Wagner Nicky: Resource Management Reform Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeWagner Nicky: Resource Management Reform Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 25 June 2013. Volume:691;Page:11232. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central):I am delighted to speak about this Resource Management Reform Bill at its second reading. This bill builds on our phase one Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Act which we passed in 2009. That bill although it was defended by the Opposition has actually proved to be very successful. We have had very few complaints that it has undermined anything to do with the environment and it actually has improved the process and sped up the process. In this bill that we are looking at now we want to build on those successes. It also looks forward to phase two which is larger-scale Resource Management Act reforms but we believe that we are in the right space now. Most of the things we are discussing in this bill are pretty much uncontroversial although Maryan Street has raised some issues that I would like to make comment on as well.This bill is actually in three distinct parts. The first as I have noted is the further amendments to the Resource Management Act 1991 basically focused on improving the consenting process and the quality of decision making. It is not that we want to undermine the environment; we want to get to good decisions more quickly and more effectively. The second part of it responds to the request of the Auckland Council. It amends the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010. Again it is to streamline the delivery of the first Auckland Unitary Plan. The third part amends the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987. This is basically to create consistent environmental indicators so that we have data for effective environmental reporting in the long term. This is something we have been working towards ever since we have been in Government.But first I want to focus on Part 1. Most of the changes in Part 1 are relatively minor changes. Most are uncontroversial. But there are three areas of debate and we made changes in each of these areas during the select committee process. The first is about section 32 reports. This bill does look to improve the quality of those reports. In actual fact most submitters agreed in principle that they want consistently good-quality section 32 reports. But what this bill does is specifically include economic outcomes and employment in these reports and some of the people who submitted felt that this could unbalance the result and may undermine environmental outcomes. Of course that requirement was already in the bill but the fact that it has been made more specific concerned them. There was a mixed reaction. Some submitters were very much in favour but some were concerned that these specific outcomes might outrank environmental factors. So the Local Government and Environment Committee agreed to amend the original to improve the consistency and the balance to ensure that both the positive and the negative outcomes of any economic outcomes were considered and also to provide guidance in the implementation of this legislation.One of the complaints we have had about the Resource Management Act in the long term is that although the regulation and the legislation itself are good the implementation of them are inconsistent. So we were very concerned to talk to our officials to see how we can make sure that councils get better support and more help in interpreting the legislation and making sure that there is consistent enaction of it right across the country.The bill also introduces a 6-month time frame for consenting medium-sized projects. There were concerns about the complexity of this part of the bill and a lot of work has been done to clarify the requirements and the time frames. The key to efficient processing and better-quality outcomes really is more complete applications at the beginning of the process. It seems to be a universal theme that we need to get as much information upfront as possible and then we get better outcomes at the back end. So the changes encourage that.The bill also increases the availability of the direct referral for major projects and includes a threshold value to be set by regulation. Some councils were concerned about a loss of local control but of course they are still involved in the decision-making processes even if it is a direct referral and that weighting needs to be considered against an increased certainty for applicants in time frames. To mitigate the concern about the threshold being decided by regulations we included a criterion in the bill for the Minister for the Environment to consider when making those regulations and I think that has improved that part of the bill too.Looking at Part 2 this is the part that streamlines the delivery of the first Auckland Unitary Plan. The Auckland Council asked for this legislation because the Unitary Plan will be the largest and most complex planning exercise ever undertaken in New Zealand and it is expecting over 10000 submitters to provide input to it. This will be the council’s main tool for achieving integrated management of the region’s natural and physical resources and it provides the rules for what people can do on their land and property. So it is important that this is delivered efficiently and is not bogged down for years and years and years in the process.The new legislation replaces the existing two-step schedule 1 process—which is a council hearing and then a subsequent Environment Court hearing of appeals—with a combined hearing process that incorporates the reduced formality of the council hearing but with key parts of the existing Environment Court process including cross-examination and mediation. So it really delivers the best of both processes but in a more controlled and tighter time frame. The Auckland Council as a democratically elected body is responsible for making local planning decisions so it will have the ability to accept amend or reject the recommendations of the hearing panel. However parties have full rights of appeal to the Environment Court if the council amends or rejects recommendations.The select committee visited Auckland we listened carefully to the submitters on the bill and we have recommended a significant number of changes to improve the legislation. The most controversial issue was the tree protection rules and we received and heard a huge number of submissions on that issue. We worked hard to get the right balance between protecting significant trees and not turning managing your garden into a bureaucratic nightmare.Hon David Cunliffe: Tried and failed.NICKY WAGNER: Well again we made significant changes to the bill and I believe we have got it right. Maryan Street thinks that it is wrong and is concerned that those trees must be linked to a property but there is a reason for that. Unless those protected trees are actually on a land information memorandum how can we protect them? So it is very important that they are actually listed and that people know where they are.The final part to Part 3 is to do with the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act. Most councils particularly regional councils already collect environmental data and they are working together informally to make sure that they have the right data for monitoring. This legislation is designed to formalise that process. There was some concern from councils that this could be expensive and complex so werecommended that all monitoring standards and methodologies should be developed in consultation with councils in order to manage this fear.The committee listened to a lot of submitters during this process and we worked really well to incorporate the very best improvements we could make to the legislation. I think it is a good piece of legislation I think it will be very effective and I think it will be particularly useful to Auckland as it continues its very important planning work. I commend this bill to the House.