2. Resource Legislation Amendment Bill—Iwi Participation and ReformsMARAMA FOX (Co-Leader—Māori Party) to the Minister for the EnvironmentResource Legislation Amendment Bill—Iwi Participation and Reforms2. MARAMA FOX (Co-Leader—Māori Party) to the Minister for the Environment: How do Mana Whakahono ā Rohe agreements strengthen iwi participation under the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill?Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): They will enable iwi to be able to better participate in resource management processes and ensure their perspective is heard and understood. Some councils already have these agreements and they have proved to work well. These proposals have been approved as a consequence of input from the Māori Party and from the iwi leaders group and they were widely supported by councils in their submissions on the bill. The Māori Party should rightly be proud of this achievement.Marama Fox: Does he agree with the Green member Metiria Turei that the democratic rights of New Zealanders to have their say over the environment will be undermined; if not why not?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No I strongly disagree. We need resource management laws that do enable people to have a say but it is also undemocratic to have outdated plans that result in environmental problems being ignored housing developments stalled when communities need more homes and opportunities for employment and development held back for years because of protracted bureaucracy. I also believe that reforms like the new collaborative planning processes in the bill actually provide for a more effective way for New Zealanders to have a say and be involved in resource decision-making without the divisive litigious and expensive processes of the current Act.Meka Whaitiri: What mana-enhancing gains will iwi receive given the powers of the Minister to override plans and consents to limit right of participation and to curtail the appeal rights of adversely affected private parties councils communities and the environment?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Members opposite may think that a bill that enables us to have a national rule to fence stock out of streams is somehow an overruling of councils and all sorts of other extravagant claims. Actually it is about making sure that we better manage our environment and have cleaner rivers and streams. Marama Fox: How are the rights and interests of iwi and all of Aotearoa protected under the resource management proposals?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Māori Party has made strong representations around some of the provisions in the bill which were also raised by submitters such as the regulation-making powers under section 360 of the Resource Management Act (RMA). These provisions have been refined down to just one area from the four that were proposed and to where councils' RMA rules duplicate or repeat regulations under other Acts. These regulations will also be subject to full public consultation and a section 32 analysis. We have also in response to concerns from the Māori Party restored appeal rights to the Environment Court in respect of those consents around water takes and water discharges that were of concern to the party.Rt Hon Winston Peters: How can he possibly reconcile his dire warnings about being brownmailed" on the RMA in December 2004 with his divisive separatist and race-based bill which stands before the House today and will do nothing for New Zealanders and for that matter 99 percent of Māori apart from Marama Fox's elite mates?Mr SPEAKER: Order!Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The irony of that question is that the New Zealand First Party voted under the last Government for changes to the RMA that increased the obligations on councils to consult iwi. What we are doing with the amendments in this bill is actually making those processes more workable and practical so there are not the costs and the delays that have frustrated average New Zealanders.Sarah Dowie: How will the new planning standards proposed under the reform bill help reduce the complexity and bureaucracy of the current Resource Management Act?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Current council planning documents stand taller than this Chamber at 10 metres tall and consist of 80000 pages of policies and rules. We have got 50 different ways across New Zealand to measure the height of a building. We have got over 200 different definitions of what you can do in a commercial zone. Environment Court decisions have got limited precedent value because they actually apply to only a single council's plan. The new planning standards will hugely shrink this excessive and costly bureaucracy. They will all require a common format common definitions and standard zonings while allowing councils to make the decision as to what areas those zonings will apply in their district.Sarah Dowie: How will the reforms reduce the number of consents that are required noting the OECD's conclusions that New Zealand's system of environmental regulation makes too little use of national standards and relies on too many discretionary consents?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The bill and the associated national policies and standards will significantly reduce the number of consents that are required. For example our national environment standards in areas like telecommunications facilities pest control and forestry are expected to reduce the number of consents each year by thousands and save millions of dollars in compliance costs. The bill also introduces two mechanisms to reduce the need for consents: councils will now have the discretion to waive the need for a consent for a mining activity; nor will a consent be required to for instance build a deck that breaches infringement boundary rules provided that the relevant neighbour has agreed. They are the sorts of pragmatic changes that I think New Zealanders are looking for.Hon David Parker: If this bill is so wonderful why is it that virtually every submitter including Todd Property Group and Fulton Hogan Ltd as well as councils and environmental NGOs say that rather than making the Resource Management Act (RMA) simpler the bill is going to increase its complexity increase costs and have worse outcomes?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member grossly misrepresents the submissions that have been made to the select committee. When you have got a bill that is over 200 pages long and makes more than 40 changes of course there will be some submitters on some parts. How many submissions opposed planning standards? How many opposed national rules for getting stock out of streams? How many opposed councils having the discretion to be able to waive need for consents? The answer on all the substantive proposals in this bill is they have very wide support.Hon David Parker: If the Minister is so confident—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Is this a point of order or a supplementary question?Hon David Parker: It is a question.Mr SPEAKER: Then address it.Hon David Parker: If this bill is so good and these things are so uncomplicated why is it that his own department was unable to provide a report to the select committee and why was the select committee unable to provide advice to the Parliamentary Counsel Office for 5 months after submissions closed?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: This bill had 800 submissions that were heard through to June. The department provided its first 150-page report in August and another 500-page report last week because members on this side of the House are serious about getting resource management law right. Members opposite whinge about the RMA but every time this Government comes to the House with a substantive reform bill to fix the problems they oppose it."