Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:653;Page:2626] 
8.  
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: Does he stand by his statements that the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill will reduce costs and delays? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 Yes and this view is supported by the vast bulk of submissions to the Local Government and Environment Committee on this bill. Some submitters have expressed concern about some of the specifics of the 167 clauses of the bill which is not surprising for a reform of this size. The tragedy is that for the last 9 years the previous Government not only ignored calls for reforms of the Resource Management Act but actually made amendments to the Act that increased costs and delays. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Does the Minister agree with the Minister of Transport that the New Zealand Transport Agency’s submission in relation to that agency’s notices of requirement is “a minor technical matter”? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The Transport Agency has made a quite specific submission around how the requiring authority status can work better. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: “Minor technical”? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: It is and it is important. It is minor and technical; it affects one of the 167 clauses. The Minister of Transport noted that the agency wished to make that submission to the select committee and I think that it was important for the select committee to have the best advice possible because it is crucial for New Zealand that we get this bill right. 
Tim Macindoe 
: What reports has the Minister received on differing views of the Opposition on the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That question as it starts cannot possibly be the responsibility of that Minister. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the member has made a reasonable point. The Minister really has no responsibility for the views of the Opposition. I know that the construction of “What reports …” is an attempt to get around that fact. It is something of a dilemma. We know what is happening: the Minister has no responsibility for the views of the Opposition yet he is asked what reports he has received on the views of the Opposition. In recent time that construction has often sufficed to bring it within the responsibility of the Minister. Maybe I can invite the member to repeat his question in a way that brings it more consistently within the Standing Orders. 
Tim Macindoe 
: What reports has the Minister received on differing views on the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I have been amused that there have been reports from the spokesperson on infrastructure opposite saying that the bill does not go nearly far enough and from the spokesperson on the environment opposite saying that it goes way too far. I think that this is what happens in a dysfunctional family when mum and dad are both leaving home. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Does the Minister agree with the submission from the chief executive of the Transport Agency that the amendment to the notices of requirement section could “significantly increase project costs”—his estimate in a supplementary submission is that the Manukau Harbour crossing would cost in excess of $100 million more—and does he still think that this is a “minor technical matter”? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I note that the submissions not just from the Transport Agency but also from the electricity industry and other major infrastructure providers make plain that they strongly support the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill. Those submitters say the bill is crucial to the building of additional infrastructure. The question for this Parliament in respect of a requiring authority is whether it is appropriate for requiring authorities many of which are private companies to be both the applicant and the decision maker on such consents noting that it actually adds an additional stage to the process. That is an issue on which I am very keen to hear the views of the select committee. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That was a very specific question that asked whether the Minister agreed and whether it was a “minor technical matter”. Neither of those legs to the question was addressed. If he had addressed one of them I would not have taken this point of order. He gave us an answer to a question that was not asked. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member’s question referred to a submission from the New Zealand Transport Agency. That submission made plain that the bill will substantially improve its capacity to build roads and infrastructure. It is not good enough for the member to quote simply a small element of a submission. It was perfectly proper for me to refer to the complete submission from that organisation. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think I have heard sufficient on this issue. The member was offering to give away a supplementary question a little while ago; he has further supplementary questions to pursue this issue. My judgment is that the Minister did actually address the serious issue around the requiring authorities. The member raised the issue of possible cost. The Minister handled the question by way of pointing out the seriousness of the issue around requiring authorities. However I invite the member to pursue his interests with a further supplementary question. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Did the Minister of Housing share with the Minister the Housing New Zealand Corporation’s view that the Hobsonville project was subject to nimbyism before or after the Minister of Housing supported that submission to the committee—as the committee was told? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: A submission was made by some Housing New Zealand Corporation staff. It was not approved by the board by senior management or by the Minister and the Minister has received an apology for that. I note though that that submission was very supportive of the Government’s Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill and pointed out the advantages. The submitters wanted to extend the major project provisions for infrastructure to the Housing New Zealand Corporation’s development. I do not think that that is sensible—I think housing issues are best dealt with at the local level—so the Government does not intend to pursue that change. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: Tena koutou katoa. How does increasing the filing fee from $55 to $500 for groups wishing to appeal to the Environment Court reduce their costs? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: In considering the $500 appeal fee we need to take into account the fact that the actual cost to the court system is well over $1000. When we look at the cost of appeal to the Environment Court as compared with the fees for the High Court or for District Courts we see that they compare very well. I also note that the registrar of our courts has the discretion to waive that fee in the event that he or she believes it would be unfair and would block out a reasonable appeal.