King Annette: Resource Management Reform Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
King Annette: Resource Management Reform Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 11 December 2012. Volume:686;Page:7335. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Labour—Rongotai) 
: 
 The Labour Opposition will be opposing this bill the Resource Management Reform Bill. This bill amends the Resource Management Act makes a number of changes to the Resource Management Act process and imposes a 6-month consent time frame for medium-sized projects. It is phase two of a series of Government reforms to the Resource Management Act with more coming next year so let us start there. We have already had the experience of this Government doing things in a piecemeal way in an ad hoc way and with a half-baked approach and that is what we are facing yet again with this bill. Why does the Government not complete its work and bring to this House a comprehensive piece of legislation for us to consider? Bringing in piecemeal pieces of legislation is a waste of the House’s time and a waste of the time of the Local Government and Environment Committee and means that those who want to submit to any bill that comes to this House have to do it two or three times depending on how many times this Government decides it is going to bring in a bill that relates to the same topic. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Well how come Labour had three RMA bills? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: So I ask Nick Smith who has probably been the author of this—I doubt whether Amy Adams is the author of it; right behind this are the hands and the fingerprints of Nick Smith—could he not have learnt from the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Act 2012 that you do things based on evidence that you do the job first and then you bring the bill to this House? But oh no here we go again with a half-baked idea that has had very little consultation. 
I found the regulatory impact statement also very very interesting. Remember the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill? It had a very interesting regulatory impact statement. In fact it ripped the Government apart in terms of saying how poor its consultation had been how rushed it had been how it had not considered all the options because there was not time and that there was no quantitative evidence to back up some of the claims that Nick Smith had made. So what does the regulatory impact statement say on this bill? It says this: “Given the nature of the issues covered in this policy process accurate quantification of the size of problems and the size of impacts has not been feasible across all options analysis. It is difficult to quantify the scale of costs reduction resulting from the proposals in this paper as they impact on a broad spectrum of business community and a mix of direct and associated holding costs.” In other words the work has not been done and the regulatory impact statement is pointing this out. It has not been feasible to look across all the options so why not wait get the evidence and do the work before introducing a bill? But no once again this Government rushes headlong into legislation before it has thought it through. 
My colleague Grant Robertson pointed out the Government’s consultation processes. Well it did a little bit of consultation in 2009; then it looks like it put it on the shelf and went away and forgot about it. There has been very little consultation since 2009. In fact the regulatory impact statement says: “No subsequent consultation has been undertaken including with the Environment Court in relation to capacity to implement proposed changes.” Well would you not think you would go and talk to the Environment Court and ask them: “Will you be able to handle the cases we think will be coming through?” Would that not be a logical question? Would it not be your first question because is this Resource Management Reform Bill not all about unblocking roadblocks—unblocking roadblocks? So what do Government members do? They put in place a bill and they do not consult the Environment Court and say: “Hey can you manage this?”. So where is the next roadblock? It is likely to be at the Environment Court. So what a fundamental error this is by this Government on this bill to not do a simple bit of consultation before it rushed this bill. Two days before the House rises one more day of Parliament and it had to rush it in. It could not wait until next year to ask the Environment Court what it thought about it. That is what the regulatory impact statement says. 
This bill is a power grab by this Government and it is also once again taking away decisions from local communities. I believe it is an attack on local democracy because we now see an emerging pattern in the 4 years of this Government. We have seen it with the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill where the Government took away the right of local people to have a vote on their regional councils with spurious evidence and spurious argument. Everybody who submitted to that select committee knew it was spurious argument that was being used including the commissioners themselves. Then we had the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill which once again reduced the ability for local communities to have a local say. So this is just yet another example of this Government’s disregard for local communities and for democracy at a local level. We need a Government that works from the grassroots up not the Beehive down but that is all that we have had to date from this Government. 
I have a series of questions to put to the Government. I would like some answers and I hope we get them at the select committee. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Don’t hold your breath. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I will not hold my breath. But what is the estimated cost to local government of the Resource Management Reform Bill 2012? I want to see the estimated costs. Has the work been done Dr Smith on what the cost will be to local government? Having slagged off local government up and down New Zealand—having slagged them off because they are putting up their rates and increasing their debt—once again here is the Government imposing on local government. So what is the cost? 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: We’ll save them money. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: That is not what local government believes. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: We’ll save the Auckland Council money. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: That is not what Auckland Council believes. So if it is saving the Government money put the costings on the table. Let us see the costings. I will be asking for them at the select committee. Have the costings been done by the Department of Internal Affairs and the Ministry for the Environment? Have they even been done? Where are they? 
Phil Twyford 
: Would you trust them? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No you would not trust Government members with the costings because obviously this is an agenda they want to push forward and to hell with the consequences. I want to know what consultation has been undertaken with the Auckland Council on the impact of the Resource Management Reform Bill on its Unitary Plan and in what way will it assist it. Is the council happy with what is being proposed in this bill? Have the Auckland Council Mayor and councillors said that they are happy with the proposals in this bill? After all we are told by Amy Adams that this is to help Auckland. Well are they happy? Give us some feedback on that. 
We also want to know why the hearing panels under the Resource Management Reform Bill are going to be chosen by the Government. How can that be open and transparent? Why are Government members not allowing local people to make that decision? Are they going to allow a local representative on the hearing panel? I think the answer is no. I think Grant Robertson got it right when he said there has already been a list put out as to who is likely to be on any hearing panel: chaired by Paula Rebstock—the person who gets every chair available—with Stephen McElrea Tony O’Brien and Peter Kiely. So where is the local community representative on that hearing panel? 
I also want to know what consultation has taken place with the Minister of Maori Affairs Pita Sharples on tikanga knowledge and Maori representation on the Resource Management Reform Bill 2012. Was he happy with the decisions that have been made as they affect Maori in terms of this bill? I would like to see the information provided by Dr Sharples on what he thinks about this bill. I suspect he is not very happy about it at all. What delays if any are estimated for local government by this bill? What delays will they face and what will be the costs to them? 
I also want to know what will be the impact—finally the impact—of this bill on the recently passed Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill because the four well-beings have been removed from the Local Government Act and one of them was economic well-being the others being environmental cultural and social. Those well-beings are not allowed to be considered now but this bill says that there must be an overriding consideration for the economic development in an area. So how does it go when there is one thing that takes away the economic well-being against this bill saying that people now need to consider it? 
This bill is once again a dog’s breakfast. The Government ought to have waited and got it right but it rushed headlong into a bill that I think is going to cause more problems than it is worth.