Smith NickThird ReadingHon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): I move That the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill be now read a third time. This bill is a critical part of the Government's programme to increase the supply and affordability of housing to grow the economy with more jobs and higher incomes and also to improve New Zealand's environmental management. The bill is a second phase of our reform programme that began with a major bill in our first term but for which we were unable to get progress in our second term because we were unable to secure a parliamentary majority. It is a significant milestone that today we will pass this 250-page bill involving 40 substantial changes and over 700 specific provisions after multiple rounds of technical advisory groups public consultation and negotiations with other parties in this Parliament.Parties opposing this bill are doing New Zealand a disservice. In the Committee stage they quibbled at the edges they tried to manufacture myths but they have been unable to mount any credible argument against the substantive reforms in this bill—in fact they barely mentioned them.This bill introduces national planning standards so as to simplify the 80000 pages of resource management rules and policies more than 1000 pages per council which make the RMA a nightmare for New Zealanders to navigate. A country of 4.7 million people cannot justify that level of bureaucracy. It makes common sense that we have standard zonings standard ways of measuring things like the height of a building standard definitions and a standard format for our plans. The bill radically changes the way plans are written by introducing a new streamlined and collaborative process. This matters because it takes on average 7 years currently for a council to complete a new plan and that is just too slow to address the sorts of water and housing issues that our communities face. We know that this new streamlined process works because our Government has used it in writing new plans for the major cities of Auckland and Christchurch through special legislation. The overwhelming message is that the process was robust the plans were better and the results were achieved in a fraction of the time. I am equally appalled that members opposite are opposing the addition of natural hazards to the matters of national importance. Earthquakes floods cyclones tsunamis and landslides are not things to play politics with. The recent quakes in Christchurch and Kaikōura the floods in Auckland and Northland earlier this year and the flooding of Edgecumbe today are reminders of the significant natural hazard risks our country faces. This change was recommended by the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Building Failure Caused by the Canterbury Earthquakes because planners had been so diverted by the more politically correct requirements of the current Act—the Resource Management Act (RMA)—that those hazards were overlooked. Every responsible member of this House genuinely concerned with the well-being of our country should be backing the inclusion of this important requirement into the most central part of the RMA—its purposes and principles.One of the biggest issues facing our country right now is the supply and affordability of housing. I am gobsmacked at members opposite who demand that this be addressed and then come down to this House and oppose the very measures that will make a real difference. Report after independent report—be it the Productivity Commission be it Treasury be it the OECD be it The New Zealand Initiative or be it the Property Council—make plain that it is the supply of land that is at the core of the issue. The numbers speak for themselves: the cost of building an average 170 square metre house in Auckland has increased from $120000 25 years ago to $360000 today—a threefold increase. But the cost of the average section has in the same period gone from $53000 to $530000—a tenfold increase. You cannot pretend to be serious about improving the availability of housing unless you are prepared to address the price of new sections and the reform of the very Act—the RMA—that governs their creation. This bill introduces a new specific requirement on councils to free up land supply. It removes appeals on resource consents for residential development. It reverses the presumption in favour of subdivision. It removes the double-charging system of development and financial contributions to a single tighter regime. This will help bring the cost of sections down.This bill is also a help in getting the roading the rail the water the telecommunications and the electricity infrastructure built to support our strongly growing economy. It will speed up the process for designations and consents. The changes to the Public Works Act—giving more generous compensation to affected landowners but also including a financial incentive to be able to do so earlier—will help get the infrastructure that our country needs more quickly.Another important issue that this bill progresses is that of water quality—in enabling national regulations requiring stock to be fenced out of waterways. Only three of our 16 regional councils have any rules on this. National rules are a sensible way forward backed up by the instant fines in this bill. Members opposite cannot cry foul in any credible way over the state of our waterways when they then come down to the House and vote against these practical measures. There are also environmental gains in the new provisions that will require offshore platforms to have decommissioning plans. There have been expensive experiences overseas where petroleum companies have exhausted the oil and gas and have then left the huge cost of decommissioning to the taxpayer. This bill addresses that problem.The bill also tackles the problems of those thousands of unnecessary consents that cause so much frustration and cost for constituents. I have got an example right now in Nelson of the Rutherford Street Kindergarten moving just 100 metres up the road to new premises and the parents in the kindy committee having to fundraise for over $50000 of resource consent and related costs. I could bore this Parliament for hours with examples of minor projects like decks and carports actually costing more to get a resource consent than they actually cost to build. These issues are addressed in this bill with the power for a council to be able to waive the need for the consent the new 10-day fast-track process for minor issues and the ability to resolve boundary infringement rules—issues that can only be resolved with the consent of the immediate neighbour.The iwi participation arrangements in this bill are about making existing provisions in the RMA—in sections 6 7 and 8—more workable. It will enable councils to work out practical ways for iwi to participate in the process and help the system to work better by getting early involvement. The law is plain that decisions on plans and consents remain with the councils and that councils cannot be forced into agreements. There are many councils that already have such arrangements and they are proving to work well for both iwi and resource consent applicants as a consequence of greater clarity about who to consult and what issues are of importance to iwi.There are dozens of practical provisions in this bill that will reduce bureaucracy and red tape. It tackles the problem of the RMA being used by councils to duplicate the issues that are already regulated in other statutes like building insulation standards telecommunications regulations fishing rules workplace safety requirements or hazardous substances rules. We need a regulatory system that leaves no gaps but which also avoids double-ups. The changes to the Reserves Act and the Conservation Act align notification periods and enable joint hearings so that we will not have the two separate processes debating the same project.I need to conclude by acknowledging the mountain of work that has gone into this bill over many years. I particularly want to acknowledge Amy Adams the former Minister for the Environment who during the last term of Parliament put huge work into its provisions; Scott Simpson who worked tirelessly in chairing the Local Government and Environment Committee; Te Ururoa Flavell and Marama Fox and their team in the Māori Party who have worked so hard to find compromises; and to Tim Bennetts and George Riddell in my Beehive office; as well as the teams from PCO and the Ministry for the Environment.The passage of this Resource Legislation Amendment Bill is a significant milestone for this Government. It delivers on reforms planned and promised over many years. It will make houses easier to build and more affordable. It will reduce unnecessary red tape and bureaucracy for Kiwi homeowners for farms and for businesses. It will help our country build the infrastructure to support a growing economy. It will ensure our country is safer by better managing those natural hazards. This bill is a litmus test for MPs as to whether their intent is playing politics or doing what is right for our country. I urge this Parliament to pass this complex but very necessary reform.