well-beings are not allowed to be considered now, but this bill says that there must be an overriding consideration for the economic development in an area. So how does it go when there is one thing that takes away the economic well-being, against this bill saying that people now need to consider it?

This bill is, once again, a dog’s breakfast. The Government ought to have waited and got it right, but it rushed headlong into a bill that I think is going to cause more problems than it is worth.

It gives me no pleasure to speak on the Resource Management Reform Bill, because it is one of three bills this year that have done little credit to New Zealand’s once highly regarded environmental management framework. At the start of the year we had the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill, with its very weak purpose, which has a framework that is now allowing Ministers to contemplate allowing deep-sea oil exploration as a permitted activity. Then we had changes to the Crown Minerals Act to allow the Minister of Energy and Resources, as well as the Minister of Conservation, to make decisions on any applications to mine on conservation land—and we know who will win that arm wrestle. And now we have got this bill. It is another attack by National on the Resource Management Act.

When the Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey Palmer, and then the Hon Simon Upton, shepherded the principal Act through this Parliament more than 20 years ago, the legislation was regarded as world-leading. It had been informed by extensive public consultation and discussion about the principles in the Act and the whole framework of the Act. And it was legislation that was consistent with New Zealand’s international reputation for being clean and green and committed to the careful stewardship of nature and to development that met the needs of present generations without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. It was enduring partly because of that bipartisan involvement and commitment to the Act. That image has been shattered. This year we cannot even look after the children of the current generation, without even thinking about future generations. The Government has abandoned its commitment to the Kyoto Protocol, we have attracted criticism from United Nations officials, and we have got a Government that is not committed to giving integrity to our “100% Pure New Zealand” brand.

On this bill there has been absolutely no effort by the Government to develop any cross-party commitment to the changes that may be needed to the Resource Management Act—none of the extensive public consultation that we saw on the principal Act—and so we risk zigzag policy-making where the next Government undoes much of the work of its predecessor.

So as a key part of the whole system of managing our natural resources and our environment, the Resource Management Act should not be an ideological football, but in this bill it is. We all benefit from clean rivers, from compact cities, from ground water that is not contaminated by nitrates, from sewage that is well treated and does not go into rivers, and from coastlines that inspire us with their natural beauty rather than being overshadowed by big, pretentious holiday homes, yet it is this sort of development that this bill will allow—development that cuts across that “100% Pure New Zealand” image. It is a shameful bill that the Green Party will be opposing, because it epitomises the National Government’s position to develop at all costs and to hell with the environment, and to go after the dollars now, with no thought for the consequences that that has for the quality of life for others, or the quality of nature.

It is a selfish bill to promote selfish development, and we are opposing it for a number of reasons. One of those is that it promotes speedy decisions rather than quality decisions. It is all about central government in Wellington getting involved in the minutiae of decision making, whether it is in Auckland or whether it is the timetable for councils to consider consents. When you have a 6-month time limit on councils being able to consider and process consents, regardless of the scale and complexity of the application, that cuts across the community’s ability to get involved. Any developer can spend years working up an application and put it into council, and then the community gets a month, effectively, to be able to understand the development and make submissions on it. So that will lead to quick decisions, yes, but not ones that are good quality, not ones that recognise the scope of environmental impacts. Again, another way the bill reduces public participation is that it sets a limit of 20 working days on the public submission period, again regardless of the scale of the proposal.

The bill restricts access to justice, to the Environment Court, because—and this, I think, is a direct attack on NGOs, like the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society, which have had to pick up the baton because we do not have statutory agencies such as the Department of Conservation engaging in the level of resource management advocacy that they used to—it limits interested parties status in any Environment Court appeal to those that are directly affected by the application. What that means is that if someone from Whitewater NZ has an interest in a river but may not kayak that river herself, and there might be a future potential recreational value of the river, she potentially will not be allowed to get involved in any Environment Court appeals as an interested party.

