Court SimonSIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you Madam Speaker. ACT opposes the direction set out in this draft bill because it won't solve the problem that it says it sets out to. That is how do we enable thriving communities a healthy economy and to underpin that Kiwi way of life where we all share a love for the natural environment?How can communities thrive when getting consents for even basic building materials like sand and rock are almost impossible? This week McCallum Bros in Northland had their application for sand extraction declined. That means that the sand used in the Auckland Central railway tunnels and in the Central Interceptor waste-water project will come to an end; they won't be able to get sand to make concrete for vital infrastructure. That's going to add to cost to delay in everything that gets built in Auckland.What this Natural and Built Environments Bill will do is actually add to the cost of building add to the cost of infrastructure it's going to add red tape and it's going to take longer to get consents to do stuff so that we can build New Zealand out of the infrastructure deficit that we've been left with.It's also what the Infrastructure Commission said. They said the current Resource Management Act has led to years of delays and cost billions in unnecessary consenting processes. There's no evidence presented by the Minister that this bill will solve that problem.ACT believes one way to reduce planning and consenting costs is simply to stop planning and consenting for things we already know how to do well to mitigate environmental effects. For example a code of practice for common activities like earthworks and drainage would replace the need for thousands of consents that are required every year. It would save huge amount of time and tens of millions of dollars in building costs.This Government is squandering an opportunity—a once-in-a-generation opportunity—to change the way we manage natural environments and the built environment. For reform to be successful ACT believes some meaningful changes are required that are not included in this exposure draft of the Natural and Built Environments Act. Protect property rights and expand the right of people to use their own property for the maximum utility. Address the artificial scarcity of land caused by the lack of infrastructure required to service it. Remove gateway tests which require developers to prove why they should be allowed to build something rather than simply focus on how they manage environmental effects. We should reduce the range of activities which require consent by requiring simple codes of practice to be followed. And we should limit those who are allowed to object to private plan changes and consent applications to only those directly affected; we need to exclude the activists and the nimbies from being able to object to vital infrastructure and development projects. And of course we must prioritise outcomes so that vital work like making concrete is prioritised. And finally we need to base environmental protections only on science not cultural or social constructs. This will actually increase certainty for developers and local councils so they do not end up living in fear of the Environment Court and activist judges.The proposed reforms advocated by the Minister will actually introduce less certainty more cost more delay at a time where we need to be agile and ready to adapt to our future. We don't need to be telling people how the shape of their cities should look. We don't need to be telling people how they should be developing their property. We should be enabling councils to focus on funding and delivering infrastructure because that is how you get the next generation to build so that they can live in affordable homes like the last one did.All parties agree that resource management reform is necessary. But this draft bill is not the reform that we need. We do not believe it improves the status quo; that is why ACT does not support the development of this bill.