Parker DavidNATURAL AND BUILT ENVIRONMENT BILL Third ReadingHon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): I present a legislative statement on the Natural and Built Environment Bill.DEPUTY SPEAKER: Could I just ask people leaving to be quiet please. The business is still to go on thank you.Hon DAVID PARKER: I move That the Natural and Built Environment Bill be now read a third time. This bill replaces the Resource Management Act (RMA). As economist Herman Daly famously said The economy is a wholly owned subsidiary of the environment not the reverse." Environmental legislation is undoubtedly needed to protect the environment but it should also efficiently enable appropriate development. The RMA achieves neither. There's widespread agreement the RMA is not working it takes too long and it costs too much. It hasn't adequately protected the environment nor supported housing and infrastructure nor promoted a low-carbon economy. Cumulative effects have degraded water and biodiversity. It's no exaggeration to say it's broken.Reports from the Productivity Commission the Environmental Defence Society the Property Council the Northern Employers and Manufacturers Association Infrastructure New Zealand the Waitangi Tribunal and Local Government New Zealand all attest to that. Those reports were drawn on by the expert review panel chaired by former Court of Appeal judge Tony Randerson KC who set out the blueprint for the new resource management system. Over 100 RMA plans decrease to 16 with more permitted activities faster plan-making and fewer consents. Hundreds of millions of dollars will be saved every year across infrastructure and housing. The consensus for change is clear. Until recently even our political opponents in the National Party agreed. But now the election is upon us they've changed their tune. Having railed against the RMA for years National announced that if elected they'll repeal the new Acts. Incredibly they say they'll reinstate the RMA and recreate the problems of the old system. Never mind that the fundamentals of the new laws are widely supported. The Nats would rather throw it all away to chase a few votes from nimbies and others who self-interestedly support the status quo. The only justification National has for their flip-flop is that the new laws have many pages and will take time to implement and interpret. Of course they will. This is system change. You can't do that with a bit of fiddling around the edges. That's what National and ACT ineffectually did for years. Our opponents accuse us of ramming reform through without proper input—arrant nonsense. We've had five years of preparation extensive consultation and two select committee processes the last of which attracted 3000 submissions. Many sensible and practical submissions improved the new legislation. Local democracy is strengthened through statements of community outcomes. Improvements to planning and consenting provisions notification better designations and fast track have all been made. The Environment Court applies the law and Treaty of Waitangi provisions but it's not constituted under the Treaty clause. This was clarified at select committee in response to the concerns raised by the Chief Justice.Our reform provides the critical framework to protect and where necessary restore the environment the natural environment and we'll do this while enabling development within environmental limits. The Natural and Built Environment Act (NBEA) will shift the focus from managing adverse effects to promoting positive outcomes. Clarifying the role and purpose of system outcomes was a focus of submissions to the Environment Committee. The system has to deal with tensions between environmental protection and development. Not all outcomes can always be achieved across all places. What should be priorities where and when and resolving tensions between outcomes is achieved through the hierarchy of instruments preserving the King Salmon logic helpfully provided by the Supreme Court.Environmental limits and targets will have a central role in achieving environmental protection and where necessary improvement. Biophysical limits will be set for things like water and air quality subject to matters of personal taste—a crutch for nimbyism in the present system—have less weight in the new system.Under the RMA national direction is provided across over 20 national policy statements environmental standards planning standards and regulations. The new system consolidates these into a national planning framework the NPF that will provide regional spatial strategies under the Spatial Planning Act and the NBEA plans that flow from them.The bill knocks over the first in first served for water resources which allied with the bias in favour of renewal has prevented the rational fair and economically efficient allocation of water in water short catchments.The average current consent duration is 12 years but the theoretical maximum is 35. During the transition renewals will be normally for 10 years but they'll be easy to get. Hydro facilities of any size can still get a 35-year renewal. The bill was amended at select committee to enable further exemptions from the 10-year transitional term for nationally and regionally significant infrastructure including water storage.The new system will better recognise Te Tiriti and Te Ao Māori. The new laws give effect to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi in a similar way to the Conservation Act. The legislation commits the Government to fully upholding all Treaty settlement arrangements that currently interact with the RMA. Many of these arrangements were created by the previous National-ACT Government. In recognition of the Waikato River settlement the Prime Minister and I have provided a letter of undertaking to Waikato-Tainui committing to a process to ensure all elements of the Waikato River settlement are upheld in full. It is expected that a Treaty Settlement Transition Settlement Bill for that and other settlements will be introduced to the House in 2024.Māori participation has to be efficient. Te Puni Kōkiri already maintain a list of iwi and hapū for each area but it can't be relied upon by participants in the RMA processes. That central record will in future be able to be relied upon as an authoritative list or code of Māori groups who need to be consulted on or notified on plans and consents. This important aspect of the new legislation helps provide greater certainty around who needs to be notified. Of course the list can be updated but it can be relied upon by those using it at the time used.A freshwater working group is established to make recommendations relating to freshwater allocation and a process for engagement between the Crown on Māori and freshwater allocation. My expectation is that working group will include a broad set of Māori interests in fresh water including landowners. Non-Māori interests are of course also important and must be heard.The RMA not only failed to protect the environment it failed to enable provision of infrastructure and housing. Consenting costs and urban land prices soared. Overly restricted planning rules hindered much needed housing intensification. No one is forcing intensification but plans have prevented people doing what they wanted to do.In the five years to 2019 consenting costs increased by 66 percent for non-notified consents and 124 percent for notified. Processing times ballooned by about 15 percent. Consenting costs for mid-size infrastructure—there are about 5.5 percent of total project costs in New Zealand compared to a range of just 0.1 to 5 percent in European countries. New Zealand is outside the extreme end of that range. This legislation fixes that dealing to the waste of time and money.There are many provisions in the new Acts and the NPF to improve outcomes for infrastructure. These include better designation powers. The new system will deliver significant cost savings to system users. New content in the NPF led by the Infrastructure Commission will reduce infrastructure consenting costs including by enabling standards to be used instead of bespoke conditions. Renewable energy is made easier to consent. There will be fewer consent categories and greater clarity up front in plans about what is permitted.The Government's fast-track process decreased consenting times by an average of 15 months benefiting infrastructure and housing projects. The environmental tests didn't change but the process sped up saving both process and holding costs. Fast Track is reinstated under the NBEA for infrastructure and regionally significant housing projects. The legislation requires plans to meet the environmental protections of the NPF and development outcomes including more expansive land markets for housing. Analysis indicates that for every dollar spent the new system will deliver from $2.60 to $4.90 in benefits; in fact $4.90 is the mid-range. System users will get the biggest benefits through a 20 to 40 percent reduction in consents efficiency benefits to users—and modelled it between $210 million and $430 million per annum. Improved land markets will also moderate land prices. Environmental outcomes which can't be valued in dollar terms will also be better as we move from an effects-based regime to an outcomes regime. Again there's been too much emphasis on subjective matters of taste allowing nimbyism but not enough attention to biophysical cumulative effects. Both of these issues are addressed.Poor implementation of the RMA almost guaranteed its failure. A lesson from the RMA is that if you try to do the whole country at once the system gums up and everything is delayed. So the new system turns on region by region. Central government will give extra help to those regions who go first. High quality plans will help those who follow. The complexity endured in the transition from the Town and Country Planning Act will be avoided. Existing authorisations like resource consents are preserved and acknowledged. We are on the cusp of a new system more efficient less costly positive outcomes for natural and built environments. It will be faster cheaper and better and I commend the bill to the House.DEPUTY SPEAKER: The legislative statement the member referred to is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website. The question is that the motion be agreed to."