Kaye Nikki: Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Kaye Nikki: Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:657;Page:6152] 
NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) 
: 
 I rise to speak on the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill. The Resource Management Act came into force in October 1991 and replaced or amended more than 50 other laws relating to town planning and environmental management. This complex statute is designed to help manage a wide range of issues including conflicting values expectations and rights with regard to the environment. In the 17 years since the Act became law there has been criticism of the legislation’s ability to effectively manage complex environmental issues and complaints about slow and costly plan preparation and consenting processes. 
The purpose of this bill is to begin to redress the balance of environmental protection versus economic growth. The key message that I want to get across is that sometimes this can be a very delicate balance. Overall I think that this bill will improve the legislation but I have raised some concerns particularly about trees as people will be aware and I look forward to a robust debate on that issue. 
We are delivering on our promise to streamline the Resource Management Act. For too long it has imposed unnecessary cost not only on businesses but also on communities; I have seen this in my electorate. The main purpose of this first phase of Resource Management Act reforms is to reduce the time for processing consents and reduce the paperwork required without compromising our obligation to our environmental heritage. We are here because we know that the uncertainty and delays of the current Resource Management Act are adversely affecting New Zealand jobs infrastructure and productivity and they are causing economic frustrations for homeowners small businesses farmers and community groups. The bill before us cuts across aspects of the principal Act to simplify and streamline processes such as developing and making changes to plans making decisions on proposals of national significance preparing and implementing national instruments resource consent applications decision making and the penalty regime. Other than in relation to processing applications for proposals of national significance the roles and functions of the Environmental Protection Authority are not defined in this bill. They are to be expanded upon in the next phase of the Resource Management Act’s reform. 
I thank all the members of the public who made submissions on this bill. The Local Government and Environment Committee considered 840 public submissions with 339 submitters appearing in person. As a result of the select committee process significant changes have been made to strengthen the provisions to ensure the timely and efficient processing of resource consents. The reason this is needed is that the Resource Management Act biennial survey for 2007-08 showed that only 69 percent of applications were processed within the statutory time frames. The bill includes changes to limit rather than remove further rounds of submissions on plan changes and to strengthen the process for national consenting and national environmental standards. It also defers the changes around requiring authority decision-making to the broader phase two process. Overall as I have mentioned a sensible balance has been struck between reducing bureaucracy and ensuring proper process and environmental protection. 
I will cover a couple of key important aspects of this legislation including proposals of national significance the Environmental Protection Authority and of course trees. The bill seeks to streamline processes for matters of national significance by providing more clarity and certainty around the board of inquiry process and by improving the process for consenting nationally significant proposals. Matters of national significance could include applications for resource consent or change in resource consent conditions local authority plan changes or variations requests for plan changes requests for preparation of regional plans and notices of requirements associated with a proposal of national significance. 
The other key aspect of this bill which a lot of people are looking forward to and have come to me to talk about is that it seeks to establish an Environmental Protection Authority. The full powers and functions of the authority are to be considered in phase two of the reforms as mentioned by a number of speakers. 
We now come to trees. Firstly I acknowledge the consistent approach of the Green Party on this issue particularly that of Jeanette Fitzsimons who has worked constructively on this issue for a long period of time. I acknowledge the hard work that she has put into this issue. 
Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Point of order Jonathan Coleman. 
NIKKI KAYE 
: For the Labour Opposition to suddenly be concerned about this issue— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Order! I am on my feet and I have called order. 
Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think the barracking has got out of hand. Members are here wanting to listen to this speech. Occasional interjections are fine and are in the tradition of the House but I think there is an attempt over there to break up this member’s speech. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I would have some sympathy for the member’s point of view had there not been a barrage of interjections from the seats just in front of the member. There has been quite a robust exchange but the point is made: interjections should not be to the detriment of the speaker speaking. The person wants to be heard. I invite Nikki Kaye to continue. 
NIKKI KAYE 
: For the Labour Opposition to suddenly be concerned about this issue is absolute politics. I want to use the “h” word but I will not. Members on that side of the House—including Mr Twyford Mr Hawkins and Mr Jones—supported the tree provisions and failed to put in a minority report on this issue. There is no minority report. They are not interested in the policy; they are interested only in politics. 
I personally believe that the current system of tree rules is fraught and has led to individuals and councils spending excessive time and money on resource consents for trees. Most people environmentalists community leaders and local authorities believe that the current system is not working. The question needs to be asked: how do we fix it? I believe that it is reasonable for individuals to be able to prune and trim their trees without getting resource consent which is what this law change will achieve. My concern lies in Auckland and it lies specifically with the ability of local authorities in Auckland to adequately protect high-value trees via scheduling. Ironically with the reforms in Auckland governance scheduling may become easier with one system for tree scheduling in the future. However rather than politicking on this issue I have been working with the Minister regarding my concerns. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We sometimes find in the House that men with very loud voices are able despite the lack of microphones to completely shout down women who are speaking and I think this is such an occasion. I am not trying to shut down interjections either but in my view this has gone a bit too far. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I could hear the member from here. I could hear her well. She appeared to be coping quite well. I think the sexist implications from that member are regrettable. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Regrettable or not members are entitled to their opinions and this is a place of free speech. They are entitled to express their views strongly and robustly. I think that is a fair enough point. A point of order was raised before by the Hon Jonathan Coleman about the noise and as long as people can be heard I am reluctant to stop interjections. I thought that I had left a hint for some members to ease back a little but it was not taken. Before I invite Nikki Kaye to continue with her speech I say to people that interjections are fair enough but not such that they drown out the person. It was getting very close to that point. Interjections are fine but they should not drown out the speaker who is entitled to be heard. 
NIKKI KAYE 
: I reiterate that Jeanette Fitzsimons has worked very constructively on this issue. 
Rather than politicking on this issue I have been working with the Minister for the Environment with regard to my concerns. The question I have specifically put to him is that if this legislation is passed how can the people of Auckland have confidence that between now and January 2012 high-value trees and areas of bush will be protected through scheduling? I have asked the Minister how he can ensure that councils will undertake this work in a consistent efficient manner at a reasonable cost. I know that in the Committee stage the Minister will set out how he will ensure that Aucklanders can have confidence that tree scheduling will work in Auckland. I choose to work constructively with local authorities and the Minister to ensure that that will happen. 
Except for my reservations with regard to clause 52 I think that this bill will help to redress the balance between environmental protection and economic growth. Overall this bill will be good for New Zealand.