Smith Nick; Rurawhe AdrianHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I have rarely witnessed such a complete surrender of the Green Party as I've heard from that Minister's speech right now. If a National Government had introduced this bill the Green Party right now would be going apoplectic and if I've heard an apology from the Green Party for a Resource Management Act (RMA) reform bill that certainly was it. Let's cut to the chase: this bill radically reduces the information that's required for a resource consent it radically cuts the amount of public consultation it radically reduces the appeals and if the Minister who has just spoken had reread her speeches over the many years of RMA changes she would realise the degree to which the Green Party has chucked its principles under the bus with this bill. This bill represents the level of muddle and chaos within the Government around critical resource policy. Here's the most extraordinary part: right now we have got a 240-page RMA reform bill that's been through nearly nine months of process that puts in more public consultation and that undoes the very reforms that would enable us to be able to build infrastructure. It undermines the capacity for us to get houses built and at the very time this Government is slowing down and making more complicated the RMA suddenly it introduces this massive bill under extraordinary circumstances. Now let's be clear: this bill was only provided to the Parliament at 1.30 this afternoon. The Government is proposing a select committee process—remember the normal select committee process is six months. I remember moving a motion in this House—in fact I've got parts of the Hansard on an RMA reform bill associated with the Canterbury earthquakes where I reduced the select committee process to four months and the Green Party said it was a constitutional outrage. So I say to the Minister of Conservation that if it's a constitutional outrage to reduce it from six months to four months what is it when you reduce it from six months to 14 days—to two weeks? I'd love that Minister in the Green Party to give an explanation as to why we've had this extraordinary change of approach and change of spots. Let's just put the Greens' principles very simply: if it is a Labour-Green Government that is wanting to bypass the RMA processes that's a good thing but if it is a National Government then they are opposed. That is as shallow as their principles are. But there are problems with this bill. Why would we say in the law that if the private sector wants to get on and build some houses they've got to go through all these steps and processes but if the Government wants to build the houses oh they should be able to bypass them? Can some member somewhere in the House tell me what the logic of that is? Members on this side of the House say that we want to make it easier for everybody to be able to get on and build the houses that New Zealand builds and not just the State housing department. I'd love the member Eugenie Sage to read her speeches on the special housing Act legislation. [Interruption] Yes actually. There are over 14000 houses that have been built in those special housing areas. It's one of the reasons that so many homes have been built over the last five years. But why was it—Hon Eugenie Sage: Oh rubbish—rubbish! Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well I'd be happy to take it to my own electorate where we have had to open a new school because we have got thousands of homes. In fact here's what the Mayor of Auckland said. The Mayor of Auckland said that half the new houses built in 2019 in Auckland were in special housing areas—that's 4500. But what did Eugenie Sage say when we wanted to shorten the RMA processes to be able to build more houses? Eugenie Sage and the Green Party fought that bill at every stage. Then let's go back to the first of the RMA reform bills that provided for specifically fast-tracking infrastructure. We set up a board of inquiry process. We put it in the law that those decisions had to be made in nine months. How do members think Transmission Gully got consented in nine months? How do people think that that wonderful Waterview Tunnel got built in nine months? So where were members opposite like Shane Jones and like Damien O'Connor when the previous National Government wanted RMA reforms to enable those sorts of projects to proceed? They all trotted off to the Noes lobby and vigorously opposed it. So I say to the Shane Joneses who previously voted against such changes and I'd say to the Damien O'Connors: what has changed? So we on this side of the House do think there is a case for reform but we do say this: why should it just be the projects that this particular Government chooses to be able to get the reduction in RMA processes? Why should others not be able to benefit from it? Why shouldn't the Waitaha hydro scheme on the West Coast? Why shouldn't the southern link road in my own community? Why shouldn't the project that's been championed by Matt Doocey for the motorway north of Christchurch the Woodend bypass—why should that not be part of it? We on this side of the House say that they should not be picking and choosing. These reforms and the accelerated process should not be a matter of playing favourites but should provide a streamlined and fast-tracked process for all projects and not just the favoured few. The last point I would want to make on this bill is in respect of the poor process: 80 pages of law 200 clauses and being tabled today after 1 o'clock. Everybody knows caucuses meet at 10. The Government did not even have the courtesy to provide this bill before caucuses such as ours and others were able to discuss it and when we look at the 264 clauses in this bill how many members of this Parliament really believe we are going to be able to give adequate scrutiny to that in the two-week select committee process? This is going to end up like another dog's breakfast like that tax bill we discussed about three weeks ago. That was the one where Minister Nash told us it did one thing and we found out afterwards that it did something very very different—something that was extraordinarily incompetent and something I've never seen in 30 years within this Parliament. The truth of this fast-tracked consenting bill is it just shows how vacant the Government is more generally in terms of its approach to resource management. They've now been in office for two years and nine months. All they have done in those two years and nine months is make it harder for people to get resource consents to build the infrastructure the houses and the other things that will enable our economy to grow. You can't for two years and nine months slow the boat down pass reforms that make it more difficult and then suddenly three months out from an election change your tune. The part that has been absolutely consistent about the National Party is that we have championed reforms of the RMA to get the infrastructure built that New Zealand needs. We cannot go on with this chaotic muddled approach of swimming one direction one day and a different way the next. That is why National is to choose to support this reform bill but we do challenge the Government and say that we should not be playing favourites. We need a robust process. Getting projects properly and efficiently consented is not just important in times of the COVID emergency—Hon Shane Jones: Yeah I agree. Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —but is actually important all the time and that's why I say to Shane Jones who's suddenly agreeing why is it then that his party voted against every RMA reform bill in the previous National Government? The truth is that for Shane Jones for the Green Party and for the Labour Party they have one set of rules in Opposition and a different position in Government and I'm proud to be part of a National Party that has consistently argued for these sorts of reforms. They should just be provided fairly. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): This is a split call. I call the Hon Damien O'Connor—five minutes.