The bill is also bad because of the way in which it makes it much more difficult for councils such as that of Manawatū to introduce regulation to control intensive land uses such as intensive agriculture. This is because the changes to the section 32 analysis bring into play assessments of economic growth anticipated to cease if the council introduces rules controlling, for example, nutrient leaching or stocking numbers in sensitive catchments. This means that the council now has to have particular regard to that economic impact. This follows on from Minister Carter’s criticisms of the Manawatū plan for introducing rules that seek to protect our rivers, to clean up our rivers, and put rules in place to do that. This is why the Government is targeting councils that do that by making it very difficult to put in place regulation through the much more stringent section 32 requirements. Again, on the Auckland combined plan, the Minister mentioned consultation with the council about appointing the hearing panel for the Auckland combined plan, but there is no right for the Auckland Council to appoint the commissioners who will hear the submissions on its combined plan. Once again, it is control central—this Government wanting to direct everything from Wellington. Is Auckland happy with that? I doubt it.

And again, just like the Environment Canterbury legislation, the Government is seeking through the bill to restrict appeal rights. People will be able to appeal decisions on the Auckland combined plan to the Environment Court only if the council rejects the recommendations of the Government’s stacked hearing panel. It cannot appeal to the court if the council upholds those recommendations. Again there is a very limited period—20 days, I think it is—for the council to consider the hearing panel’s recommendations. So we have got a very truncated process to make sure that the Government hearing panel on the Auckland combined plan comes up with the recommendations that the Government wants, and there is a very limited ability to challenge it.

So not only is the bill reducing the ability of the community to participate in resource consent decisions but also it is reducing the scrutiny that those decisions will get in the Environment Court by the restrictions on participation in appeals and the limitations, particularly in the Auckland Council process.

So the Green Party will be strongly opposing the bill. The streamlining that the Government is talking about will result in poor decisions that have the fingerprints of Wellington all over them, rather than promoting local decision-making by communities and public participation, which was such a cornerstone of the Resource Management Act when it was introduced. Thank you.

Firstly, I want to commend the Minister for the Environment, Amy Adams, for this bill, the Resource Management Reform Bill, which sensibly builds on National’s first phase of changes to the Resource Management Act. One of the principal changes in this bill is to limit notified consents to being done within 6 months. Let me give members opposite a very practical example of why that change is needed. Right now in my community the Government is wanting to build a teen parent unit to give the opportunity for teenagers and their babies to be able to get a good-quality education. It is disgraceful—disgraceful—that a simple change to allow that to be built on the site of a primary school and an early childhood education centre not only requires a resource consent but also has been delayed by more than 6 months because of the Resource Management Act. Members opposite have the gall to get up in this House and to lecture us about child poverty, and yet we are trying to do something about it to resolve it in that way with bills like this, and they say no. My challenge to Eugenie Sage is this: how was the management of water in Canterbury helped by it taking 19 years to get a damned water plan? And I ask: how are the issues of Auckland helped by it taking 10 years to get a plan for developing our biggest city? We say that we can do better.

Although this bill is technical, it actually illustrates so aptly at the end of this parliamentary year the differences between this National Government and the members opposite. We on this side of the House are about making the Resource Management Act work more efficiently, so that we can build the infrastructure, so that we can have affordable homes, and so that we can build the industries and grow exports and jobs. Members opposite have made plain in their contributions on this bill that they stand for bureaucracy and procrastination—bureaucracy and procrastination. You see, when they were in office, the number of late consents grew from 6,000 a year to 16,000 a year. What did they do? Absolutely nothing. And what did they do when it took years—a decade, like the Whangamata marina—to get a resource consent? They introduced three resource management amendment bills, and every one of them made the process more bureaucratic.

So I am delighted that we are ending the political year on this Resource Management Reform Bill. It shows that National is walking the talk on making sure we have got modern infrastructure. It shows that National is walking the talk, and not just shedding crocodile tears, on the issue of affordable housing. It shows that National is walking the talk with businesses that actually have the capacity to grow exports and to grow jobs. This bill is actually a test at the end of the year. Are members in favour of jobs, exports, affordable housing, and growth? Opposition members are saying no. We are saying yes. We have got a plan, and we are delivering on it.

I am taking a call on behalf of New Zealand First on the Resource Management Reform Bill 2012. Can I just say that in this particular instance it is very clear that New Zealand First is the central party of politics in this country—and we will be taking the central middle ground—in that we see arguments on both sides. But in this instance we are prepared to support this bill through its first reading in order for the Resource Management Act to get a fair airing and a fair hearing, and for it to be reviewed in a proper manner.

