Mackey Moana: Resource Management Reform Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Mackey Moana: Resource Management Reform Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 11 December 2012. Volume:686;Page:7345. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 Well Nikki Kaye might be gobsmacked that we are opposing this bill the Resource Management Reform Bill but if she had actually listened to the speeches by my colleagues she would understand why this bill will not do any of the things that she has just outlined. In fact the Labour Party put together a very good housing policy that will make a difference and that will build 100000 houses. It is a very comprehensive policy—a very comprehensive policy. That is the kind of thing we need to see out of a Government that is taking affordable housing seriously not gutting the Resource Management Act taking protections away from trees and putting in place time frames. We are going to be looking at that 6-month time frame very carefully at the Local Government and Environment Committee. I remember that when the Hon Dr Nick Smith was in Opposition he put forward a member’s bill to put time restrictions on Resource Management Act consents. Local government was horribly opposed to it because often there are many good reasons why it cannot do a consent within a prescribed time period. 
But what we are seeing in this bill overall—and this is why Labour is opposing it—is a power grab again. That is what we saw in recent weeks with the local government legislation and that is what we are seeing here today. This is taking away more power from the grassroots in New Zealand. We are going to have more decisions made not from the grassroots up but from the Beehive down. That is the modus operandi of this National Government. 
I do not know why the National Party does not trust local government. It is democratically elected yet what we have seen consistently from this National Government since it was elected are moves to take away the right for people in Canterbury to elect their own regional council. And when the Hon Dr Nick Smith who was a Minister at the time was asked why he thought that was appropriate—and people in Canterbury still are not allowed to elect their regional council—he said that it was because he was worried about the outcome of the election. Well that is called democracy. That is called democracy. Unfortunately democracy means that the people’s will is going to determine the decisions that are going to be made in future and Governments have to roll with the punches and live with that. It is simply unbelievable that a Minister of Local Government would say: “Well I’m going to take away the rights of people to elect their regional council because I don’t like the decisions that that democratically elected regional council has been making on a decision as important as water allocation in the Canterbury Plains.” 
So then we had the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No 2) that again strips away power from local authorities. Basically it tells them that they are in charge of roads rates and rubbish and nothing else. Anyone who has had anything to do with local government knows that that simply is not the case. Local government is a crucial partner with central government in future economic development well-being environmental well-being social well-being and cultural well-being. But National has taken those well-beings out and said to local government: “We’re going to put you in a position where legally now you could be very easily challenged because before it was clear that that was your mandate.” I look at the Ashburton District Council which put together health services for the people of Rakaia because there were none there. Without local government those people would not have access to health services. That fell under the mandate of the four well-beings. Well that is gone now. That could be legally challenged.  
So how is all this about reducing costs to local government when all we are doing is increasing uncertainty which by its very nature will result in legal challenges and will increase costs to local government and to ratepayers? And lo and behold here we come to the first Resource Management Reform Bill. It is one of two that we have been expecting.  
Again the changes made under the guise of reducing costs and streamlining are not about reducing costs and streamlining; they are about limiting public consultation limiting community involvement in the decisions that affect them directly and giving more power to central government and in particular to the Minister. I could not believe it. The Hon Dr Smith basically said that this was because he wanted a teen parent unit in Nelson. This is why we are having to gut the Resource Management Act because he wanted a teen parent unit in Nelson. We have got a great one in Gisborne and it happened with the Resource Management Act. There are teen parent units all around the country that manage to survive the horrific Resource Management Act process. I think that it is extraordinary that that was a reason given by the member.  
Finally I want to come to the issue of trees in Auckland. I do not pretend to understand the depth of feeling surrounding trees in Auckland. I guess it is kind of like the Gisborne to Napier rail line. But I do appreciate the comments made by my colleague Phil Twyford about what this might mean on an issue that is very serious for Auckland residents. We had another big bust up about it back in 2009 when they made Resource Management Act changes then as well. Again you have got the Hon Dr Nick Smith who as my colleague Phil Twyford pointed out seems to be saying that you do not need a lot of trees; you could just have one and look at it a lot of times. That seems to be the approach being taken here.  
I want to congratulate my former colleague Lynne Pillay on the work she did with the Waitakere Ranges Protection Society legislation. I would hate to see that good work by Lynne Pillay undermined by the provisions in this bill.