Simpson ScottHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you Mr Speaker. This bill is I think the 19th substantive amendment to the 1991 principal Act the Resource Management Act (RMA). The fact that 30 years on it is being amended for the 19th time is a good indicator as to its ineffectiveness in terms of providing for our natural environment and our built environment and the Minister David Parker made reference to that in his third reading speech. I think there's probably broad agreement not only across this Parliament but throughout New Zealand that the RMA in its current form has become cumbersome expensive incomprehensible to lay people and is slow and difficult to negotiate and navigate. Actually it doesn't achieve anything in terms of the aspirational goals that most New Zealanders in fact all New Zealanders want for their natural environment and it stifles and slows down appropriate sensible development in our built environment as well.So this piece of legislation we argue is in fact just tinkering. The Minister has given an indication that he's going to be looking very carefully at the substantive report that retired Judge Tony Randerson QC is going to make available to him in its complete form very shortly. We would say actually hallelujah". It's time for a real back-to-basics fundamental review of our planning legislation and our environmental protection legislation. We have a particular view on this side of the House about how that might be achieved in years to come. But as the Minister has said it is a big job—it's an enormous job; probably not a job that could be completed within one parliamentary term I would suspect. I'm conscious of the contribution that people have made in this House over many many years trying to tinker and adjust and make good on the piece of legislation that sadly for our environment is now considered by many New Zealanders to be something of a laughing stock. I don't think that's how our primary environmental legislative statute should be considered by New Zealanders. I think that as New Zealanders and as legislators we are better than that and we should have better than that for our natural environment and to ensure that those who follow us in generations to come have something better than we have today—and we have an obligation to ensure that that occurs.So back to this piece of legislation: essentially tinkering—essentially undoing the very good work of my colleague the Hon Dr Nick Smith when he was Minister for the Environment who made very pragmatic sensible changes that helped reduce cost that helped speed up the process and that helped New Zealanders navigate through the minefield that is the Resource Management Act. This piece of legislation effectively is undoing many of those things—not all of them but many of those things—I would say largely out of a feeling that they need to do something in the last few months of this Government's administration. But as the Minister has said I think that probably across this House now there is a desire to make progress. So we'll be looking forward to the detail of the Randerson report and what might come out of that.I want to just refer to a couple of specific matters in this piece of legislation. The Minister did make mention of it but it's the changes in relation to climate change and the consideration of climate change and issuing of consents under the Act. Now a Labour Government amendment back in 2004 specifically excluded from the consenting process considerations matters relating to climate change and their impacts—Hon David Parker: Until there was an MPS.Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: Until there was a Monetary Policy Statement. But then what has happened now is that by virtue of the changes that have occurred in this piece of legislation it looks like we're going to have a situation where climate change matters will be taken into account in terms of the consenting process. I understand the points that the Minister made but we are now using this piece of legislation as an almost backdoor methodology for applying climate change issues into the consenting process and I'm not convinced that that's necessarily the best way of doing it but we'll wait and see.I want to also talk about the changes in regards to housing particularly the changes that the Minister is going to implement through this piece of legislation that relate to land that has been already designated through council long-term plans as being for instance suitable for residential development and now is going to have to go back through a process where one would have thought that if houses were due to be built on land that had been zoned residential then surely that would be a sensible and easy thing to do to build houses on that land. I'm not sure that we've had a convincing or particularly meritorious argument as to why that change needs to be made.I remain utterly unconvinced about the Minister's changes in terms of financial contributions and essentially it's our argument that councils will be effectively able to double-dip. That only adds extra cost to building does nothing to reduce the cost of home ownership the home-building process or indeed to speed it up.The issue around fresh water: there are provisions in this legislation that put effect to the Minister's Essential Freshwater structure and that's a matter that he I guess is entitled to do but those are again relatively tinkering in terms of the bigger reform package that is probably needed and required. To use this piece of legislation to achieve that in the dying throes of this Government under urgency as we approach the 2020 general election seems to me to be unnecessary and not particularly helpful to the wider debate about those matters that we as a Parliament and we as a nation need to have.So it's with some regret I have to say that on this piece of legislation the National Party Opposition does oppose it. We do oppose it we do think it's tinkering we do think it's largely unnecessarily particularly given that the Randerson report we hope will signal a pathway forward to a better set of planning rules and a better set of environmental protection rules that will take this country forward. So we oppose this legislation."