I think we would all agree—and I do not think anyone would really dispute it—that there have been some issues around New Zealand on occasion where the Resource Management Act has been brought into disrepute and there have been major problems as a result, and where a review of the Act certainly would see some improvements being made to it. I can recall being involved, for instance, in the Pak ’N Save Wairau Road supermarket instance, which had gone on for something like 18 years, and where one party, one of the major supermarket operators, took on the other supermarket operator—there had been only two in the country—and very much used the Resource Management Act to stop the Pak ’N Save supermarket going ahead. The supermarket operator was very much seen as a vexatious litigant and used all sorts of things like traffic issues and other issues—even though its own supermarket was 5 kilometres away and had no bearing on the new Pak ’N Save whatsoever—and all sorts of spurious arguments under the Resource Management Act to stop the competitor setting up.

There were many other examples. I sat as a Resource Management Act commissioner for 9 years, and we had similar problems when the Birkenhead Library was demolished, prior to getting resource consent, and then spent 2 or 3 years finally getting a resource consent to replace the library with another library, which seemed an odd situation. Likewise, getting the consent for the Albany Senior High School was a major undertaking, and, again, there were some very spurious arguments around that. At the end of the day they were met, but they did delay for several years the high school being built and added a huge amount of expense. At the end of the day, the community really wanted to find a way through it, but, again, it was very, very awkward.

I can also remember, with the Auckland Regional Council, when the North Shore City Council submitted consents for 64 water catchment areas on the North Shore. There were 64 different water catchments on the North Shore, and we were given only a 6-year consent. Even though it had cost $2 million for the application and it had taken our staff of the council more than a year to prepare the consent, we were then provided initially with only a 6-year consent. We said that when we were spending that sort of ratepayers’ money—$2 million—and getting only a 6-year certainty of the resource consent, then that was very, very poor use of public money. We managed to convince the Auckland Regional Council to extend that period out considerably longer than that.

These are the sorts of things that go on throughout New Zealand. They were only my personal experiences from the North Shore and within Auckland, but if you multiply that out around the country it is a very, very expensive process that can cost communities a great deal of money. We often refer to the Resource Management Act as the “rich man’s Act”, and many people refer to it as the “rich man’s Act”, because it usually meant that the party that had the deepest pockets, that could employ the most expensive consultants, and that could stretch it out the longest would often try to win the argument simply by investing more and more money into the particular problem. What we did find in many instances was that, of course, communities suffered, because often it was community groups, conservation groups—the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society, or whatever—that under the Resource Management Act were being put to a huge amount of expense to try to take on some various situations that were very, very costly for communities.

Again, I can recall the Long Bay development plan, which took a number of years. The locals had to raise many, many hundreds of thousands of dollars to fight the development at Long Bay. Again, it seemed that the whole process was an incredibly long and litigious one, which perhaps had it been able to be sped up, and had heads been able to be knocked together a little bit more speedily, it would have saved everybody a huge amount of grief and money.

Having said that, we also agree that the Auckland Plan is a major concern to Auckland. It is necessary to get the Auckland Plan in place, and there are merits in speeding up that process so that Auckland can get on with one plan. We are supportive of that, but we certainly do have some concerns. We would hope that the hearings that are held by appointed commissioners are held in a full and frank manner and certainly with good intent. We certainly would not want the plan to be controlled from Wellington, for a controlled outcome. We certainly want to ensure that Auckland gets the best results from that. From speaking with different Auckland Council members, most of them are very supportive of the idea of getting this bill through so that they can get on with the Auckland Plan. If Auckland is to succeed in its economic growth, then it certainly does need that to do so.

Likewise, when you read in this bill that there is a need to consider regional economic impact and opportunity costs, and costs and benefits, as a result of this bill, again, there are opportunities in communities around New Zealand. If the Resource Management Act can be fine-tuned and can be improved in some areas, then it certainly could help economic and regional development around the country by doing so. However, having said that, as I said at the beginning, we are the central party of New Zealand politics, which sees both the good and the bad, and we do have some concerns about the proposal that the hearing applications for water conservation orders under the Resource Management Act will not be subject to the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987. That is somewhat concerning to us because we do feel that anything to do with water, water rights, or applications for water should be a very transparent and open public process. The public have a right to know what is being heard and the finding of that, and the background to any hearings. So we will be raising that particular aspect with the Government, because we believe that it should be open and transparent and that there should not be smoke and mirrors when it comes to those sorts of issues.

