Dean Jacqui: Resource Management Amendment Bill Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill (No 2) Local Government Official Information and Meetings Amendment Bill — Third ReadingsText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDean Jacqui: Resource Management Amendment Bill Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill (No 2) Local Government Official Information and Meetings Amendment Bill — Third Readings[Sitting date: 27 August 2013. Volume:693;Page:12863. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): I am very happy to rise to speak in the third reading of this legislation arising from the Resource Management Reform Bill. I am a little dismayed as always at the contributions of some of the members across the House who use inflammatory language such as “unscrupulous developers” “rich developers” and “National’s rich mates”. I find that language a little bit offensive.Chris Auchinvole: A bit old-fashioned?JACQUI DEAN: It is slightly old-fashioned and it brings to mind a development just north of Christchurch. It is called Pegasus Town and it is a development just north of Christchurch. It is in fact yes the project of a developer. I would argue not that that developer was unscrupulous or rich but in fact I would argue exactly the opposite. But I would say that that developer is one of a group of companies that are providing housing for people in Christchurch after the earthquake.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: No no. The Todd Corporation took over after he went bust.JACQUI DEAN: Please over the other side of the House tell me that that kind of development is bad for New Zealand. Please tell me that the Pegasus Towndevelopment which has happened just north of Christchurch—I do not know how many sections there are and let us widen it out to some of the developments that are happening around Rolleston all around Christchurch. These are the so-called rich the so-called unscrupulous mates of the National Party who are providing housing for people in Christchurch. So I ask those Christchurch-based MPs who are railing against this Resource Management Act reform to please tell me how that can be bad. These people are taking a punt providing housing and providing sections and providing the infrastructure for people in—Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Oh a punt in Christchurch—building a house in Christchurch isn’t taking a punt.JACQUI DEAN: I see that the ex-member for Waimakariri whose name escapes me at the moment cannot accept the fact that here are some developers doing exactly what is needed in New Zealand—that is providing housing providing sections and providing homes for New Zealanders. So please stand up I ask the ex-member for Waimakariri. Stand up and give me the rationale behind why that can be a bad thing.The member for New Zealand First gave us a salutary story—a very self-congratulatory story—about how he managed to fix what was a 13-year impasse—Andrew Williams: 17-year.JACQUI DEAN: It was a 17-year impasse between two supermarket chains. One was vexatiously preventing the development of the other. He managed to fix it within 18 months and in fact he even cut the ribbon. What a guy—18 months. Well I have got good news for that member from New Zealand First the failed mayor from—Maggie Barry: The clown ofCampbells Bay.JACQUI DEAN: —thank you very much—Campbells Bay. I have got good news for that ex-mayor and now New Zealand First list member. This legislation which is shortly to become the law and thank goodness for it is going to cut that consenting time down to 6 months. So that member fromCampbells Bay can rest assured. He can rest assured that although he might have toiled away under the previous regime of the Resource Management Act under this legislation that consenting regime will be cut down to 6 months. So let us hear that member or somebody else from his party get up on their feet and say “That’s a good job Hon Amy Adams. Actually you’ve done a good job with the Resource Management Act.” because that is what I believe. Far from the fantasy that is expounded throughout this House that developers are rich and unscrupulous—and I wrote down other notes that I will not bother this House with—this kind of legislation is about getting good decision-making. It is not about affecting the nature of the decision; it is about coming to a good decision in a timely cost-effective manner. Why? Because we can build houses and because we can build supermarkets.I just want to finish my contribution on the other old saw—the old 20th century saw—that the National Party does not care about the environment. I will not go through the environmental gains that this Government has put into effect—oh more money has been spent on water rehabilitation in the 5 years that we have been the Government than under any other previous Government. I just want to pick out a couple of small examples about how the environment does benefit from development and they are theŌpuha dam in South Canterbury and theWaiareka Stream in North Otago. Both of those water catchments have been affected by irrigation development and guess what? Both have benefited in terms of water quality. This is good legislation. This is a good Government. Amy Adams is a very good Minister for the Environment. I commend this legislation to the House.