Russell DeborahDr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): I am delighted to have the opportunity to take the last call on this debate and really to take issue with many of the statements that have been made by the Opposition and in fact to set things right in terms of what people might understand about what this bill does. I have listened carefully to the speakers from the Opposition and really tried to understand what they were saying—I'm sorry with the exception of Mr Nathan Guy. I just tuned out when he was speaking unfortunately which perhaps says something about the quality of what he was saying. But let me go and talk about what each of the other speakers have said.I want to start with the Hon Judith Collins who in her speech said of our New Zealand farmers that there are no better farmers in the world"—no better farmers in the world. We agree. New Zealand farmers as a whole are excellent. New Zealand farmers really do try hard. New Zealand farmers actually produce the lowest-carbon meat in the world. They're actually really efficient producers in many many ways but there are some farmers who let the others down. There are some farmers who do not do as well as others.When I went and sat on some of the hearings for the zero carbon bill I was struck by some feedback we got from DairyNZ I think it was or one of the entities that represents farmers. What they said was that they were finding there was a generational divide amongst farmers: that many younger farmers were keen to get going on improving environmental standards; that many younger farmers had a great understanding of what needed to be done as did many older farmers; that many younger farmers wanted the help and the support to change for the better and many younger farmers were doing this already. There are brilliant and fantastic farmers who are doing their utmost to support waterways who have engaged in riparian planting who have limited their stock numbers and who have worked really hard to understand what happens with the nutrient flows from their land. Some farmers are doing it. We want to make it possible for all farmers to do it.So in terms of the farmers I say to the farming community: do not believe the doom and gloom that is coming from some farming groups. Do not believe the doom and gloom that says that farming in this country is at an end—it is not. It is not. What we seek to do is ensure that the practices of the many excellent farmers are shared amongst all farmers. We have heard that membership numbers from some farming groups are falling because they no longer represent the views of all farmers and that the progressive farmers want to get on with it. So yes to the Hon Judith Collins there are no better farmers in the world than our farmers and this Government supports them.The Hon Scott Simpson said that the Resource Management Act (RMA) is complex and tough. Indeed it is. Mr Speaker as you know I know a fair amount about tax law and people say that the Income Tax Act is complicated. I say to you as a specialist who does understand the structure of that Act that the RMA is unwieldy it is complex I think it is more difficult even than our income tax law and it definitely needs reform. This is the start of that reform. So I agree with Mr Scott Simpson. What this bill does is it starts that work of tidying up the RMA.Then Mr Simpson said that there was no major substantive reform in this particular set of legislation yet the most recent speaker Mr Todd Muller spent a lot of time telling us that there was a lot of reform to water. That is the major reform in this piece of legislation. The other stuff is tidy-up stuff but it's tidy-up work that needs to be done.Then I want to sort of focus on something that Jacqui Dean said—and other speakers have referred to it—and that is the issue of the costs that will fall on ratepayers for developing new plans. New water plans will need to be developed by 2023. They will need to be in place by 2025. Why? Because we actually need to get going on this. New Zealanders have signalled loud and clear that they want swimmable waterways and yes those costs will fall on all of us through our rates. That's the nature of government. We actually do need to pay for good government; it doesn't come for free. So that's a shame but we will do our best to make sure that we get good processes in place.Erica Stanford was concerned that in fact the start of the bill was code for not addressing the housing crisis. There are many ways to address the housing crisis and this Government has taken many actions in respect of that. We have banned foreign speculators. We have shut down tax breaks. We have built an extraordinary number of social housing places. We have passed the Kāinga Ora—Homes and Communities Bill. We have put the Kāinga Ora bill into place and that bill will have extraordinary consequences for getting housing reform under way. The RMA is one part of that. It is one part of that and no single bill contains a magic solution.Then we had speakers complaining that this bill doubled—it doubled—the infringement fees for some offences. So if we look in the draft bill itself you'll see that this is in clause 70 of the bill. It amends section 360 of the Act and in section 360 of the Act as it stands it says that there is a $2000 fine for each infringement offence. Now in the amendment that's proposed that $2000 maximum fine stays in place for natural persons. The only variation there is that for persons other than natural persons—so that'll be the corporate farmers—that fine goes up to $4000. That's a maximum fine and it's based on the number of stock units that are infringing. So for each stock unit that's infringing there is a fine of $100 up to a maximum of $2000. In the amended bill for natural persons it's as it was in the old Act—so it stays the same for natural persons—and in the case of corporate farmers greater responsibility is asked for. The maximum fine goes up to $4000 set at $100 per stock unit. So for all the complaining that it was a massive doubling of the fine when you look at the bill you see that.Then if we talk about something that was said by the most recent speaker Mr Todd Muller—and Mr Todd Muller had a complaint. He said that on the one hand this Government was out consulting about water but on the other in this bill it had its plans already in place. It was he said a sham consultation: we were engaging in just sort of a window-dressing exercise by getting out there. But if I look at the consultation that is out there at the moment for action on healthy waterways what is the Government doing? It is getting out there and it is consulting on the draft National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management. It is consulting on the proposed national environmental standards for fresh water. It is out there consulting on the draft stock exclusion section regulations. They are all up for consultation; nothing is set in stone.There are proposals there. So the consultation doesn't start from a blank slate; it starts from some proposals and those proposals are about the national policy statement for fresh water which will be put in place by this bill. But it is a draft national policy statement. It is a proposed national environmental standard. It is a draft stock exclusion. All are up for discussion all are up for people to be fully consulted on and that is exactly the point of the consultation. It is no sham; it is a real consultation that our Ministers and the officials are deeply engaged in to make sure that we get it right.This is an excellent bill. It puts in place some much-needed low-level reform that's needed for the RMA. It sets the ground for the extensive reform of the RMA which will come in the second tranche of reform and it gets in place the reforms that are needed for freshwater management that New Zealanders—ordinary everyday New Zealanders—told us were so important and told us matter to them. I commend this bill to the House."