But, overall, we will support this bill through. We will raise some issues with the Government, in terms of the Resource Management Act. It is an important piece of legislation for New Zealand. It is a piece of legislation that does safeguard our environment and safeguard our communities to a great extent. But it has become at times very unwieldy and expensive, and perhaps has been an undue cost on many communities in New Zealand that are trying to move ahead. That having been said, if we can find some middle ground, if we can find some areas where it can be modified to everyone’s satisfaction, including those who are very, very strong in terms of conservation and the environment, if we can find ways through to improve it overall, then I think most New Zealanders would support that. Thank you.

I am pleased and will be very interested in the Local Government and Environment Committee’s discussion on section 32 of the Resource Management Reform Bill, which deals with considerations, inserted by clause 69. There has been identified a lack of direction in the consideration provisions of section 32. I am particularly mindful of the Otago Regional Council’s water plan, which is going to have a large impact on water users throughout the Otago Regional Council’s area, and the deficiencies that were identified in the section 32 report associated with that plan, which had no numbers associated with it. So I am very keen to see this bill progress through the House so that we can get some more robust consideration of the economic impacts. I look forward to the select committee’s consideration. Thank you.

This bill, the Resource Management Reform Bill, represents the latest instalment in this Government’s slide into Muldoonism, and it is the latest exhibit, really, in a long line that we have seen under this National-led Government. You see, it never saw a power exercised by a local council in this country that it did not want to take for itself. It never saw a council that could not have been improved by the appointment of commissioners and the sacking of elected representatives. It is a long litany and it bears repeating, I think. It goes back to the establishment of the Auckland super-city, where it overrode the democratic rights of Aucklanders to have a vote on the super-city. It took away that right, and it proceeded to corporatise 75 percent of local government and take all those operations and activities out of the reach of ordinary citizens and away from the normal democratic process. We saw it with the sacking of Environment Canterbury because National’s corporate dairy-farming mates were not getting quite enough free irrigation consents.

We saw it with the systematic stripping away of local government rights enjoyed by communities around this country, in two bits of legislation—most recently, the abolition of the four well-beings, the narrowing of the purpose statement of local government, and the taking away of all sorts of powers that communities have enjoyed for many years, including the right to vote on amalgamations. We have seen it in the way that this Government has spent most of the transport budget on big, new State highway projects, forcing local communities to pay more and more for their local roads or let them fall into disrepair. The latest land transport management legislation also very explicitly takes away powers from regional councils and gives them, through the Government policy statement, to Cabinet to determine transport funding priorities. So there is a pattern here, and we have seen it in one piece of legislation after another with this Government. It is centralising more and more decision-making power in the executive arm of Government, and away from local government and away from local communities. That is what is going on here. That is the context in which we have to see this Resource Management Reform Bill.

I want to give three examples of this Muldoonist tendency to centralisation. The first is the issue of blanket tree protections. That is something that is worth looking at. It is worth a little bit of scrutiny, I think, the way this Government is overriding the rights of local communities. It is overriding rulings that the Environment Court has made and is trying to make it much harder, more expensive, and more bureaucratic for local communities to use the provisions of the Resource Management Act to protect trees. Secondly, let us look at the Auckland plan, because I think that is another very interesting case study in this Government’s Muldoonism and its complete inability to resist taking powers for itself, and we will look at that in a bit of detail. Then, thirdly, there are a number of other measures in this bill. They are a grab bag of measures that repeat this tendency that is on display so often with this Government to take powers away from local communities and invest them in central government.

The spiritual godfather of this bill could be said to be Ronald Reagan, the former US President, who is often said to have said that “Once you’ve seen one redwood tree, you’ve seen them all.” In fact, that is very unkind to Ronald Reagan, because he has been misquoted so many times. In fact, what Ronald Reagan said was “A tree’s a tree. How many more to you have to look at?”, and that pretty much sums up this Government’s attitudes to the urban forest that Aucklanders treasure so much. This bill could be known as Nick Smith’s revenge—it is the remaking of the chainsaw massacre of 2009, when, in a very ham-fisted way, Nick Smith tried to take away from local councils the ability to use blanket protection measures for trees by deeming that trees in a certain area were to be protected, and, if they were to be severely pruned or cut down, then the owner would need a resource consent. So what Nick Smith tried to do back in 2009 was, basically, to dictate that councils would have to individually name particular trees that they wanted to save. The Environment Court looked at this and said “What a load of nonsense.”, and said that it was going to allow, in the North Shore and Waitakere legacy plans, councils to basically say that trees in a certain area could be covered by blanket tree protection rules.

So the provisions in this bill on trees in section 76(4A), in clause 12, are deliberately about trying to overturn the Environment Court ruling and, basically, make it virtually impossible for councils to protect their trees. They either have to name specific trees or a grove or a line of trees in a property or adjacent properties. The effect of that is that it will become humongously expensive for councils to protect trees. They will no longer be allowed to protect trees of a certain species or of a certain size; they are going to have to name certain trees or a grove or a line. This is hugely ironic. This is the Government that rails against councils about how they are spending too much money. It accuses them of being bureaucratic, and then it is imposing a cost of what will undoubtedly be millions of dollars in the case of the Auckland Council, if it wants seriously to protect the trees in the leafy suburbs and in the Waitakere Ranges, for example. In places like Titirangi and Laingholm, the communities there have about 40 percent higher rainfall than anywhere else in the rest of Auckland. There is a real problem with instability and erosion. The trees in places like that—in the Waitakere Ranges—are basically holding up the roads and the houses, and if we see the deforestation that many people predict as a result of this bill, then the blame will lie fairly and squarely on the shoulders of this National Government.

The other thing that is worth noting, as well as all the aesthetic and quality-of-life benefits of the urban forest in Auckland, is that trees have a huge benefit for stormwater. Every tree, scientists calculate, treats 16 cubic metres of stormwater. If we see deforestation in parts of west Auckland, for example, of any significant scale, then there will be a huge negative impact on stormwater, and erosion. So there is a terrible irony in this, in that the same National Government that rails against councils, accuses them of overspending, and accuses them of being bureaucratic is actually imposing massive costs on local government or forcing it into a situation where it will simply be unable to protect its urban forest.

I want to move on to the issue of Auckland, because Labour has signalled that we are willing to give qualified support to the Auckland Council for the proposal that the Auckland Council took to the Government for a fast-tracked process for the Auckland Unitary Plan. Many of us are very sympathetic to the Auckland Council’s argument that the bedding-in of the Unitary Plan should not be allowed to take 5, 6, 7, or 8 years, but the support is qualified because it is unclear to us, as it is to many commentators, that this process will actually deliver a shortened time frame and a good result. But the thing that is really interesting about this is that the Government could not resist taking control of the process. So what has it done? It has said “OK, we are going to appoint the hearings panel that is the one-stop-shop for considering the Auckland Unitary Plan.” Paula Rebstock, Peter Kiely, Stephen McElrea, Tony O’Brien—fine, upstanding New Zealanders, and true friends of the National Party. People like this will be making the decisions, because this Government has hijacked Auckland’s Unitary Plan process.

It is a plan that belongs to Aucklanders. The bill for it will be paid for by Aucklanders, but this National Government could not resist putting its sticky fingers in the cookie jar and hijacking the Unitary Plan process that should belong to the people of Auckland. It is typical. It follows on an established pattern of hostility that this Government has towards Auckland. It cannot stand Mayor Len Brown’s agenda for public transport in Auckland. It cannot stand the agenda for a quality, compact city. It can barely disguise its contempt for it, and that is why it is insisting on putting its own people into a hearings panel, so that it can exercise control and take it away from the people of Auckland.

I am very pleased to speak on the Resource Management Reform Bill. The first thing I want to say is that we have a very good record in terms of local government and resource management reform. We have, under the first phase of resource management reform, reduced late consents from 31 percent to 5 percent. A lot of our reforms focus on reducing cost to businesses, households, and local government. But what I am absolutely shocked about is when the Labour Party stands up in this House today and says it cares about Auckland and it cares about housing affordability—the two key provisions in this bill that will do something for the young people of Auckland in terms of housing affordability are, firstly, 6-month consenting for medium-sized projects, which are developments in Auckland, and, secondly, the Unitary Plan process so that we do not have 10 years of trying to actually consent some of these major developments—and the Labour Party opposes the bill.

So my message to Aucklanders is that this bill is crucial in terms of housing affordability for Auckland. I am gobsmacked that the Labour Party is opposing this. The two key provisions around consenting for major developments but also the Auckland plan process, which Len Brown asked us for—he is not a Muldoonist person, as Mr Twyford has said. He asked us for this process. We are delivering this for Auckland—two key things that will help young Aucklanders get into housing—and it is being opposed by the Labour Party.

