Auchinvole Chris: Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Auchinvole Chris: Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:657;Page:6138] 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast - Tasman) 
: 
 I am honoured to speak during the second reading debate on the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill. As chairperson of the Local Government and Environment Committee I would firstly like to thank my fellow committee members who considered 840 submissions on the bill. The committee heard 339 of those submitters during 68 hours of hearings. It was an interesting dynamic bill to have before the committee and I am grateful to all members of the committee particularly to those who could bring to bear their experience in earlier practice associated with the Resource Management Act. All members and all parties certainly worked very hard to get the best result and I can honestly say I cannot recall a single partisan issue being raised throughout the weeks and months of the committee hearings. 
As stated by the Minister for the Environment the improvements made to the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill provide a useful reminder of how much can be achieved through solid engagement by everybody in the select committee submission process. This is a significant piece of work and very serious legislation. I would like to also acknowledge the hard-working officials and the assistance of the expert panel mentioned by the previous speaker Shane Jones in delivering a finely tuned legislative amendment back to the House. 
The Resource Management Act is the core of our legislative framework and with it comes all the heartfelt appeal of what makes New Zealand what it is today. It reaches into property rights values and culture. On the whole however it reaches the right balance between the economy and the environment. These amendments have not altered that balance but they have looked at the processes under the principle that the Act balances. National on coming into power had strong support for amending the Act. Officials the electorate business and communities supported our policy. 
I am pleased to say that the bill as reported back is much improved. The Local Government and Environment Committee has reversed some of the headline proposals in the bill especially those concerning plan appeals and non-complying activities and designations and has made it more modest and considered legislation. Even so it delivers a substantial shake-up to the Resource Management Act regime and we can expect more changes from the phase two reforms. 
The bill contained a number of contentious proposals and the select committee decided that a couple of them would result in more costs than improvements so changes have been made. However there are many that we considered to be appropriate. In the light of the submissions received from both business and communities the planning process remains intact as in the original Act. However this means that more considered work is required in phase two of the resource management reforms. Although there are improvements to the further submission process and decision processes there is no single silver bullet to fixing the planning process. 
The select committee recommends some useful refinements. There will be new scope for combined regional policy statements and/or plans which will encourage greater consistency and quality in plan making. Whole-of-plan reviews will be replaced by 10-yearly rolling plan provision reviews. Councils will apply the cost-benefit disciplines intended by section 32 of the Resource Management Act and this is a helpful change. The 2-year time limit for councils to issue their decisions on plan submissions and the ban on whole-of-plan appeals should speed up decision making even if in reality there will be little sanction on the laggard councils or determined litigants who frame their appeals to cover almost all the plans. Councils do not have to issue decisions on each and every submission. A single decision from the council is all that is required. 
Unfortunately the bill presented to the committee will not fix the very significant costs and delays associated with the planning processes. These are the biggest headaches of the Resource Management Act especially in regard to issues of regional resource allocation and management where many councils are hopelessly behind. Typically even modest plan reviews are taking a decade or more to complete. If we put that against 10-yearly review cycle plans then plans will be outdated even before they become operative. 
This is not to say that real streamlining and reform in the planning process area is not possible but the problem is multifaceted and not open to a quick or even single solution. This will be the role of phase two resource management reform. Phase two now provides an opportunity to take a more rounded look at planning processes and inefficiencies and their causes in order to identify truly effective solutions. The committee looks forward to the next instalment in this regard. 
Another contentious proposal that has also been dropped is the removal of non-complying activity status from the plans. The committee’s decision not to proceed with the proposed repeal of the non-complying activity category should also be generally welcome. The category was a very important model in protecting investment quality plans and can be an important shield for major infrastructure or industrial activities against the risk of more sensitive uses being established near them which is known as the reverse sensitivity risk. If the Government was starting with the Resource Management Act legislation again it probably would not include non-complying activity as a consent category but we are not in that situation and the provisions should stay. The retention of non-complying activity status means that councils will retain the ability to say no if development proposals with more than minor environmental effects are contrary to the plan’s objectives and policies. 
A high-pressure change that was sought by many submitters that was not made was the removal of tree protection provisions in district plans from 2012. That is disappointing and I am sure we will hear more about that issue as the bill proceeds through the parliamentary process. I would like to spend a bit of time on this provision clause 52 of the bill because I think people have their perceptions and their noses too out of joint on what is being achieved. The intent of the clause that relates to the removal of blanket tree protection rules and plans is to reduce cost and time spent by the community on applying for resource consents for relatively minor matters. Of the 50000 resource consents that are applied for every year 5000 are for tree trimming or removal. They are applied for because of unnecessary tree protection rules in council plans. The cost on individuals is unjustified the approach is blunt and the law is lazy. 
The amendment bill as reported back from the select committee has quite rightly retained the provision of clause 52. Only a few councils have sought to put in place such blanket tree protection rules but really when we think about it—and I look forward to discussing this in the Committee stage—almost all the consents are granted so where is the problem? Why have the consents? Many cities such as Christchurch the garden city of New Zealand Hamilton and Wellington do not have the same rules; they rely on protecting those trees of significance through scheduling them in the district plan. I also note that one council where the issue is most significant Auckland has supported the change. 
Clause 52 does not take effect for some considerable time by which time the councils will have had time to amend district plans and put in place non-regulatory means of encouraging residents to retain vegetation on their properties. The intention of these reforms—simplifying and streamlining—has been achieved and the Minister for the Environment should be pleased with that outcome. In addition the fast track for major infrastructure projects remains largely intact so development interest should be satisfied. 
Overall the proposed amendments can be seen as a win for the environment and a win for major infrastructure providers. I am pleased to have been part of a process that had a Minister who was prepared to listen and a committee that was prepared to shift ground where needed. All members of the committee got involved shoulders to the wheel and made the best they could of the bill before us. It was innovative on the part of the committee to include a group of specialists for a final look before we reported back on the bill. That was a most worthwhile exercise. This is a much better bill than when it started out one that will simplify and streamline the Resource Management Act. Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker.