Court Simon; Rurawhe AdrianSIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you Mr Speaker. New Zealand's resource management laws have become unmanageable with rules piled upon rules all of which hold back progress and many of which have actually led to unforeseen environmental consequences. The root cause of this is the current Resource Management Act's lack of philosophical coherence. It can't decide whether privately owned land and the right to decide what to do with it belongs to the property owner or to the council local government iwi central government or the Environment Court. The same confusion also exists for shared resources like lakes and rivers. As a result it's difficult to make decisions about how to use or develop resources and that leaves us all poorer.Minister Parker claimed in his introduction to this 807-page bill that the reform will deliver resource consents and permits faster better cheaper yet the bill appears to be simply RMA 2.0 Minister. It's a reform designed by a committee a committee led by one of the same planning lawyers who came up with the first Resource Management Act (RMA). Now sitting under section 5 of this bill there are no less than nine environmental outcomes—including some that are extremely vague such as the ecological integrity mana and mauri of air water and soils"—and each one of these nine outcomes has many sub-outcomes as well 18 in all. How 18 outcomes and sub-outcomes are meant to be balanced by decision makers is unknown untested. There's no hierarchy amongst these outcomes and the criteria for decision making in section 6 affords discretion for decision makers in how they are pursued and once limits are met is also incredibly vague.Now the intentions of Minister Parker are well signalled: faster consenting times more certainty for industry and for infrastructure agencies yet the Minister has been forced to concede already that the reforms won't actually deliver this. He has proudly announced that the fast-track consenting provisions under the existing Resource Management Act will be carried over and embedded into this new 807-page bill. That's right—the fast-track provisions which limit who can object to developments and require a quick response from the Environmental Protection Agency have to be retained. That's an admission the reform process has failed right there Minister. Now the Labour Government's preference for centralisation is well understood and it's continued here in this bill with a national planning framework no less Minister. The National Planning Framework will have to be created by an Order in Council so it won't be here in this bill and it relies on an executive decision by the Minister for the Environment—who currently is Minister Parker—establishing a central planning system directly from the Minister's office. It'll say what you can and can't do around the country and what consents you're even allowed to apply for.Now this raises constitutional issues as these powers are so wide and far-reaching that it's not normally delegated to Ministers and officials for such wide-ranging and extensive powers. Allocation of resources will be by a bureaucratic juggling of three principles: of sustainability of equity and efficiency. However clause 88 of the bill does in fact allow for a market-based mechanism for the use of geothermal water and "the capacity of freshwater to assimilate a discharge of a contaminant" but then clauses 88 and 128 blow the market opportunity by explicitly prohibiting a market-based solution for the allocation of fresh water Minister which is a surprising contradiction and a real failure.Hon David Parker: Except if Parliament agrees.SIMON COURT: Now consenting remains at the heart of this system. Now the Minister said "Except if Parliament agrees" so maybe he is open to more market-based opportunities to resolve conflicts in the environment. So let's see. Let's see. Hopefully submitters who come to select committee will take up that opportunity Minister.Now consenting does still remain at the heart of the system. At its core is the idea that people who want to do stuff require consent. The role of the bill is to set out those areas which are permitted and even permitted activities can have requirements such as certification by a qualified person—you know they need an assessment by an iwi particularly areas that are identified as having value to Māori. But what we heard from submitters on the exposure draft of this bill in 2021 is what they want reform to do is to make it clear who has rights to do what property rights—whether they're landowners whether they own existing assets like ports; transmission lines; and power stations the things that deliver energy for example to our cities and industries.Farmers growers and irrigators also want to know that they can build water storage and transmission so that their farming and production activities are more resilient to climate change droughts and actually to be able to put more water back into the rivers. Because farmers love the environment; they depend on it to grow stuff. People want to know they should be able to use their own land for the most efficient purpose. To maintain renew vital infrastructure without having to spend years and millions—or tens of millions—getting consents for things that are actually vital to support healthy communities and a thriving and healthy economy.Now instead of replacing the RMA with a property rights - based system that allows Kiwis to develop more and get things done Labour's used their replacement as a Trojan horse for another round of co-governance Minister. That's right the driving principle of this bill is te Oranga o te Taiao which means plans must incorporate "the health of the natural environment" "the intrinsic relationship between iwi and hapu and te Taiao."Minister I feel I also have an "intrinsic relationship" with the environment but it's not mentioned here. The "interconnectedness" it says "of all parts of the natural environment" "the essential relationships between the health of the environment and its capacity to sustain life;" but how land and fresh water will be managed by relationships and interconnectedness in practice is anyone's guess Minister. But we've heard from Rachel Brooking who was also involved in the design of this bill that it's going to take 10 years to implement. So I guess that's why we need the fast-track component.But look this is simply a recipe for endless judicial hearings as people try to figure out what it means. This is placing undefined relationships and concepts like "interconnectedness" at the heart of land and water management; means that just about anyone will be able to object to anything and that's the fundamental problem we currently have—Anna Lorck: You object to everything.SIMON COURT: —with the Resource Management Act Anna Lorck. That's what we have. In Tukituki people objecting to the use of water. It's going to put your farmers your growers and your primary producers out of business Anna Lorck. Labour hasn't learnt from the public's rejection of three waters and co-governance. Who your grandparents are should not make any difference to the decision making you have over how other people's land is used to what water rights you have.Now all persons exercising powers under this bill must also give effect to undefined principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. A National Māori Entity will provide proactive monitoring of Te Tiriti performance. Now look while regional planning committees are intended to have at a minimum two iwi representatives the Waitangi Tribunal has indicated it would insist on 50:50. So it remains to be seen how this works in practice but we've seen how Labour gives effect to their constituency and I reckon 50:50 co-governance is how it's going to end up Minister.Now there's no explanation as to how this will make it easier to build houses build transmission lines transition to a renewable economy become more climate-resilient against drought or simply fix roads. There's no idea how this is going to work in practice.Labour's addressed none of the problems the original RMA has caused. Co-governance co-Government—whatever you call it—has no place in our planning laws. The Government should instead take a property rights approach. The only rights people should have to object to something you want to do is if it actually affects them in their property—imagine that. Instead of giving a whole lot of people the rights to object to stuff ACT says that you should have the right to do what you want with your own property. ACT will be announcing our own alternative to the Resource Management Act next Tuesday. We will have an alternative that the people of New Zealand and submitters will be able to evaluate against this Minister's poorly designed bill.If we want to make it cheaper to get goods to market to build homes and actually deliver a better New Zealand for the next generation we need to reduce Government interference in our lives and go back to a principle that Kiwis should be able to maintain and enhance their property rights. That's the only way we'll realise our economic potential—SPEAKER: Order! The member's time has expired."