This comes in a long line of opposition to good reform in Auckland. The Auckland local government reform was widely held up at our local government hearings recently as something that has been successful. It has seen a reduction in water costs in our city. It has seen a major reduction in regulations in our city. This is about getting Aucklanders into houses in a much more affordable way, and I am gobsmacked that the Labour Party is opposing this.

A split call—Moana Mackey.

Well, Nikki Kaye might be gobsmacked that we are opposing this bill, the Resource Management Reform Bill, but if she had actually listened to the speeches by my colleagues, she would understand why this bill will not do any of the things that she has just outlined. In fact, the Labour Party put together a very good housing policy that will make a difference and that will build 100,000 houses. It is a very comprehensive policy—a very comprehensive policy. That is the kind of thing we need to see out of a Government that is taking affordable housing seriously, not gutting the Resource Management Act, taking protections away from trees, and putting in place time frames. We are going to be looking at that 6-month time frame very carefully at the Local Government and Environment Committee. I remember that when the Hon Dr Nick Smith was in Opposition he put forward a member’s bill to put time restrictions on Resource Management Act consents. Local government was horribly opposed to it, because often there are many good reasons why it cannot do a consent within a prescribed time period.

But what we are seeing in this bill overall—and this is why Labour is opposing it—is a power grab again. That is what we saw in recent weeks with the local government legislation, and that is what we are seeing here today. This is taking away more power from the grassroots in New Zealand. We are going to have more decisions made not from the grassroots up but from the Beehive down. That is the modus operandi of this National Government.

I do not know why the National Party does not trust local government. It is democratically elected, yet what we have seen consistently from this National Government since it was elected are moves to take away the right for people in Canterbury to elect their own regional council. And when the Hon Dr Nick Smith, who was a Minister at the time, was asked why he thought that was appropriate—and people in Canterbury still are not allowed to elect their regional council—he said that it was because he was worried about the outcome of the election. Well, that is called democracy. That is called democracy. Unfortunately, democracy means that the people’s will is going to determine the decisions that are going to be made in future, and Governments have to roll with the punches and live with that. It is simply unbelievable that a Minister of Local Government would say: “Well, I’m going to take away the rights of people to elect their regional council because I don’t like the decisions that that democratically elected regional council has been making on a decision as important as water allocation in the Canterbury Plains.”

So then we had the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No 2) that, again, strips away power from local authorities. Basically, it tells them that they are in charge of roads, rates, and rubbish, and nothing else. Anyone who has had anything to do with local government knows that that simply is not the case. Local government is a crucial partner with central government in future economic development well-being, environmental well-being, social well-being, and cultural well-being. But National has taken those well-beings out, and said to local government: “We’re going to put you in a position where legally now you could be very easily challenged, because before it was clear that that was your mandate.” I look at the Ashburton District Council, which put together health services for the people of Rākaia because there were none there. Without local government, those people would not have access to health services. That fell under the mandate of the four well-beings. Well, that is gone now. That could be legally challenged.

So how is all this about reducing costs to local government when all we are doing is increasing uncertainty, which, by its very nature, will result in legal challenges and will increase costs to local government and to ratepayers? And, lo and behold, here we come to the first Resource Management Reform Bill. It is one of two that we have been expecting.

Again, the changes made under the guise of reducing costs and streamlining are not about reducing costs and streamlining; they are about limiting public consultation, limiting community involvement in the decisions that affect them directly, and giving more power to central government and, in particular, to the Minister. I could not believe it. The Hon Dr Smith basically said that this was because he wanted a teen parent unit in Nelson. This is why we are having to gut the Resource Management Act, because he wanted a teen parent unit in Nelson. We have got a great one in Gisborne, and it happened with the Resource Management Act. There are teen parent units all around the country that manage to survive the horrific Resource Management Act process. I think that it is extraordinary that that was a reason given by the member.

Finally, I want to come to the issue of trees in Auckland. I do not pretend to understand the depth of feeling surrounding trees in Auckland. I guess it is kind of like the Gisborne to Napier rail line. But I do appreciate the comments made by my colleague Phil Twyford about what this might mean on an issue that is very serious for Auckland residents. We had another big bust up about it back in 2009 when they made Resource Management Act changes then, as well. Again, you have got the Hon Dr Nick Smith, who, as my colleague Phil Twyford pointed out, seems to be saying that you do not need a lot of trees; you could just have one and look at it a lot of times. That seems to be the approach being taken here.

