Court SimonSIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you Madam Speaker. ACT will support this motion to refer this exposure draft to the Environment Committee. That's because ACT is not only here to oppose the Government when it is proposing poor legislation; the ACT Party also intends to propose much better regulation and Resource Management Act (RMA) reform than the Minister has set down here today.ACT believes that sunlight is the best medicine; however given the direction set out in the terms of reference and the exposure draft and the direction set by this Government in some very poorly thought-out national policy statements and environmental regulations around fresh water and indigenous biodiversity they set the tone for a Government's resource management reforms which are designed not to enable development and not to focus on sustainable communities and what they need to have a good environment but also high-paying jobs and healthy communities into the future. In fact what it does is set up a preservation regime which would have been a fantasy for environmental activists in the 1970s and 1980s and which it appears to have taken another 40 years to bring about.Well the ACT Party opposes the preservation agenda. We support sustainable management of natural and physical resources in a way that benefits communities and that leads to better environmental outcomes. And when the ACT Party considers environmental outcomes we accept as do many Government agencies as do businesses and communities that in order to have a better economic and social outcome there is always a need to tread on the earth in some way but that our obligation is in fact to tread as lightly as possible; not to fear to tread not to abandon our development hopes not to abandon aspirations for our communities and our people to live in warm but affordable homes in the places that they want to live that they choose to live not necessarily where they are prescribed or told to live by central government planners.That is why ACT will support these terms of reference and this motion to take the exposure draft to select committee because we want to invite submitters who share ACT's belief that private property rights should underpin all laws that govern how you use your land. When we look at the exposure draft and we look at the terms of reference we actually see some really significant conflicts that cannot possibly be resolved through this legislative agenda that's been set out here. We see 1a)—to protect—to protect. Now I believe in enhancing the environment; not to protect just what we've got but to make it better and there are many many examples we could use whether it's in roading projects—when you drive down a new State highway a road of national significance or a new four-lane highway that connects cities or connects suburbs within cities you will see the most fantastic wetlands and plantings which enhance the natural environment. So it is possible to develop resources to develop infrastructure and to develop land for housing and farming including irrigation and other absolutely vital aspects of infrastructure—it is possible to develop those and enhance the environment.But that's not what we see here; we see essentially protection as being the intent and when we hear talk of environmental bottom lines what that means to people who own land and develop land and build infrastructure and build houses it means there will be more rules to say you can't rather than a very clear set of guidelines to say what you should do and what you're allowed to do and who is not allowed to interfere with or object to your consent applications and your development applications. But what it looks like the terms of reference as set out here it looks like we'll be asked to consider how many more people how many more—what we heard from the Green Party—community groups how many community parliaments even might need to be set up to review your development applications to review infrastructure projects and all kinds of other consent applications. The last thing that people who support ACT and who build homes and who build infrastructure want is to think that there will be more committees set up and more people who have the power to decide about your project or what you do with your land.So the Minister confirmed ACT's reading of the terms of reference. It's a preservation bill; it's not true resource management reform. All of the outcomes we've heard. We already know about the national environment standards for fresh water—the draft national policy statement for indigenous biodiversity which has been put somewhere in a bottom drawer until it can be whipped out and probably snuck through in the dead of night like so much poor regulation and lawmaking we've seen in this Parliament. It is a preservation law that we've been asked to review.Now it also refers to mitigating climate emissions. Now I don't know if anybody else has heard of the zero carbon Act. Hands up. Crikey nobody's heard of that! What about the emissions trading scheme? Hands up. No? Oh look fortunately there are members on this side of the House who do know what the emissions trading scheme is. It turns out that there's already a system that New Zealand businesses and Government and consumers have. In fact every time you fill up with a tank of petrol—that's right; petrol or even diesel—you pay for your emissions through the emissions trading scheme at $3 or $4 per fill up. There are already laws and regulations in place which focus on how to mitigate our climate emissions in the most cost-effective way possible. It seems remarkable if it wasn't being proposed by this Labour Government that now they want to propose another law to mitigate climate emissions as if that's an admission that the zero carbon Act is already failing or will fail and that the emissions trading scheme—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! The member will come back to the motion at hand.SIMON COURT: Thank you Madam Speaker. It looks like an admission that the emissions trading scheme is bound to fail by including how to better mitigate emissions in a resource management reform. It appears to be quite unnecessary.Then we come to the Treaty of Waitangi—the change set out by the Minister from essentially take account of the principles of" the Treaty of Waitangi under the current Resource Management Act which means that every developer and every organisation seeking a consent is required to consult with iwi Māori groups in their rohe and to get their feedback; now it actually is "to give effect to" the Treaty of Waitangi—as if there are not many many other pieces of legislation and many other avenues to give effect to the Treaty of Waitangi. Now it's here in this proposed resource management reform as well.Now that is why ACT would actually repeal the RMA outright. We would replace it with an environmental protection Act and an urban development Act an urban development Act based on the Productivity Commission's—the Government's own Productivity Commission—Better Urban Planning report that expands the rights of property owners to build on their own land. That's how we will get more infrastructure and more land opened up for housing. ACT would also establish an environmental protection agency that would provide a rules-based framework for organisations and developers to seek consents. It would limit the number of organisations and who could object and it would give developers and central government agencies like the New Zealand Transport Agency and KiwiRail and different local government agencies confidence to apply for expensive consents that are absolutely vital to build infrastructure for more housing. ACT would allow that law to only focus on environmental issues that are not otherwise dealt with like climate change. It's completely unnecessary to have climate change mitigation or emissions included in this bill because there are already other pieces of legislation that deal with that.Now ACT will be constructive. We will strive to bring out the best in this resource management reform. We are in favour of cutting poor regulations and that is why ACT will support this notice of motion to refer this to the select committee but we will certainly be holding a blowtorch to it.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The member's time has expired."