Genter Julie Anne: Resource Management Reform Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeGenter Julie Anne: Resource Management Reform Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 27 August 2013. Volume:693;Page:12827. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): I rise to speak on Part 1 of the Resource Management Reform Bill. I am a qualified planner. I am very familiar with the Resource Management Act and I would be the first to admit that there are a whole lot of areas for improvement both in district plans and in our urban planning process. But unfortunately this reform bill put forward by the National Government is another perfect example of its inability to understand or define properly what the problems are and then address them in a coherent intelligent way that is going to deliver a smarter greener environment for New Zealanders to live in and a smarter greener economy that is going to enable us all to look after ourselves in the generations to come.As I said before I would be the first to admit that planners have been a big part of the problem over the past few decades. Unfortunately the biggest problems that they have introduced in district plans are not at all addressed by this legislation. So it is very easy for the Government to go out and say that it is cutting red tape and it is going to make life easier for the average Kiwi but in fact these provisions in this bill do the exact opposite. They are going to increase costs for average Kiwis. They are going to increase rates because they increase the costs for councils. A perfect example of this is the tree protection provision which actually makes it much more difficult and costly for the council to ensure that there is adequate tree protection.We have major issues with stormwater in our towns and cities in New Zealand because we get a lot of rain. I am not sure whether there are any people on the National side who have ever looked at stormwater management or who have any understanding but as soon as you start cutting down trees you massively increase the amount of stormwater run-off which then has to go through our stormwater system which is paid for by ratepayers or it just flushes out to sea. So if we have individual landownerslooking to cut down trees because they would prefer to do that it has an impact on the entire community and it has an impact on the management of stormwater in our community. Over time as we lose tree cover we not only lose important ecological services that are performed by trees we not only lose the amenity that New Zealanders absolutely value and are very concerned about preserving as we are looking at increased intensification and development pressure in Auckland but also very practically the consequence down the road of a council like the Auckland Council not being able to manage trees could quite logically be that we have increased stormwater run-off and increased costs to ratepayers. So on the one hand we have the National Government putting pressure on local councils saying they should keep down their rates but on the other hand it is actually taking away their ability to manage development in such a way that would reduce the economic costs and the environmental costs of stormwater run-off by ensuring that there are enough trees to take that water. So it is a perfect example of where the rhetoric is the exact opposite of the reality.The National Government is going to increase costs to councils in the first instance because now councils have to go through this intensely bureaucratic process which is as they said in their own submissions costly and impractical onerous and unworkable and involves huge amounts of time and resources. I am sure that ratepayers around New Zealand do not appreciate the National Government making legislative changes that are going to increase costs for councils and therefore increase rates.There is no joined-up thinking in National. It is looking for short-term gains and an opportunity to claim that it is reducing red tape. But the reality is that the Resource Management Act with all its imperfections already allows most applicants to do whatever it is they want to do. Over 95 percent of applications for resource consents are granted so how can one say that there is a problem when rich developers and property owners are able to do exactly what they want? I agree that processes could be improved.A perfect example of an area that is not addressed in the Resource Management Reform Bill is the onerous cost of parking restrictions which is the single-biggest trigger of resource consent applications. You would think that National would care about reducing the burden of costs on developers and perhaps reducing the single-biggest trigger of resource consent applications which are not grounded in any economic rationality but are simply a hangover of a 1950s car-oriented approach to transport planning which has reduced the ability of New Zealanders to have good affordable transport options. If National was able to look beyond its blind ideology it would address this problem. It would ensure that developers were not forced to provide huge off-street car-parks when they do not want to. Local landowners people looking to build houses—right here in Wellington a staff member in our office told me that they went to build a house and the council was telling them they had to put in two car-parks which was basically impossible.So here is an opportunity an opportunity for the Government to do something in line with its own ideology that would reduce costs reduce the burden to ratepayers and reduce the burden to taxpayers from a car-oriented transport system. Instead what is it doing? It is creating more bureaucratic nonsense for councils to go through to look after trees which are essential not only for amenity but for stormwater management.Of course this legislation also increases the bureaucratic analysis needed for a section 32 analysis with regard to the Resource Management Act but it is looking at opportunities only for economic growth and employment. Unfortunately the additional requirements for this type of assessment rather than increasing certainty and increasing the soundness of the judgments that are being made could quite likely require a level of detail to such an extent that it is actually impossible for local authorities to undertake an adequate necessary risk analysis. Again it is an example of ideological rhetoricundermining good outcomes. I think that there was a whole wealth of submissions on this bill that were very informed and demonstrated that the approach taken in this reform bill is not one that is going to have the result of achieving a better outcome for New Zealanders. It is not going to reduce costs in reality. It is not going to improve councils’ ability to ensure that local communities can look after the development that is happening and ensure that it is occurring in a way that is going to be good for generations to come.We also do not support the changes in this legislation that are going to make it harder for local communities to engage in the process of decision making around resource consent applications. Best practice in the mostlivable cities overseas like Vancouver and in many communities in Europe shows that the more that neighbours and stakeholders can be engaged at the beginning of a process—whether it is for major infrastructure or whether it is for a major development—the better the outcome achieved for the entire community. We are going in exactly the wrong direction on the basis of some narrow ideological rhetorical slogans from the National Party because it is not the party that actually delivers good smart green outcomes for New Zealand. It is simply the party that waves its hands around claims to be solving problems that are not even problems and provides no analysis to support the changes in this legislation. Instead it just gets on with it and gets a worse outcome for all New Zealanders. That is what I have to say.