I want to congratulate my former colleague Lynne Pillay on the work she did with the Waitakere Ranges Protection Society legislation. I would hate to see that good work by Lynne Pillay undermined by the provisions in this bill.

I am going to focus my remarks mostly on how this bill, the Resource Management Reform Bill, impacts on Auckland. I guess if I were to summarise the provisions in this bill that are about Auckland, I would have to say that this bill shows that Wellington hates Auckland. This National Government hates Auckland. Having dismantled democracy in Canterbury, having ripped the guts out of local government with the Local Government Act 2002, and having forced the amalgamation of Auckland, this Government is now set to slip through another piece of legislation that enshrines the power of the Government to interfere—interfere—in local government.

This bill will do to Auckland what the Canterbury earthquake achieved in Christchurch—that is, the handing over of power and control of the future development of the city to the National Government’s agents. It is outrageous that this bill allows the Government to appoint the hearings commissioners who will hear the first Auckland Unitary Plan—the combined plan. Just to remind the House, that combines the regional policy statements, regional plan, city and district plans, and regional coastal plans. These hearings commissioners also set the terms of reference for the whole plan.

We have seen this before from this Government. When it forced through the amalgamation of Auckland and it put that legislation in place, it also set up seven council-controlled organisations, and it appointed the directors of those council-controlled organisations. One of them was Auckland Council Investments, which oversaw the board of the Ports of Auckland. The Ports of Auckland, I remind the House, has seen the worst industrial dispute on the wharves at Auckland since the 1951 lockout. That is what happens when this Government appoints its cronies to positions of power. This bill once again allows the Government to meddle with, and interfere in, Auckland. It includes the provision that the Ministry for the Environment will audit the planned economic and environmental analysis before the plan—the combined plan—can be accepted. It is another example of the Government parachuting in its people.

The Government makes no apology that this bill once more reduces citizen participation in local government issues, once more aimed at reducing local democracy. The regulatory impact statement says it really baldly. It says the bill will “provide greater central government direction on resource management”. So this bill and its impact on Auckland is the streamlining process for the Auckland Plan. That includes the 3-year deadline. There are pros and cons about that, but it has got to have it done and dusted within 3 years. There is only a 20-day period for the council to decide whether to accept or reject the hearing panel’s recommendations, and then there is a whole raft of very complicated processes that have to happen if it does reject it.

Then there are also the provisions in the bill about unilaterally deciding to cut submitters from the process—for example, if they miss out on a pre-hearing meeting without giving reasonable excuse, and it has not defined that. It sets out to punish councils in New Zealand with penalties if councils do not get the resource consents through in the 6-month time period. That is despite whatever the size of the project is. Given the deregulation that occurred in the 1980s, and the whole leaky building saga that councils and the Government have had to deal with in the decade since, one would think it would be fairly short-sighted to introduce legislation that once more means we will not be taking care with how developments proceed and with what kinds of restraints we should have on them.

I guess to sum up, the Greens will be opposing this bill because it weighs heavily in favour of developers and does not give enough recognition of, or care for, future generations in the development of our cities.

I rise to speak with pleasure on the Resource Management Reform Bill 2012. This is the second piece of such legislation that this Government has brought through. We made it an election promise in 2011 that we would do so, and we are firm in our resolve.

There has been a lot of silly talk about not much consent and this being anti-Auckland. For the benefit of those who have not read the bill and are not aware of its provisions, let me say that there is a 6-month consenting for medium-sized projects, of which there are about 1,600 processed each year. That 6-month statutory time limit for local authorities to reach consent decisions will reduce costs, reduce uncertainty, and reduce delays. This is about reaching consent decisions faster, not changing the final decision. Incidentally, the 6-month time provides a 20-day submission period, which is exactly the same as the current system.

I would say, in summary, that these cost uncertainties and the delays about the current resource management system are affecting New Zealand jobs and infrastructure. I hear a lot about it on the North Shore from my constituents, that this is a real barrier to them making progress in their businesses and in the work that they want to do. They encourage us to put through these reforms. It is delivering on our commitment, and I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.