Auchinvole Chris: Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Auchinvole Chris: Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:657;Page:6219] 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast - Tasman) 
: 
 The debate has gone on for a long time concentrating largely on trees. I thought it might be useful for the Committee to look at some other aspects that will change with the passing of the excellent Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill. 
Picture if you will Springfield in Canterbury—the original sleepy hollow. It is a lovely little town which I have the pleasure of driving through and stopping in a couple of times a week on the way home. Springfield has some cafes an excellent hotel a garden shop and a few things like that. It is a really nice place. But it has that distinctive name Springfield. A couple of years ago—it might have been 3 years ago—the producers of the television programme that I believe is called  
The Simpsons 
 which I do not watch myself decided to send a concrete doughnut to every town called Springfield. They sent one to this sleepy little town in Canterbury and gosh it was really popular. The town put it up on the side of the road. Tour buses stopped everyone was photographed beside it kids loved it and all the local businesses enjoyed it. It really went well. 
When the 3 months were over the town was told it had to get rid of it. But the people the community of the town—one of the small towns that we heard need representation—said that they would like to keep it. Transit said the town could not keep the concrete doughnut by the side of the road because it would immediately cause accidents. The town said that it had not caused any accidents for the last 3 months. Transit said that was because it had been given a permit but a permit could not be given for it now because it would cause accidents. So the town put it in the local park. The council said that the town must apply for a consent. The community asked why. The council’s response was “because”. The community said that it was a statue in a park and that it did not need a consent. So the council engaged a consultant. 
This is how the story has been related to me. I find it hard to believe. I hope I am not misleading the Committee but several people have told me this was exactly the case. The council got a consultant to look at the doughnut in order to give it a definition and the consultant said it was a building—it was a house and it must have a permit. The people said that they did not want to get a permit for it as a building. The council told them to remove it. But they could not remove it because they did not have a permit to remove it and they could not get a permit to remove it because they did not have a permit for it in the first place. The council now intends to apply for the consent itself. An objection has been lodged by someone who wants to take the council to the Environment Court. This goes on and on. I am told that so far the cost has been established at $20000. This is not what the Resource Management Act was ever intended to do but this is what it is doing. We need this bill to change it. Thank you Mr Chair.