Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): I welcome this opportunity for the Committee stage debate of this big bill the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill. The reality is that the National Party campaigned on substantive reform of the Resource Management Act (RMA) in a two-phase process. When we first came to Government we completed that first phase in our first term. We were not able to secure the parliamentary numbers in our second term and we welcome the process today that enables these big reforms to be able to be progressed. I acknowledge the comments of the Chair that this is a big part and I am keen to ensure that we do justice in this Committee stage to the 34 changes that are in this part of the bill.The first change I want to highlight is the move to planning standards. I could put up a pile of plans taller than this Chamber over 12 metres tall of the Resource Management Act—over 80000 pages of plans and rules; over 1000 pages of plans and rules per district—and every member of this Committee would accept that that level of bureaucracy is excessive and needs to be addressed. This bill provides for planning standards so that we do not have 56 ways of measuring the height of a building and so that we do not have over 800 different ways of defining a residential activity. I challenge members of this Committee who are not supporting this bill to please explain for me why you do not support planning standards.This bill also provides for a streamlined planning process. We did that process by special laws in respect of both Auckland and Christchurch and they have worked exceedingly well. Rather than it taking over 7 years to be able to process a new plan those streamlined planning processes have enabled huge plans for our two biggest cities—Auckland and Christchurch—to be able to be completed in 2 years. You will not find a resource planner in New Zealand who does not accept that that is a better process and a good way in which to be able to plan our resources.I draw the attention of the Committee to a really serious issue: natural hazards management. After the quakes in Christchurch and Kaikōura there should not be a member in this Committee who does not see the sense in adding right into the principles of the Act the issues of natural resource management as recommended by the royal commission of inquiry. When we look at a subdivision like Bexley it is a tragedy that the issues of liquefaction which were known were not properly considered. That was because they are not in Part 2 and this provision makes change for that.I think every member of this Committee has had the frustration of New Zealanders with minor consents who have to spend tens of thousands of dollars. Can I give a little example I had on the weekend: Rutherford Street Kindergarten in my community wants to move five doors down the road to a church and faces fees of over $40000 to be able to get consent for that. Forty thousand dollars for a kindergarten committee is a lot of money to not be spent on children's education but on RMA bureaucracy. When I see the provisions in this bill that give the council the discretion to be able to waive the need for a consent I say that that makes good sense. It is the same with the provisions in this bill that provide for a 10-day consent. It is the same with the provisions that enable us to build a deck when we can get the agreement of our neighbour without having to spend money. The provisions in this part of the bill will save thousands—thousands—of consents and I am befuddled as to why members would oppose that.I come to the issues of housing. Every member of this Committee knows the pressures that we are under to build additional homes. I do challenge members of the ACT Party and the Labour Party who have railed against the RMA and understand that it is at the core of the housing challenges that we face. I say: why are they opposing the very specific provisions in this bill that require councils to provide for adequate growth of housing in their communities? Those provisions are essential in cities like Auckland and Wellington and in my own community of Nelson. I challenge members as to why they are opposing that specific provision.On the issue of appeals a provision in this bill removes the appeals. Yes absolutely a community should have a say about whether an area is zoned residential but after it has been zoned residential why should we allow appeals to slow down the bringing of those—[Bell rung] Mr Chairman?The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): The honourable Minister.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Why should we slow down the provision that will get those sections created and those houses built? I appeal to members to apply common sense and allow that.I draw to members' attention the dual process of charging for subdivision. We have got a regime under the Local Government Act called development contributions". Why should we double up with financial contributions under the RMA? That is a very important change involving hundreds of millions of dollars of costs in the housing sector that is addressed in this bill.There are the new procedural principles in this part which require councils' plans to use concise language and for their processes to be efficient cost effective and timely which I think this Committee should welcome.I look at the new fixed-fee regime. Do you know that when you go to the council and apply for a consent you have no idea what the cost is going to be to get the resource consent for your deck or your garage or the like? Is it not sensible that we have fixed fees for those sorts of activities?I come to some of the environmental issues. Can the members in this Committee who oppose national regulations so that we can fence stock out of our lakes and rivers please identify themselves. Who is opposed to that? We are serious about improving water quality. Why would we not provide a provision that enables us to take that very basic step to improve the water quality in our lakes and rivers?All of us I think would know that on the issue of offshore platforms we do actually need to make sure that they have a decommissioning plan because in other countries that cost has fallen on taxpayers. I draw attention—and I acknowledge the Māori Party—to the provision about water takes for farming for stock water. At the moment the law says that if you are an individual you do not need a water permit but if you run your farm as a company—in the case of many Māori they run them as an incorporated trust—there will be substantive benefits from that change. There are dozens of provisions in this part that make such good sense if you are committed to improved resource management laws.I want to just quickly address a couple of Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs). Yes there is an SOP in my name Supplementary Order Paper 282. It is solely around issues of drafting from the Parliamentary Counsel Office (PCO). There are no policy changes. It is inevitable with a 300-page bill that following the report back from the select committee the PCO drafters have identified some issues. I draw that SOP to the attention of the Committee.There is also Supplementary Order Paper 281 in the name of the co-leader of the Māori Party Marama Fox in respect of the issue of the regulations in new section 360D inserted by clause 105. Let me deal with the members' questions on that issue quite specifically. Why do we need new section 360? It is because our Government believes in reducing bureaucracy. We do not want the RMA duplicating other Acts of Parliament which just adds costs. For instance there are numerous incidents where councils will say in respect of building laws workplace safety laws fisheries law marine laws or telecommunications laws that they want to put things in their plan or things on consents that duplicate other national regulations. That is why we want to have new section 360D.The issue that has been raised by Marama Fox is that there are communities that have put in place rules in their plans to ban genetically modified crops in their particular area. I have to say that my concern—and I say it absolutely to this Parliament—is that if I look at the Auckland Council draft plan currently before the court it would prevent the treatment of people with liver cancer—Dr David Clark: Wrong.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes it is—well that is what Auckland City Hospital says. That is what Auckland University says. That matter is currently before the courts. It is the view of the National Party that if a genetically modified organism (GMO) to treat liver cancer has been approved by the Environmental Protection Authority we are not going to have councils have rules on GMOs in their plans that prevent people from being able to get that treatment. I stand by it.Marama Fox has put the case in the discussions we have had with our support party. They have said: "Yes well we're not uncomfortable with that but we are uncomfortable around the issue of crops." That is why the Government will be supporting as always occurs between support parties in an MMP Parliament a compromised provision. We will be supporting Marama Fox's amendments that will not allow new section 360 to be used.Grant Robertson: This is a shambles.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I hear Mr Robertson say it is a sham.Grant Robertson: Shambles.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Shambles OK. Let me just challenge that member for a moment—[Bell rung] Mr Chairman?The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I am going to call the Rt Hon Winston Peters—the Minister has had two calls and he gets a burst of two. He has an unlimited number of bursts of two over a period of time.Before the member the Rt Hon Winston Peters starts I will just explain because members have been going for the call that it is slightly controversial. Normally a member who has an amendment and is from a party of similar size would get priority but in this case the experienced member who is the leader of a party will get the call first."