7. Resource Legislation Amendment Bill—Ministerial PowersEUGENIE SAGE (Green) to the Minister for the EnvironmentResource Legislation Amendment Bill—Ministerial Powers7. EUGENIE SAGE (Green) to the Minister for the Environment: Does he agree with former Prime Minister Sir Geoffrey Palmer that the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill contains at least three significant and dangerous trends" including "Greater Ministerial control and centralised decision-making" and "Reduced opportunities for public participation"?Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): I agree that the reform is significant but his criticisms reflect his defensive view of his original Resource Management Act (RMA) design which has proved to be excessively bureaucratic—[Interruption] Mr SPEAKER: Order! I want to hear the answer.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —litigious and costly. The fact that Parliament under both National and Labour Governments keeps having to pass special laws to address significant resource issues like water allocation in the Waitaki or a new unitary plan for Auckland reinforces the fact that the RMA is too slow and bureaucratic. There is a fundamental shift from Sir Geoffrey's model in these reforms in having stronger national direction and consistency. This makes common sense because for a country of our size having 86 different approaches and 80000 pages of different rules and policies across New Zealand does not make sense.Eugenie Sage: Did he consider not proceeding with the bill after so many submitters from Fonterra to Forest and Bird and not just Sir Geoffrey criticised the substantial increase in ministerial powers the limits on public participation and the bill's emphasis on quick decision-making rather than quality decision-making?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well if I just take the submission from Fonterra—yes. Out of the 40 proposals in the bill there were two areas that they wanted changed. Big deal! That is why we are making some adjustments as all major bills get through this Parliament. What I find remarkable is that every member of this House knows after report after report that if we are serious about addressing issues like housing we need to provide more land for that by reforming the RMA. But members opposite whine all the time and then oppose the very reforms that will make a material difference.Nuk Korako: What substantive reports has he received that give a different view to that of Sir Geoffrey Palmer's opposition to RMA reform?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The OECD report last year was very critical of the RMA saying that its lack of responsiveness to growing housing demand has exacerbated house price increases and that New Zealand has very high environmental compliance costs as compared with other OECD countries. Secondly the independent Productivity Commission has produced two substantive reports that recommend substantive change to the RMA which is included in this bill. Thirdly Local Government New Zealand's 2015 report on public satisfaction with council services said that the RMA rated as the single greatest area of public concern in making councils more effective. It is these substantive reports that have influenced the Government's determination to ensure that that Act is reformed.Eugenie Sage: Can he guarantee that the bill will bring down house prices without limiting the rights of neighbours and local residents to have a say on developments and subdivisions affecting them and their neighbourhoods?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: If you look at examples like Three Kings if you look at the debate that has occurred over the Auckland Unitary Plan and new areas of greenfield development the truth is that we do need to reduce the number of appeals and the years that it takes to bring new housing supply on stream if we are going to actually have more homes for Kiwi families. That is why this reform is actually at the root of actual long-term solutions to New Zealand housing affordability and supply.Eugenie Sage: Can he guarantee that under his bill New Zealanders will have the same rights that they have now under the RMA to have a say on council plans that influence their neighbourhoods and the places that they love?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: This bill unapologetically reduces some of the appeals that see a project like Three Kings which would provide 1400 homes in the Mt Roskill electorate at a time when there is high demand take more than 5 years to build. Can we honestly say in this Parliament that we are serious about building houses when we allow that sort of delay in new home construction?Eugenie Sage: Does he agree with the New Zealand Law Society that "There are potential costs in the lack of public participation including loss of public confidence in the consent process and a reduction in the quality of decision-making."; if not why not?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: It is true that lawyers will make less money out of the RMA as a consequence of the reform bill. New Zealanders want better environmental improvement they want more houses being built and they want our economy to be able to grow and provide jobs. They are the values that we on this side of the House stand for.Eugenie Sage: Is it correct that ministerial regulation-making powers in the bill include him being able to stop communities like Northland and Hawke's Bay from being able to decide for themselves whether genetically modified crops should be planted in their areas?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: There is already a question in law that is being challenged around whether it makes sense for councils to be able to separately regulate GM. How many members of this House really believe that the Auckland Council should stop a GM liver treatment approved by the Environmental Protection Authority from being able to treat patients in Auckland? It is our view that genetic modification should be regulated on a national level through the Environmental Protection Authority and under the hazardous substances law."