Heatley Phil: Resource Management Reform Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHeatley Phil: Resource Management Reform Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 31 July 2013. Volume:692;Page:12187. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei):Tens of thousands of people in Whangarei would agree with you there with that choice. I thank you for asking me to rise and to talk about this Resource Management Reform Bill. The provisions clearly are to further improve the resource consent regime. There is a Government Supplementary Order Paper 284 as members should be aware to split the bill into three: the Resource Management Amendment Bill the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill (No 2) and of course the third the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Amendment Bill. We support this wholeheartedly.You will be aware that during the last election campaign—which resulted in the Labour Party reaching those dizzying heights of 29 percent which I believe it has reached again today after some time out so I congratulate the Labour Party—we talked much about the Resource Management Act process and how we wanted to see that process work better for everyone. We wanted to see that there would be timely decisions—not necessarily a yes and not necessarily a no but a decision made in a reasonable time frame—and that decisions were proper followed a reasonable process and were final. We wanted to essentially set aside the idea or concept that particularly Green Party advocates and others—because that is how they work—would consider a significant delay as the next best thing to a win. We do not think that it is right that extreme green advocacy groups such as the Green Party should decide: “If we cannot stop it let’s delay it for 10 years.” We think that is essentially inappropriate.This bill works with our 2009 phase one reforms and looks forward to our phase two reforms. The bill will reduce the costs uncertainty and delays that have dogged the Resource Management Act for decades. Members will recall theWaterview Connection project which under the current Act was a project of national significance and had a 9-month consenting time frame. That worked very very well for that nationally significant project and there are other opportunities as well. What this bill introduces is a 6-month consenting process for what we are calling medium-sized projects. That is actually a turn of phrase “medium-sized projects”—I cannot recall; I know I was involved—that was developed with a considerable amount of thought and consultation with the Minister for the Environment. There are about 1600 medium-sized projects each year and they include all of these types of projects all of which I think the Green Party members are opposed to.We will just check them. Subdivisions—I believe that the Green Party wants more housing but is generally at a local level opposed to subdivisions. Supermarkets—I believe that the Green Party members do eat but they are opposed to large supermarket developments along with industrial developments and also any infrastructure projects. If they have anything to do with infrastructure oil and gas exploration mining aquaculture irrigation supermarkets or subdivisions all of which the Green Party oppose it is possible they will be medium-sized projects which will attract the 6-month consenting process. The 6-month statutory time limit for local authorities is that time they will have to reach consent decisions and to reduce costs uncertainties and delays.At this point I would like to correct the member Eugenie Sage when she said that the Minister had the power under this legislation for medium-sized projects subject to 6-month consenting to call in those consents—