Wagner Nicky; Dyson RuthHon NICKY WAGNER (National): Thank you Mr Speaker. National opposes this bill and we oppose it simply because we don't believe that it will deliver on its purpose. Supposedly the bill is supposed to reduce complexity it's supposed to increase certainty and it's supposed to improve resource management processes. I could support the bill if I thought that the amendments had any chance of reducing complexity had any hope of assuring certainty and had any possibility of improving resource management processes. But I believe the amendments generally speaking will make the situation even worse. The bill amends the Resource Management Act of course but it also largely reverses changes made by the Resource Legislation Amendment Act 2017. The main purpose of that bill was to reduce bureaucracy and red tape that was stifling job growth that was stalling house building and that was really making it difficult to have effective environment management—all these things that we should be supporting right now. We don't want anything to make it more difficult to get a job or harder to get a house. I think everyone agrees that good environmental outcomes—we need more consistency and more responsive planning across the country and better alignment with existing plans and legislation but this bill won't do that either.The Resource Management Act was originally introduced in 1991 which is well over 30 years ago and it was at that stage about 300 pages long; it's now got to over 800 pages long and it's been patched and amended so many times that it's almost impossible to read. It was originally considered cutting edge; now I don't think it's fit for purpose. You've got to be a highly paid specialist lawyer to even read let alone interpret its many myriad of rules and regulations.Listening to people talking in the House today I think everyone agrees that the Resource Management Act is now inaccessible and underperforming making it almost impossible to get the decisions that we need to manage our environment and our economy effectively and well. There's been demand for change to this legislation for years but the political realities of MMP have prevented any meaningful reform and today we're seeing the same thing happening again. The coalition Government acknowledges that the bill is only an interim measure—another patch-up—and that stage 2 is already on the way and that's going to be bigger brighter and better. But the Resource Management Act is an essential piece of our legislation and these patch-ups are an enormous waste of time and resource. National believes that the time has come for a full review and rewrite of the whole Act. It's really disappointing that this bill does nothing to address housing affordability; in fact we believe it actually increases the cost of home building and will make it more difficult. By removing the processes that were designed to speed up the consenting of controlled activities by removing the prohibition of appeals against building residential housing in a residential-zoned land and by allowing the duplication of financial contributions we believe that the subdivision of land and the building of homes is going to be more expensive and slower and we don't see any real benefit. We're also concerned that there are few ways to monitor the effectiveness of councils. They are monopolies in this space with absolutely no competition. So there's no drive to ensure timeliness cost effectiveness or even customer focus and that is a recipe for poor performance and in many cases both the environment and the economy suffer. This bill also introduces provisions for the management of fresh water. But again we are doubtful about the benefits of these changes. I'm particularly concerned about the loss of the collaborative approach to water management. That approach really catalysed communities to come together to work together to sort out local water issues something that is extremely difficult to achieve. It's been successful in bringing farmers environmentalists recreational interests and iwi together to nut out bespoke water solutions for the best local outcomes for water catchment by catchment but this bill will remove the process. Not all councils use the collaborative approach; it was optional in the previous legislation which begs the question of why you'd get rid of it if it wasn't working. But those who have particularly in Canterbury and the Waikato have seen some real progress in terms of managing water quality and quantity. As an ex - Environment Canterbury councillor myself I saw the challenges of managing water in an area like Canterbury. The issues are technically and socially challenging and with problems of conflicting interests and the need for capacity to protect environmental values. It was the introduction of the collaborative approach that got people around the table and allowed them to make the compromises that were required to make progress and this bill will remove this opportunity. I agree with the Hon Ron Mark and his comments about collaboration but it seems that it's obviously easier to talk about these things rather than do them. I also note the irony of this Government appointing a Chief Freshwater Commissioner and water commissioners across the country. These water commissioners will be appointed by central government not regional Government—not locally. That's a significant shift from local to central control. I can't help pointing out that this is being done by the same politicians who howled with indignation when they were in Opposition and National put in temporary commissioners to run Environment Canterbury. Those commissioners had a very similar mandate: to make progress on water quality and quantity in their region. I'm also pleased to point out that the commissioners did a great job in Canterbury and that water management and the environment in general have greatly benefited from their work. Now of course Environment Canterbury is fully elected although they too will be subjected to a centrally appointed water commissioner. So in conclusion the RMA may certainly need work. It is overly complex inaccessible and not fit for purpose. Actually it needs to be totally revised rethought and rewritten and National has committed to do just that. This bill is a mere tweak and I think it's an unwise one. It won't reduce complexity it won't increase certainty and it certainly won't improve resource management processes. National can't support this bill. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): The following call's a split call. I call Angie Warren-Clark.